Re: PHOTO-3D digest 1660

[P3D Ronald J Beck 840196 <rbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> >  Also, to my knowledge it takes a highly specialized setup, such as 
> a film process camera, to get these computer images back onto film 
> with anything approaching even that reduced resolution...

> This is actually called a film recorder. At this point I don't think 
> they are cheap enough to have in the home. But plenty of labs are 
> using them. Of course, with anything new, negs or slides from 
> computer files are a little pricey. But it certainly is worth it to 
> be able to see your computer file on film. And the resolution is 
> good! Many times you can't tell what processes were used to make the 
> image.

"Pricey" is a relative term.  And, while film recorders may not yet be 
available in "at home" prices, most Kinko Copy Centers offer computer 
image to slide conversion for a nominal fee.  Simply bring your image in 
on disk and voila, they'll make slides.

I like George's question.  Is the club focused on stereoscopic imaging or 
stereoscopic photography.  Of course, the argument could be made that you 
made a "photograph" of your computer enhanced image.

There's also the question of computer enhanced photos.  A good example is 
the Time Magazine's issue when O.J. Simpson's picture appeared.  The photo 
had been "enhanced" to give his face some shadowing and made it a bit more 
sinister.  So, the "artist" took an image and enhanced it to solicit an 
emotional response.  Is this a good thing?  A bad thing?

As 3D photographers, we too manipulate our images to provide the best 
results.  Not only do we take time to set up a scene, we mount and/or mask 
in order to promote the best image.  Is computer enhancement any different 
or is it just another tool in our quest to hone our 3D skills.

Just some additional musings on the subject.

Ron (too much time... not enough work) Beck


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