Stereo Cameras vs Digital

[P3D Sam Smith <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Recent commentary seems to indicate that some fear the future of
conventional stereo photography may be doomed due to digital technology and
the demise of slide film. This seems a little extreme to me. To my knowledge
most digital concepts were first devised on conventional equipment in the
form of a conversion. As long as these systems still use optics to record a
light image on a medium, than what difference does it make what the medium
is? I favor slide film right now because it's convenient, available, gives
me the quality I desire and works with my mode of viewing. If something else
comes along that offers me the same, I'll use it.

Those that sit on their asses and expect the world to change favorably for
them may be in for a surprise in terms of the future of Stereography. Those
who try to understand the basic principals and keep up to date on new
concepts will be far more prepared to adapt in the future. I have never seen
an optical imaging process that isn't adaptable in some way to 3D, so what
is there to worry about?

Until someone shows me an image on a my monitor that matches both the
quality and feel of even the lousest Viewmaster reel, I will only consider
this approach a low resolution reference tool and keep my serious stereo
photography using the conventional approach. That day will come soon, but it
hasn't yet. It certainly has it's advantages for artistic expression so the
future is hopeful.

Perhaps what is needed is simply a 3D Survival Kit rather than waiting for
some miraculous company to suddenly appear and dazzle us all with a $25
digital stereo camera. The kit would give ideas for conversions, formulas
for film alternatives, and sourse of supplies. Any authors out there? 

The 3D Hacker
website: http://www.barint.on.ca/~sam/imn23d.htm


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