Re: Loreo 3D experience or convenience vs. quality

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

>I have had my Loreo for about 18 months now
>and like it.  Though my prints are of no better quality than a disposable
>camera, it has much to commend it.  I do appreciate the ease (and inexpense)
>of processing.  The print film is also much cheaper than -chrome slide film.
> 4x6 is my favorite print size and they view well.  You also don't have to
>fret so much about exposure, so you can shoot "on the fly" with little
>bother.

Here we have the good old dilemma:  convenience or quality?  It's pitty
that quality is usually obtained with some inconvenience.  I guess at the
end it is a matter of personal choice.  I have made my choices and I am
very happy.  Before you make yours, just consider these facts:

1. You could get a Realist stereo camera for less money than a Loreo.
2. I get Sensia 100 36 exp. for $4.29.  That might be a bit more expensive 
   than print film, but not *much* more expensive.
3. Your local friendly drug store will process your 36 exp. roll for $3. 
   That's cheaper than making 4x6 prints.
4. About the time-consuming, money-consuming and nerve-wracking mounting, 
   did I ever mention that this is my favorite part of the 3-d experience? 
   When I get my film processed, I cannot wait to get home and mount it.
   The experience of seeing these wonderful pictures in 3-d for the first
   time makes mounting a pleasure for me.  Time-consuming?  One hour per
   roll of 36 exp. is time well spent.  Better than watching TV, for sure.
   Money-consuming?  Sure, but if you only keep your best images, it might
   be cheaper than prints.  Nerve-wracking?  No way!  It's fun.

So, what is it going to be?  Conveniently obtained fuzzy prints so you can
watch TV all night long, or a pleasant evening mounting brilliant and sharp
slides full of life and realism?

It's up to you.

George Themelis


------------------------------