Computer 3d? Not yet for me...

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Dr. George A. Themelis writes:
>
>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.  

***************  Answer to #1 is to get with an adequate up-to-date server.
There are hundreds available (many by 800# from anywhere) and you shouldn't
have to spend over $15 to $20 per month for their services.


>
>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.

**************  Inconvenience???? For me web pages are far and away more
convenient than having to either wait for snail mail for who knows what it
may contain (and then only what I've sent off for), or drive out to the
store hoping for something related to 3D (rare), or going without examples
of 3D. Of course someone knowledgable with 3D can create their own images by
computer or with a camera, but to see other's images one has to do lots of
waiting and have a very limited chance to view the results. The expos and
stereo events are not continuous events and when they are over they're gone.
For example the wonderful expo now traveling around. I look forward to a
chance to view it when it arrives in my area, and even though it's contents
are the *real thing*, by comparison to Internet access, I could view
thousands of 3D images on the internet, (there's more all the time) while
I'm waiting for the physical versions of the expo to circulate.

The internet is NOT a substitute for a red button viewer or a good
projection system, but it reaches more people and places much faster by
orders of magnitudes!!!

I would never let loss of image quality keep me from experiencing 3D
viewing!!!!!! That's one of the beauties of the Internet, is that 3D doesn't
need to be high resolution in order to be present and enjoyable. Since I
look at lots of images on a computer screen anyway, why shouldn't they be
3D? When I want the high quality I can always access the more cumbersome
arrangement of getting out a viewer and a set of slides or the projector
(even more hassle), or freeview my prints.

What is an unacceptable viewing method? For a lover of 3D images, that only
has one basic definition, 2D. Limited? How about for those who haven't been
lucky enough to collect all the viewing devices you no doubt have. That's
limited access!!!



>
>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.  

******************  To keep things in context here, you are not a typical
person and have ready access to years worth of collecting both of viewers
and images in photographic formats. If you really want other persons to get
excited about 3D, you have to make it accessible to them. That means using
the reduced resolution of typical internet images and methods. Once folk are
interested in 3D, they can get together with you or others and view better
examples of 3D. Why wait for the basic experience? Most won't take the time
to see the real thing until they have a better idea of what is available.


>
>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.  

*******************   HUHH!??!!!  Do you mean that all that 2D imagery out
there on the internet is only gibberish? Take away the stereo and you have
only a blank page?  There are exmples of fine photography and art works on
the Internet. Why shouldn't those examples include 3D images? We are talking
about the stereo effect as feeling good and of being useful in image
viewing. This is most certainly true of internet images within the
constraints of the resolution available. (an improving situation) BTW, the
internet would open your last paragraph to actual understanding through
example instead of us having to imagine what Erlys's "dreamers" might look
like. All your points could be made more effectively with internet examples
despite the fact that they would be lower resolution than the original
images. Quality in photography doesn't disappear just because of a lower
resolution in the presentation.

>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.

******************  You could greatly expand you range of satisfaction by
including crossed viewing, parallel viewing etc. The difficulty is realizing
that greater satisfaction is available. Others who may be interested in your
images have no hesitation about viewing a computer screen.

>
>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.

**********************  Enter the Photo 3D folk who are exploring the
computer landscape. The use for 2D images will never go away. The
presentation of 3D images is improving and has a long ways to go before it's
exausted the potential. Computer 3D is far more fun than just using cameras
because you can do things in the computer that you simply CAN'T do in a
camera. Because this new realm is so flexible and unique, computerized 3D is
the way of the future. Since the Internet is so available to computers, it's
a natural environment for presenting these new composited images. Eventually
the Internet will allow better resolution and many of your objections will
vaporize. The question is, where will your images be? Still in the hall
closet?  ; -) I'd rather see your images than hear about how good they are
through written communications.


>
>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.

************************  So download all the images while you go have a cup
of tea, then come back and view them on your system where they load
instantly. The problem isn't a lack of technology, only the lack of use of
the technology. Why? Because the parameters of using the new technologies
for stereo purposes are a long ways from having been explored. (Too much
reliance on engineers who ARE NOT artists, and even more so aren't 3D aware!!!)

>
>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).

**********************  That's a start. You organize your images and
messages however it pleases you. The actual results after going through the
process will improve and you will thow out the notion of computer images
only good for "stereo effect". In fact I invite your images to be featured
on my new site which is for the promotion of 3D. There is lots of room and
the feature of your images can be written by you and arranged how you like
them. Later you can establish your own site when you are ready to. Now you
have access for your stuff to get to the internet. No more excuses from the
P3D master!


>
>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.

*******************  The exchanges and groups are great for you personally.
What a rich source of images you court on a daily basis. What interest in 3D
could be generated if more than a handful of people could view them and hear
or read what you have to say about them?!!!


>
>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
>

I'll let you change your own mind, in the mean time you could follow up on
this and let a whole lot of other interested persons see what it is that you
talk about. In stereo, in color, instantly (compared to traveling around the
world!), and conveniently (projectors and viewers not required, at first)

Sincerely,

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1644
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************