Re: The rise and demise of 3D

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

Yiing Lin, your postings make me wonder if you do any 3-d work of your own
or if you have been exposed to *good* 3-d photography... You don't have to
reply if these questions are too personal, but...

>'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).

...if you have seen *good* 3-d photography then you will know what I mean by
"superior" and you will know that the slight (not "very") inconvenience and
expense are well worth it.

Also, in reference to the "not universal", I am sure that there are blind
people around us who cannot see 3-d or 2-d.  Seeing assumes that you have
good eyes and seeing stereo assumes that you have eyes and stereopsis. 
Nothing is universal or taken for granted... There are assumptions
everywhere.

In reference to the "artsy" types, you should take a look at the book 3-D
Museum (per my earlier posting).  3-d imaging has a place in museums and
galleries, again, despite the viewing question/problem.

George


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