Stereo for the masses.

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck Field writes

>So now, we need to know why they don't buy the disposable lenticular 
>cameras.  I can think of two reasons:
>   #1  They're not advertised to the masses.  Most people I mention it to, 
>have never heard of them.
>  #2  All together, it costs at least $30.00 to buy a "one time use" camera, 
>and get the prints.  This is EACH TIME you want to take lenticulars.  (I 
>know that they make multiple use 3-D cameras, too, but then the price goes 
>up and out of the range we would probably need it to be, to attract the 
>"curious" crowd)  And how long does it take before your prints arrive?  

You bring up some good points but a multiple use is only slightly more
expensive than the single use cameras. 3D Image that makes the single
use lent camera also sells a multiple use 3D lent camera for $35 US.
So pricing is not a problem but like you said they're not advertised to
the masses. That's the big problem. When I bought my first single
use 3d camera I found it advertised in my local newspaper classified
section by some individual. Now how many "masses" would have bothered
to go out and buy it. Now if it was available at the local store
people would have tried it out just for fun at least once. The only
problem with the lent cameras is the developing. Like I have mentioned
they should have marketed it as a regular print 3d camera instead and
include a viewer.

Lincoln Kamm writes

>I really don't understand why anyone on this list or in the NSA would think
>that it would be possible to make a 3-D camera and viewing system (or
>viewerless prints) costing just as much as cheap point and shoot 2-D cameras.

It's not only possible but it exists today. As mentioned above it costs
$35 without viewer, add $5 for a viewer (albeit not the best optics but
if they can make a camera with 3 lenses for optics with speed and advance
mechanism, decent viewer optics only has to match the camera optics which
in this case is only snapshot quality.)
For my protection I might add and clarify, this does not mean skimp
on the viewer quality.
Now this camera and viewer might not satisfy the stereophiles, but don't
forget we are talking mass market here. If someone doubts the quality
is acceptable for the masses, just look at the popularity of single
use cameras! 

>Does anyone on this list know a bunch of people that would have bought the
>Loreo if it was $60, or even if it was $20.  I don't.  (I know I would have,
>but I don't count in this example)

Again this is a marketing problem. I think people would have tried it if 
they knew about it. At the Rochester convention they were selling like
hotcakes and Reel 3D was sold out. Now these are 3d people we are talking
about, but how would the masses buy it if they don't know it even exists.

>The point and shoot cameras of today cost in the $40-$260 range, and if you
>want one with any optics of even a small quallity, you are not going to get
>one for less than $100.  I don't blame the Loreo people for charging what
>they do, I am sure it is based on what they can afford to charge.  And I
>don't think any products come out these days with out test marketing.

Again you are refering to 3d enthusiasts, which I totaly agree might
not go for a lower quality camera, but again we are talking about
the mass market. Audiophiles might not buy a $100 stereo audio system
but the market for one exists and the mass market buys it. As for
test marketing, I am all for it and helps but I think most companies
screw up their analysis of test market results. Look at the virtual
boy. I could have saved Nintendo gobs of money by telling them it
won't sell. Why? One simple reason, no head tracking among other
reasons which I won't go into detail here.

>Example:  The 3Discover viewer has a computer chip and motor inside it,
>because that is what people said they wanted when it was test marketed.  And
>yet I think they may have just wanted to push a button and have the next
>image show up.  Instead the motor is often not accurate, and you miss frames.
>If the 3Discover costs about $50 how can anyone expect a camera and viewer
>of that sort to come out for less than $100, and especially if you want
>quallity.
>
>I find it humerous that people keep saying why can't KODAK do this, why
>can't they do that.  Why don't you do it if you think it will be such a hit,
>and you won't loose years of your life and all your money.
>

Yes the 3Discoverr viewer motor is not accurate but that would have been
a simple fix electronically in the logic circuit. I am surprised they
screwed up that simple aspect. The viewer does cost $50 but the V-M
if it was targeted at a more mature market, costs less than $10. 
As to why doesn't an individual persue the 3d mass market that would
be very difficult to achieve without a big company such as Kodak to
market it. Look at APS, even Kodak could not bring such a thing to
market by themselves. Even the 3Discover needed the backing, international
exposure and resourses of Wrebbit to bring it to fruition.

Anyways that's my2cents or my2centsx10
http://generation.net/~jacob/my2cents.jpg

Gabriel


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