Re: .......about the Lenty.

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>the main drawback with lenticulars
>(at least the ones you can take with the inexpensive cameras) are that the
>resolution is poor and the disparities (and thus the depth) are quite small
>(the effective baseline is the spacing between adjacent lenses, which if I
>remember right is only about 3/4-inch).

Just to amplify what Jim said ;) and while we are waiting for Dan Shelley
the promoter of any non-Realist, non-slide film 3D photography ;) ;) ;) to
read this digest and put things straight, I would like to say that:

...this criticism is not about the lenticular idea/theory but the way it is
   applied today and the examples we see everyday...

It appears to me that lenticular prints are 2D snapshots with a 3D twist,
kind of 2 1/2 situation.  There is a great potential for better 2D and
better 3D. 

I see nothing wrong with people enjoying lenticulars but can only say what
I see and what I like.  Since 1988 I have shot 300 rolls of slide film
and 5 rolls of lenticular prints.  Is there any person who have shot 100 
rolls of lenticular print film?  I just don't see the inspiration,
flexibility and variety, or the possibilities that other forms of 3D offer.

But, like many things in life... there is good work and average work.  I
would love to see a demonstration of what good lenticular prints can be.

George


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