Re: Demographics

[P3D Marvin Jones <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I understand your point completely.  But, consider this:  95% to 99% of 3d
> imaging today is film photography.  Possibly 99%.  That means that if you
> take 100 people who do stereoscopic imaging, 99 of them are working with a
> camera and film.  The 100th person might specialize in "other 3d stuff".
> 
> But, when it comes to the membership of this list, maybe 90% is into film
> 3d photography and 10% into "other 3d stuff".  A ratio of 10 times the
> ratio of non-list stereo workers.  There is gap in both interests and age.
> 
> That's my point.  I do not have any numbers to support it but I don't think
> anyone has any numbers to disprove it, so we can call it a "speculation" if
> you like.
> 
I think you are vastly underestimating the interest in computerized stereo
today. True, most people talking "3D" in computers are really referring to flat
3D, but there are a lot of people playing with stereo imaging, which is very
simple to do using the same "3D" programs that churn out those flat images that
are CALLED "3D". As you say, nobody has numbers, but I think that interest in
computerized 3D in the "world at large" is far greater than the 1% you estimate,
and that P3D is probably scewed in the opposite direction than you guess -- I
think there is a greater percentage of people here interested in traditional
photographic 3D than in the "world at large". In other words, I think this group
consists more of the "traditional" old fogies than does the larger group of all
people interested in any aspect of 3D. (Do I need to type a bunch of smiley
faces, or will anyone here bristle at being called old fogies?)


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