Quality? (3D for the masses)

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

I think it's time to redefine "quality".

John B. writes:
>'d like to see a lot of people use 3D but not at the 
>expense of quality.  I think poor quality has been the Achille's 
>heel for 3D in its most recent incarnations.  Time and again 3D 
>dies because of poor quality.  So the problem is, how do we get 
>quality to the masses at a reasonable price? 

Mike K. writes:
>What one might want is something that isn't poor quality,
>but still not pursue perfection to the point of being excessively
>expensive.

Quality of results is confused with "techologically advanced" camera
systems.  What the masses want is a system that is cheap and easy to
use.  History has proven that the easier and cheaper it is to capture
an image, the worse the quality becomes.  That's because the easier
and cheaper it is to do something, the less thought is given to it.
Good quality of results requires thinking and planning.  Stereo
photography is more diffucult to do than ordinary photography.  It
requires more thought, knowledge and planning.  The "masses" do not
want to think, know or plan.  That's why I wrote:

>Unquestionably, the "revolution" will be based on cheap camera 
>systems and low quality results (easy and convenient).

That's why Sam Smith asked the question "Why 3D for the masses?"
I think the question is valid.  Any system for the masses will
not be capable or will not be used to produce results of good
quality.  Do we want that?

Instead of asking for systems to get the masses to take 3D
pictures perhaps we should be asking for better quality commercial
systems of passive 3D entertainment that the masses will enjoy.
More on that in the following posting...


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