Re: 3d from movies

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>IMHO it was the movies that wrecked still (stationary) 3d.
[...]
>People could watch pictures with 'depth',
>and there was also _action_, and sales of 3d photos dropped off.
[...]
>     And now, with cheap camcorders, the family can see themselves
>in action, with colour _and sound_!

I follow your logic but do not agree with the conclusions.  There is room
from both 3-d still photography and 2-d motion pictures (video).  I, for
one, find a few good 3-d still photographs more satisfying than hours of
boring personal video.  The inherent picture-taking and presentation
challenges in 3-d are responsible for the lack of popularity.  The
situation might change as we enter the "electoric" image-recording era.

>   There doesn't seem to be much hope for a strong revival
>of still 3d photography  -  unless it lies with lenticular >prints.

Allow me to disagree with this statement too.  Anyone who has seen a 3-d
Realist slide and compared it to a lenticular print knows that there is NO
comparison between the two.  Why settle with something inferior?

George Themelis


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