"the promoter of any non-Realist..." =)

[P3D Shelley, Dan <dshelley@xxxxxxxx>]

George wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++
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:
+++++++++++++++++++

Ah George, you know me too well!! =) 

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

Amen! Well put.

+++++++++++++++++
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 basically agree that there is better 2D and better 3D, but remember, 
there is room in Lenticulars for great 2.5D! ;)

+++++++++++++++++
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.
+++++++++++++++++

To close: I am very impressed with the potential of modern lenticular 
photography, and it can't be compared in any way shape or form with 
lenticulars from the 50's or lenticlars from Cracker Jack boxes... The 
technology has come a long way! I guess the main point to make is that 
just like any other medium for 3D imaging, there can be exceptional 
lenticulars (Kodak's $5,000 - $10,000, 12 or 24 image back-lit 
lenticular posters) [NOTE: IF you can, you should see the Kodak 
Lenticulars at Epcot Center in Disney World!] and there can be junk (5 
for $1 party favors I saw a few weeks back in a party supply store). 
You can get very satisfactory results with lenticular cameras if you 
compose carefully, use appropriate lighting, etc, etc, etc... (Kinda 
like Slides, VM, Anaglyph, etc) What you put into it will show thru in 
the final product! =)

Dan Shelley
Colorado Springs, CO 
dshelley@xxxxxxxx


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