Why 3-d for the masses?

[P3D Sam Smith <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Upon reading recent discussions on 3-d for the masses as well as designing a
camera for them, I have to ask this: Who cares about the masses?

One of the great things about stereo photography today is the fact that it's
a very exclusive sector of the so-called "art" world. Not just any bozo can
take a good stereo picture, as it takes a little planning, a little more
knowledge, and a lot more practice than the photography the "one-eyes" use.
Too many people just want a quick fix, not wanting to get involved with
anything that may take up too much time or talent. 
I wouldn't even want stereo mounting any more simplified, for the simple
reason I WANT people to hurt their eyes from viewing poorly aligned or
composed stereo views. Why?  Others complaining and reaching for Tylenol is
a great method to teach the would-be stereographer the importance of proper
technique and above all, patience. 
Another great aspect of stereo photography is it's been saved from the
blatant commercialism that's plagued EVERY product in today's society. I
think it's good that 3-D in the 90's has so far been represented by SIRDs
and Nishikas, as fads and rip-offs do tend to scare away the very mass
market they were intended for.

The longer stereo photography stays away from the mass market, the better it
is for those who truly enjoy the medium. There's always room for
improvements, and I still think the RBT is a good example of what stereo
needs as a modern alternative to vintage cameras. Let's hope this field is
kept alive by true stereo enthusiasts, not by profits, billion-dollar
marketing campaigns and moulded plastic. 

Shaq O'neal, please stay away from the Loreo.

Sam 


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