toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thank you very much for the offer!
I am just about to test a pair of 80mm lenses bought cheaply from "surplus shed". I'll see what they are like. But the conclusion might be that we really need a custom made product for a satisfactory result. I'll let you know how it turns out.
On 6/14/21 7:17 PM, Bill G wrote:
Matej, sorry I have been on the 3d sidelines for awhile as other projects have pulled me away from 3d.
It's sad you have to justify providing the ONLY current products for our tiny hobby. I am sure you if you accounted for all your design hours into these projects, and supervising the builds, dealing with customers, whatever you net, would yield you less than minimum wage. This is obviously a passion project for you, certainly NOT a "get wealthy project." Please don't be discouraged by certain comments, you can never please everyone.
The 3d world viewers were priced for mass production. Like all 3d projects, the volume never follows. We all see how long 3dWorld stayed in business. It was not a sustainable business model.
I am grateful you have the passion, expertise, and willingness to provide these products at such competitive prices for such low volume products. I love the new modular system you moved to. As u mentioned, it makes perfect sense for multi use and future expansion. It will provide 3d viewing products for existing and new 3d users of many formats, something this field really needs.
I had some 75mm fl optics designed for MF 3d Film 50x60 which I prototyped over 10 years ago. They are quite wide, about 55mm diam from memory. I have the designs and manufacturing specifications. If you are interested I can try to find the specifications and give them to you at no cost. The problem will be the price... they were quoted 10 yrs ago at $80 each in volume of 100, this was due to the diameter, glass type, coatings. They are superb for fixed IPD viewer as they have a very large eye box and a generous amount of Eye Relief, two significant benefits for a universal viewer, i.e. one size fits all. I realize this would require another new design to hold these optics vs. what you are planning to use. It seems optics manufacturing pricing is falling a bit, so maybe they can be built at a slightly lower cost today. I suggest u manually check the fl of each optic and pair them when u get a batch of them, before inserting in the viewer. Nominal fl and actual fl can vary. This is a result of low manufacturing tolerance of the glass to keep the price at these low levels.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Matej Bohac <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the comments and especially to Jeroen, who
answered some of the remarks. Just a few things I'd like to clarify:
- The evolution of digital technologies is so fast that designing a
specific solution for a particular type of displays or phones is very
problematic. The "modular design" allows to simply adapt the viewer to
any new type of display by making a new back, without having to change
the whole body. And, from the perspective of the user, without
buy a new body. If you pointed me to a better type of displays than the
ones I linked I can possibly make a housing for them. The same with
- The modular design does not add much to the price of the printing.
price you refer to ($100 for the XZ Premium viewer) was simply
unbearable with all the effort put in re-designing the viewer according
to the response and demands I received. I designed and made the first
viewers for my friends, out of pure enthusiasm.
Development of any product requires an enormous amount of work, test
printing, buying and testing components and other expenses and as we
know, the prospective production volume is ridiculously low here.
The body is not just "plastic". There are metal gears and other parts
and the assembly requires an amount of handwork that is not negligible.
Sorry to say this, I hope it is understandable.
- The printing time of the body is about 30 hours, around 50 for the
whole viewer with all other parts. Jeroen's estimate of 10 was
unfortunately too optimistic:-)
- I don't have any team and nothing that could be called a company (so
With best regards,
On 6/14/21 2:21 PM, Jeroen de Wijs wrote:
> I want to coment on your note on that what Matej is doing which is
> possible within his production options. Matej is not running a large
> As small company I know how difficult it is to find solutions to
> viewers in low quantities and keep the costs down. Matej and his
> just applies a very low profit on their production costs to keep
> Comparing his solution, actually a 3D printed version hand held
> of a digital viewer I already made in 2018 for exhibits with the
> 1440x1440 LCD's. Comparing the resolution of stand alone VR viewers
> running on Android is, I think, not fair as those cannot do what his
> (and mine) can do; connecting it to your computer or other
> more reasonable lower magnification.
> Those LCDs are now for about 3 years on the market and I know theire
> limits as well. it is currently the best resolution (and
> you can have with this concept; controller-LCD set. while others go
> higher with full HD or more for each eye is just because they
> the processor (android) close to the LCD, and not feed the LCD
> If there was a solution for what Matej did build, then the big
> already did.
> If you want to make a enclosure of a viewer of plastic, and it
will be a
> complicated one, you have to deal with mould costs of at least
> Euro's for each part (made in Europe or US) And there is of
> than one piece in the viewer. And series number of several thousend
> pieces. Knowing the amount of people realy interested in this
> viewer, it is not worh doing that, you will loose money. The 3D
> will endorse you to build a reasonable priced viewer and the
> facing backruptsy because it won't sell or sell with loss.
> 3D printing is one of the affordable new production methods to
> need of very low series custom build 3D stuff for our comunity. It
> requires knowledge, craftmanship and perseverance. Besides the
> finish each part to look good, which is the back side of 3D printing
> compared with metal milling.
> It is good to design one 'platform' of what Matej and his team
> start point for other media solutions as MF and all other 5.5"
> panels are close to the same size. Desiging all kinds of different
> enclosures and solutions is for a small 3D company / team is not
> reasonable meaning time and costs.
> you are right if there might be a compromise. But complaning about
> higher costs and pointing out that you don't want to compromise
> want the best, is something you should only say to Sony or
> Printing such an enclosure of his viewer takes about 10 hours (it
> guess but i might be right). not even talking about all the other
> Finishing it, taking all left overs of the printing process, also
> the needed time. Making an adapter with all kinds of hooks, gaps and
> parts should interlock with eachother is realy a chalange. His
way of 3D
> printing, FDM, needs a good printer, good printer settings and
> how to design for that printing method, CAD software, etc. You
> get a viewer build with the knowledge of someone who could work as
> proffesional designer ;-) so the costs are not high at all.
> and compared with big companies, yes it is higher then 3Dworld
> their MF viewers. But considder my what I have just written.
> It is all a compromise as we, small 3D companies / teams and
> do not have the knowledge and finacial power to achieve things
> companies can. We can get close and there is alway's something to
> complain about or to improve on what the members of the comunity
> build. But that is part of this comunity to encourage and to
> things. So also your coments Francois are welcome as well ;-)