Re: Quality? (3D for the masses)

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.  

This was the reason for my talking about digital cameras and power-DSP's
in "that" digital camera.  Purpose was to reduce the "thought, knowledge
and planning" required to produce non-eye-hurting 3D results.  Having
as much of that thought process automated by the camera -- much like the
thought process of exposure being eliminated by light meters integrated
into current point and shoot 2D cameras.  

Mike K.

P.S. - Before anybody gets bent out of shape with me saying that current
       cameras eliminate exposure selection thinking -- recall I'm talking
       about "the masses" who indeed, for the most part, haven't a clue
       as to what an f-stop is, but still expose a roll or two per month
       and are happy with the results.


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