Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1518

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <gjacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:48 PM 9/11/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Isn't the cost per print for 2D photos (film + prints) substantially cheaper 
>than lenticular camera prints (even if Kodak Premium processing at Costco 
>is used rather than Costco's internal "brand" of processing)?  In terms
>of general ease of use, do those lenticular cameras compare well with 
>current day point-and-shoots?  Can the lenticular user get their prints
>back an hour after taking the photos?  Etc?
>
>Mike K.
>
>
>P.S. - Most of the lenticular's (say, Nishika's) looked pretty cardboard like
>       to me, including Nishika's very own promotional lenticular "prints".
Are
>       the other "mass" versions substantially better?

I use the 3d lenticular cameras for regular print processing. I get back
4x6 prints and use the two outside views for the 3d pairs. Also you have
an extra picture you can use for 2d in the middle frame. Or you can modify
them to take only the two outside pictures. This you probably are all aware
of but the point I am trying to make is that the lenticular camera manufacters
should have marketed the camera this way instead, albeit a viewer would have
been required. This I think the consumer would have regarded less a inconvience
than sending the pics for processing as lents. By the way as general 3d pics
they fare very well compared to 2d snap shot cameras and the 3d effect is much
better than the lenticular print.

Gabriel

 


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