3d for the masses

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sam Smith says who cares about the masses. Like Larry Berlin says and
I think Greg Wageman stated similiarly way back, targetting the mass 
market to get into 3d will benefit us all in the by-product, spin-offs,
copycats, knockoffs, etc.. This will undoubtetley result in higher quality
3d if it succeeds. Look at the CB craze in the 80's. This benefitted 
everyone. The newcomers and the CB enthusiasts. Even thou today CB is
not popular the advantges that the CB craze are still with us. Example
no fees for license, 40 channels, and still a good and reasonable 
selection up to this day!
Now as to the matter of producing this elusive 3d product. I say
we have it already. I really don't understand this quality concern
thou. Everyone mentions if the 3d quality is poor it will hurt the
cause more than anything and won't work, but at the same time the
people that profess that quality should be good, (even thou it might
not be comparabible to Realist format quality) still use the Nimslo's
and other lents. Are these good quality? They are good enough for
us to use them, as alot of people have mentioned here. If this 
minimum quality is good for us, then surely it is good for the masses.
Like I have said before they should have taken the lents cameras and
marketed them as ready for processing stereo pairs at any developer.
Here is the pitch. New 3d camera. Will do everything. Takes stereo
print pairs in 4x6 (half-frame) size, get a extra 2d picture (middle
one), or even make lents if send away for special processing. Now
how is that for flexibilaty. Incidently this remarkable camera
would have a stamp date feature which would stamp which print is
the left and right view and these would be inserted in a special 
holder that can be used with a viewer. Now for the viewer, as
this is a concern and alot of people don't agree with a $5 viewer,
I don't think the Loreo style viewer would work either. First
of all other than the poor quality, personally I find it very hard
to view with it even if the quality was good. If it could be made
better optically it would be cost prohibitive. The solution?
I think the View-magic would do very nicely. I have used this
system above and let me tell you it works great. Now I don't 
have a Realist (yet) but I have taken side by side SLR shots so
and this comes a close second. The masses use single use cameras
and they will go for the same quality in 3d. Sure it is fuzzier 
but the 3d effect is exactly the same from what I can see in my
experience and the fuzziness is not a detriment in the 3d mode.
Don't forget we are talking about prints here and even maybe
slide viewing, not projection.
Now lastly the problem is not to make this camera but to
market it properly.

That's my2cents. 
http://generation.net/~jacob/my2cents.jpg

Gabriel
       


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1531
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************