On the demise of 3D in the 50s

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From random slides that I have seen from the 50s I concluded
that the quality of work done by the average Joe back then
is far below the work done by the dedicated 3-d worker today.
Mounting is only one problem, and not the most important.

I have seen enough bad 3-d slides to give 3d a bad name.
Slides with out of focus backgrounds, camera shake, bad
exposure, tilted, boring, and the list goes on...
Even slides that one frame is blocked by the user's fingers.
One of those was glass-mounted to cry out loud!!!
Why were these slides kept and not tossed out?  Beats me!

Now, I am sure that Bob Howard and his friends were taking 
great 3-d pictures back in the 50s.  A significant portion of 
stereo photographers however were taking some really 
bad pictures.  This is a personal obervation from viewing
random samples of amateur 50s work.  Coupled with the fact 
that a bad 3-d picture is much worse than a bad 2-d picture, 
I can see that this bad 3-d work if not contributed to, at 
least did not stop the fall of 3-d.

>I think the demise of stereo happens with the discovery of each 
>generation and the waning as the novelty wears off. (33 year cycle).
>Each rebirth is with often new techology..

I agree with that too.  There are many factors, all working 
together.  But, like Rick, I cannot help but notice the poor 
quality of much of the amateur 3-d work from the 50s.

George Themelis


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