fuzzy wuzzy 2

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George my2drachmas Themelis writes    <<oh I had a good laugh with that one

>Fuzziness is much more distrurbing in 3D than 2D.
>
>So, fuzzy 3D is OK as long at it is 3D.  3D is treated as a
>passing fad again.  After the novelty is gone all that 
>will be left is bad 3D.  I am past the "wow 3D" factor.
>An unsharp 3D picture is unacceptable for me.  People who
>use single use 2D cameras and are satisfied with crummy 2D
>prints should try better 2D first before advancing to 3D.

Yes I hear that all the time, fuzziness is much more disturbing in 
3d than 2d but I guess we have to agree on what we mean by fuzzines,
or then again maybe not. My contention is that if it looks good
in 2d it will look good in 3d also. I know alot of you will
not agree with me on this one but that is my experience from
viewing alot of "fuzzy" and some sharp pictures. For me what is
not acceptable in 3d is not level pictures, camera shake, improper
mounting, rotation mismatch,color balance between pictures, depth of 
field ,etc. Alot more can go wrong in 3d, granted because of the
more variables involved. So if the quality is not sharp but is 
p&s quality, that's acceptable for the masses but the other factors
mentioned aren't. Again why are all the 3d people using Nimslo's
and variants, are these good quality cameras? And if you think
prints are fuzzy with these cameras look at the lenticular prints,
if you want to see fuzziness. As for the novelty being long gone,
the thing is that low priced 3d cameras will encourage higher
quality 3d stuff (hope you don't mind Lincoln Kamm) to be introduced
if the masses take to it. Yea I have to admit I have not gone past
the wow factor in 3d, but I haven't since I was a 7 year old kid.
And that's along time ago. 

Fuzzy logic Gabriel
jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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