Re: The rise and demise of 3D

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

>... 10% of the population can't see 3D (rough figure?).  The latter would 
>probably take a good chunk out of the 3d industry.

Even if the 10% estimate is correct (I personally think that it is in the
high side) still not a convincing explanation when photography (not film)
is concerned.  3-d is almost unknown to the public.  In a large city like
Cleveland USA, I doubt that there are 50 people taking 3-d pictures (that's
about 1/10,000 or less)

>What led to its rise?  Probably just the novelty of it at the beginning 
>of this centry perhaps?  It'll probably rise in popularity in the near 
>future, as it's a rather "new" concept with the masses.

Is it just a matter of novelty?  Whatever happened to 3-d being a superior
form of photography?

>Do any of you think the 3D medium will move into the more "serious", 
>"professional" realm?  It seems to me that all uses of 3D these days are 
>"gimmikie" (sp?)

What uses do you have in mind?  And what is your definition of "serious"
"professional" realm?


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