Re:Why 3D for the masses

[P3D Sam Smith <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re: Who cares about the masses?

Clifford responds:

>Anybody who isn't selfish and territorial would care I should think.
>Anyone who understands that more product sold, means more money for
>research and development.

Then what happened to Viewmaster? It was a great product for the masses
until they saw much better profit margins targeting children as a toy than
as a  serious 3-D medium. Mass marketing may help design a better product
only if it suites the investors.
I fully realize the great inventions and products that have become available
to us through mass marketing and " blatant commercialism ". Anyone would be
a fool not to acknowledge this. But are you aware of the great 3-DO products
that weren't mass marketed and exploited?
Take for example the Donaldson's Stereo Camera. It was the only variable
stereo-base 3-d camera ever produced in quantities. It was strictly for
medical purposes but was a fantastic camera to use in the field of stereo
macro work. It was also in production at least 15 years until it's need in
the opthalmic area was no longer required. There was no use for this product
in the mass market, and had those rules been applied it would never have
existed.

>The more people who have 3D equipment, the more diverse 3D imageswe will
>have to view, everywhere. I'd rather see 3D go commercial than to see it
>hidden away to  1% or less of the world.

 I never said there wasn't room for more people in this field. More people,
more ideas. Attract them, don't exploit them.

><One of the great things about stereo photography today is the fact that
>it's
><a very exclusive sector of the so-called "art" world. Not just any bozo
>can
><take a good stereo picture, as it takes a little planning, a little more
><knowledge, and a lot more practice than the photography the "one-eyes"
>use.
>
>Wrong........ahhhhhhhgt!
>Just about any bozo can take a 3D picture!

I said a " GOOD " Stereo picture, don't misquote me, and you DO have to know
what you're doing in order to achieve it.

>It's not much more complicated really, unless you make it that way.

Really? You mean all this discussion about stereo windows, projection
techniques, etc is just a waste of time? A bad stereo photograph is a lot
worse than a bad 2D photo, and there's a lot more rules that come into play
to achieve it.


George responded:

>Hey Sam, when I asked the same question some time ago, you did not
>speak out to support me. 

Sorry George, you do so well I didn't think you needed support !

Michael wrote:

>...Having something of "acceptable quality" for the masses provides a
>larger high-end niche market for designers to pursue with bigger
>budgets.  So all can gain.  And the technology of the mid-range
>3D cameras don't necessarily need to be that of the high end.  The
>mass-cameras only need to succeed enough to create a larger high
>end market.

Excellent points. But why hasn't this happened? Because it doesn't seem that
a level of acceptable quality was on the drawing boards in the last 20 years.
 I'll never understand why 3-D is any different from other entertainment
mediums in this regard. Look at CD players and VCRs for example. They both
started out as extremely expensive toys when they first came out. Quality
was a priority upon introduction, or they would have bombed. I would expect
no less for 3-D.

George wrote:

>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.

Excellently said, by George!

In closing, My main beef is I'm against trying to wow the masses with
another new concoction  out to take the world by storm. Mass marketing tends
to follow this trend.It's a stupid approach to furthering interest in a
field that has both it's serious and fun side. I'd much prefer the
slow-trickle approach than a blitzkrieg, and it's Photo 3D digest and the
internet that is providing most of the inspiration needed. Plus the fact
that all of us promote 3-D by word of mouth, long proven as the best way to
advertise.
Instead of making a generalized statement ( Why 3D for the masses?), I
should have narrowed it down a little. Fortunately for me it was already
done by you other folks!


Sam










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