3d from movies

[P3D George Snowdon <gsnowdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    I've already written about this, but my comments
seem to have gone into limbo, with most of the rest of
Digest 1261.  So here goes again.
     It's ironic that we should be trying to make steregraphs
out of movie frames, when IMHO it was the movies that wrecked
still (stationary) 3d.
     A movie _is_ three-dimensional.   The movement of the
camera in traversing  -  or even in panning, because 
the camera lens often moves left or right  -  shows the spacial
relationship of various objects in the view.   Even a person
who has sight in  only one eye can get a fairly good perception
of 'depth' from a movie.
    Stereography took off in the 1890's.  But soon, there were
movie theatres everywhere.   People could watch pictures with 'depth',
and there was also _action_, and sales of 3d photos dropped off.
    Then in the fifties, with 35mm colour film and little cameras,
people could make their own 3d slides or prints in which their
own families and friends appeared, and so there was a
revival.   But in the 60's came the Eumig and the Kodak Brownie
8mm movie cameras.   Now the whole family, together, in their 
own living-room, could watch themselves in action and in
living colour.
     And now, with cheap camcorders, the family can see themselves
in action, with colour _and sound_!   And no prudish processing
lab. can censor out the depiction of nudity or other forms of
un-American activity! 
   There doesn't seem to be much hope for a strong revival
of still 3d photography  -  unless it lies with lenticular
prints.
George Snowdon
British Columbia   
      
       
       


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