Polaroid

[P3D Jamie Drouin <jdrouin@xxxxxxxx>]

        I attended a Polaroid 'show-and-tell' for professionals this
morning where you could play with all of their new products.  The most
impressive item, by far, is their new macro camera called the MACRO 5 SLR.
If you haven't already seen this one, and are interested in
macrophotography, call up your local camera store to see if they have a
demo in stock.  Unfortunately, it is not stereo, but it would definitely
work well on a slidebar.  The coolest thing about it is the focus.  Since
it is an SLR you can certainly judge the focus through the finder, but it
also projects to small pin-points of light onto your subject (easily
visible in the bright light of the showroom).  As you move towards your
subject the two light converge.  When they form one pin-point, you are in
perfect focus.

        Of course, my first question to the Polaroid rep. was if they had
any stereo products in the works.  He said that they have had a "bunch of
stereo items, including a viewer for inserting two prints (!), in the past
few years but they have never sold well".  He's going to send me some info
on these backroom items, which I will post to the list.

        We spent some time talking about the use of stereo in the medical
field and he agreed that it is defintely a superior way to view images,
especially in the medical field, but said that for some reason no one they
approached showed any sustained interest.  They (the doctors using
Polaroid's other macro set-ups) always prefered just the single print.

        I find discussions like this extremely interesting because it
points out how my 'obsession' for 3D is not shared as adamantly by the rest
of the world as I sometimes wish to believe.  Yes, I think 3D is EXTREMELY
interesting and SHOULD be used in every possible part of medical
photography (as well as other fields), but why do other people not
instantly see the advantages?

        I will offer a couple of possible reasons:

1.The recognized benefits of the 3D image do not outweigh the small amount
of extra work involved in viewing the result.  I'm sorry, but I know
several medical professionals (and MANY so-called 'professional
photographers') who can barely tell the difference between a good
photographic record and a poor one, so how are they to see the benefits of
a 3D image if they're happy with terrible photos which are supposed to help
them in surgery or whatever?  This can also be applied to the photography
of the masses.

2.Cost of materials.  Again, the recognized benefits of the 3D image do not
outweigh the extra cost involved in film, viewer, mounts (if applicable).
The MACRO 5 SLR camera mentioned above happens to cost approximately
$1200CAN.  I'm pretty sure that a stereo version would cost twice that.
You'd also need twice the film, and I have yet to meet someone, even
someone with an expense account, who freely spends tons of money on film!


          ...more to come.

                                                       :-)jamie

Jamie Drouin (jdrouin@xxxxxxxx)
______________..______________
    View-Master Collector
    and Stereophotographer
______________..______________



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