Re: The rise and demise of 3D

[Yiing Lin <ylin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

> ------------------------------
> From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
> 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)
Really?  I thought 10% was actually a low figure...Anyone know these 
figures for certain?

> Is it just a matter of novelty?  Whatever happened to 3-d being a superior
> form of photography?
'Superior' is very subjective here...Yes, 3D is intruiging and more 
faithfully preserves the information in a scene, but it's also very 
inconvenient, expensive, and not universal (in the sense that everyone 
can see it).

> What uses do you have in mind?  And what is your definition of "serious"
> "professional" realm?
Whoops, faux pas here...I don't mean to belittle the 3D medium; I'm sure 
many of you are quite serious about your 3D work.  I was trying to convey 
that the majority of the people in professional photography today may not 
consider the 3D medium because its inconvenience and the way it's 
popularly used today.  Besides, I can't picture a group of artsy types 
with wine glasses and cheeze bits in a gallery with their polarized 
glasses on :) .


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