No Subject

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Howard writes

>RE: Mike K. says that's what we need. I say we have it in the Loreo
>camera. Now how to get the masses to take the bait? The Loreo which for
>sophisticates is ideal maker of web page stereo thumbnails or ?, is set
>up so no transposing needed and negs printed by standard photofinisher
>are ready to view in their viewer and it is real stereo. Now how can
>that be improved upon in a stereo "box camera"? Even built in electronic
>flash. Think what this would sell for in precision model as the paired
>lenees are like the Leica Stereomar set in effect. BobH

I might be misinterpreting your post but the Loreo does have a built
in flash.

Dr. George A. Themelis writes

>I have heard complains that Loreo prints are fuzzy.  Can the Loreo be
>improved?  Also, how about a GOOD and CHEAP beamsplitter (a.k.a
>mirrorthingie)?  The advantages of the beamsplitter is that people can also
>use slide film and also use existing lenses.  Is the Pentax the ultimate in
>quality?  Why is it so expensive?  3D Economics again?  And, yes, how can
>we get the masses to take the bait? -- George

The people that have said the prints are fuzzy, I wonder if they were 
viewing those prints with the Loreo viewer? Like I have mentioned before
their viewer doesn't do justice to their camera. This does not mean their
camera is SLR quality ,its okay as far as snapshot quality is concerned 
but the viewer is crap. I might add thou that it looks impressive. Not
to look thru but to look at!
The stereoadaptor would not be popular in my opinion because most people
don't use SLR cameras anymore. Plus stereoadaptors are a pain to set up.
Also the price of one costs more than a Loreo. 
Why are they so expensive? I think Pentax just was not serious in pushing
it anymore. A long time ago it could be had for less than $150, viewer and
adaptor. Does it cost that much to make one, even for a 3d limited market?
I don't think so. If a much smaller company than Pentax can make a view-
magic viewer for less than $50, with front surface mirrors none the less
then I think a stereoadaptor is overpriced and not justified. Maybe the 
makers of View-magic should get into the stereoadaptor business. Their
View-magic viewer sure is top notch and is similiar in construction to
a beamsplitter. (or whatever it is called)

Gabriel


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