Re: The rise and demise of 3D

[TPapoulas@xxxxxxx]

>>'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. 

I just wanted to add a comment on the "superior" nature of 3-D photography. While I don't disagree with the comment that 3-D "more faithfully preserves the information in a scene" (and I am an avid 3-D enthusiast), I don't think it's fair to broadly state that 3-D photography is superior to 2-D. To me, that's the same as saying color photography is obviously superior to black and white. If you look at 3-D photography as an art form, not just a means of gathering more accurate information about a scene, then it is neither superior nor gimmicky. Many beautiful photographs that are powerful in 2-D by using the relationships of shapes, light and depth of field would would lose impact if you added depth. Would all black and white photos be better if you added color? I don't believe that.

I love 3-D photos, but there are many ways to create images and none is inherently "better" than another.

Ted Papoulas
( O o )	( O o )

|	/
=	=

(parallel viewing)

ted@xxxxxxxxxx
TUMBLE INTERACTIVE - http://www.tumble.com 3-D Baby Bierly Site - http://www.tumble.com/bierly 




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