Re:Original Holmes cards

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gregory J. Wageman writes

>I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but I believe I've read that while
>virtually every domiciled person in the U.S. has access to a television
>(often more than one), only about a tenth or so (somewhere around 25 million)
>have Internet access.  So while I agree with what you're saying, you're
>still talking about a small (if rapidly growing) minority compared to the
>television audience.  Even the homeless can watch T.V. at a shelter, but
>I don't know of any with Internet connections (yet).  What are the most
>popular television programs?  The educational ones?  Or "Seinfeld"?
>What computer programs sell best?  The encyclopedias?  Or "Doom" clones? 

I agree with most of what you say also, but there have been studies that
I have read in the newspaper that mention that people that have internet
access are watching much less television. I for one, know this is true in
my case, and am selective in what I watch now. Also even a tenth or 25
million is a number hard to ignore. It took alot longer for other 
technologies to reach this kind of market penetration.

>Personally I think 3Discover is doomed.  While they appear to be trying
>to fill the market niche that Viewmaster abandoned (i.e. stereo views of
>picturesque places), I don't believe there's a market there any more.
>People can see such places daily on T.V. (and especially cable), but with
>sound and motion.  The 3D aspect is at best a curiousity for most people,
>not enough of a "hook" to entice them away from the television.

Personally as much as I hate to say this, I would agree with you on that
point also. I think if they don't come out with something to make this
a more active device then it will be rather limited in applications to
tourist spots and other niche markets. I don't think this would be enough
to sustain it. As I have mentioned before, Wrebbit makes active 
participation products (3D puzzles) so I think this would be something 
they are looking at, making their 3Discover something more than a passive
device. 

As to why 3D faded in the past, it was due to radio, movies, increased 
mobility, and photographs being introduced in newspapers and magazines, in
regard to Holmes stereo cards. In that era all the media mentioned were
passive. As to why the 50's demise of 3D happened it was not due to 
passiveness and television. As Larry writes people are not as passive as
one is led to believe. I agree with Larry on that point and also to his
other point that,

>Make it easy and available as well as interesting and the chances are
>dramatically improved.

Of course Larry is referring to more active participation in what we
choose to watch, and the greater influence we have in determining what
hopefully is put on. (which doesn't seem to be the case on televsion
for some strange reason, maybe it's the lowest common denominator
syndrome) In all cases above people will choose to be more active to
a certain degree in the sense of the freedom and choices available.
Now on a higher level, would some be interested in being more active
to the point of not only participating more actively in the receiving
of entertainment but also being entertainers? If this was possible I 
think yes. Look at the internet and the active particaption of not
only surfing but creation of home pages. Of course percentage wise
there are more surfers. Now lets go to the highest level of particapation.
The only place I can see this is in snapshots. This is one place were
there is a very high percentage of active participation vs. passive 
participation such as viewing pictures in 2D, 3D pics, tv or whatever.
Everybody takes pictures albeit mostly in 2D. Now why is this (2d vs 3d)?
It's because 3D is harder to do especially with the limited capabilities
(I am not referring to the quality) of 50's cameras for the mass market.
Now using Larrys quote above in regards to cameras this is very true and
is why 3D died in the 50's. I have always maintained this point of view.
I am glad to see finally some other list members are seeing it this way
also. Thus people do like to take pictures and this is not what killed 3D
in the 50's but rather the difficulty and effort required to make a 3D
print or slide. As I have said a while back, people demand convienance
and simplicity. Also the product should be available. It has to be
available in the proper channels and not have to be special ordered
from somewhere. This is simple marketing. Alot of good products have
failed due to poor marketing, be it because of poor foresight or lack
of resources.

Getting back to 3Discover, I think that if they come out with a camera
that is inexpensive and simple to use, which is very easy to do compared
to 50's cameras then they might have a chance. They certainly have the
other criterias, marketing and resourses to make it succeed. 
>From what I can gather it seems they won't be coming out with a camera
but an adapter cassette. The pics one would take with a 2D camera would
be given for processing to Wrebbit or partner and they would develop it
with the 2 views spaced properly for the viewer. You would then get back
the developed film and place it in the special cassette adapter. If my
sources are correct this would not be to interesting in the sense that
it would be 2D. Someone did mention it would be 3D, but I find this hard
to believe and maybe there is something missing in my info. Wrebbit if
you are reading this, would you care to comment?
(They do read Stereo World!)

P.S. In any case this would solve the problem of buying empty cassettes
that was talked about recently. We could make our own 3D pics with it!

P.S.S. There was an interesting white paper on the net regarding what
would be required in a new 3D camera for the 90's. It makes for quite
interesting reading. I will try to find the link to it and post it here
on P3D.

Gabriel 




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