Re: Why 3D for the masses?

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

Hey Sam, when I asked the same question some time ago, you did not
speak out to support me.  What I said is that 3D photography is 
something special.  Something not easy, by nature.  More complicated 
than 2D.  If not done right, it can be a disaster (a bad 2D picture is 
just that... a bad 3D picture is more than that, it can hurt you!)  
I also said that I like the way it is now, that 3D is a special hobby 
shared among special people.  "Revolutions" lead to deep lows and I 
would rather see a steady growth like we have today.

Greg Wageman made me change my mind when he spoke of the byproducts of 
such revolution.  If the masses get interested into 3D that will not 
last for long.  When it is all over, we might pick up "a few good men"
and have some interesting new toys to play with.

Some examples along these lines are the Nimslo/Nishika that have given
us cameras to use or experiment with, and the SIRDS that have brought 
a few people to the ranks of stereo photographers. 

Unquestionably, the "revolution" will be based on cheap camera systems 
and low quality results (easy and convenient).  But some photographers 
will try quality systems.  Some companies might be convinced to introduce
modern stereo cameras like the RBTs but at reduced prices.  At the end,
when the "revolution" dies, it will still be a special hobby but we
might pick some new toys on the way, just like we are doing now by using 
the stereo cameras of the 50s.

There is no warranty that a new system will leave us with something 
useful, but it is better than nothing.  So, let the masses get involved 
and, who knows, maybe something good will come out for the next 
generation of stereo photographers.   -- George Themelis


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