Computer 3d? Not yet for me...

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

Gabriel was kidding when he asked why I don't have any 3d images in the 
computer.  I will like to give a serious answer:  Because 1) my www 
carrier does not support member's web pages and 2) I find computer 3d a 
non-satisfying experience.  

Let me explain #2 and invite discussion and comments.  Computer 3d is 
not working for me for three reasons:

1. Inconvenience in loading 3d images.
3. Loss of image quality.
3. Limited or unacceptable viewing methods.

Despite technological developments in this area, I find web-surfing very 
slow and frustrating.  We are using fast computers and are used to 
programs that run fast.  Waiting for a 3d image to load via www is 
frustrating for me.  This would not be such a problem if the result was 
worth waiting.  In most cases it is not for me.  It the original image 
was generated in slide film, the digitization process has already 
reduced its quality.  But, again, it would not be so bad if there was a 
way to view it properly.  Here is where 3d is suffering.  Cross-eye 
viewing?  Anaglyph?  It works... but that's about it.  Let's say that 
being used to a good slide viewer, these systems do not work to my
satisfaction.  

The only thing left in the image (and possibly amplified) is the stereo 
effect.  That excludes good photography but opens new possibilities, 
like computer images, etc., etc.  There is room for good work here.  But 
it is a subdivision of stereo photography.  Stereo photography for me is 
more than stereo effect.  Much more.  Take Erlys' "Dreamers" for 
example.  This is an image based not on stereo effect but on good 
photography.  Lighting.  Mood.  As computer 3d it would be a total 
disaster.  What got me into 3d, and still holds me captive, is the 
realism of good stereo photography viewed in a good viewer.  Crossing my 
eyes to view 3d images in a computer monitor holds no realism.  It is an 
interesting (at best) but not really satisfying experience.

I do not want to upset photo-3d members ("What? You did not like my 
beautiful computer 3d images?") by giving specific details. I have seen 
interesting 3d work.  But in most cases my reaction is "OK" and not 
"wow!".  In many cases I concluded that it was not worth waiting for 
more images to load.  I have found that computer 3d is not much fun and 
have felt that there are better things to do with my free time.  I think 
we are still at the stage where a good 2D picture is usually more 
effective than a 3d picture given the way 3d images are presented and 
viewed today.

Good computer stereo photography will work for me only if computer 
viewing approaches the quality of stereo projection.  Note:  I said 
approach, not match.  This means larger, higher resolution, images, 
viewed with rapidly (no flickering, please) alternating R & L.  Images 
should be loaded in seconds, not minutes, with the click of a button.  
We are far from having this technology available and affordable.

If I ever make a home page, I will have information and 2D images of 
some of my products and services.  There will be a section with examples
of my 3d work.  A few images at best.  These will be careful chosen to 
work well in the computer.  They will not be my "best" images because my 
pictures will be classified as "viewer" pictures (the best), "projection" 
pictures and "computer" pictures (mainly stereo effect).

So, computer 3d is still far away for me.  At present, I am getting my 
stereo fix by belonging to 3 SSA slide sharing groups (Alpha, Beta -just 
joined- and Gamma), one PSA group, attending the monthly meetings in 
Detroit and having special image exchanges, like the one with Erlys.

I am saying this and still remain open-minded to accept the opposite 
viewpoint and, perhaps, someday change my mind.  I don't mind being 
challenged and will view your 3d computer images and will give you my
honest opinion, if asked. 

IMO, as always -- George Themelis


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