That "3-D" Thing Again :^|

[JakeKristy@xxxxxxx]

On 3/12/96, photo3dguy (Glenn) wrote that "People like 3D.  The
complexities, costs, and  almost 'toy-like' viewing of photographic 3D images
may be what's impeded it's propagation."
I was chatting with a very enthusiastic and artistically appreciative
19-year-old neighbor the other day, and I provided him with the 45-second
introduction (being as hyperactive as he is :+) to modern stereophotography
(with instruments from the 1950s, of course).  His comments were, "This is
fantastic!" and "Why is this not more popular?" and "Having to have a special
viewer is the biggest drawback."

Continuing with Glenn's comments: "Indeed  the new computer 3D rage  may
develop a  bigger following than all of 3D film based technologies."
Please let us not let it be so.  This would be a sad (temporary, oft'
repeated) ending for stereoscopic imaging.  Scanning the technical and sales
literature of the day (I am in electrical engineering by trade) makes one
want to banish "3-D" from the language until the computer/electronic masses
can learn to use the term with more discretion.  I feel a modern sort, but I
would ^never^ try to inspire our next generation of scientist by showing them
flat, nicely shaded, 2-D computer graphics masquerading as "3-D."  Take a
beautiful form of imaging (such as color transparencies, viewed with
appropriate lenses and lighting) and show these young people what
stereoscopic means.  It will inspire them and help to stamp out a few sparks
of the modern 3-D-as-well-drawn-flat-images craze that is clouding the real
thrills of stereo 3-D that await these people.

So, Glenn, I must agree that a photographic (at least until digital imaging
pixels approach the size of a molecule or two) image presented in an
auto-stereoscopic fashion (no accessories needed) will do much to propagate
our beloved art form.

--Chris, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA


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