Don't Call LC LCD!

[P3D Jonathan R. Gross <catalyst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> John Roberts wrote:
> > Hey people - all of a sudden everybody's calling LC shutter glasses
> > "LCD stereo". This is WRONG! Here on this list we like to sniff at
> > inappropriate use of the term "3D", and right before our eyes we're
> > generating a misnomer that's just as bad!
> 

Thank you John!!!

I don't think you are being picky at all.  In fact I have completely
edited my web pages to remove all references to "LCD shutter glasses"
and replace them  with LCS glasses.  I think it is much easier to
understand now.

For those of you who are interested in an explanation of the LCS
technology, and also an explanation of  different techniques for using
LCS glasses, please check out
http://www.skypoint.com/~catalyst/stereoscopic.html#Neotek   and follow
the "LCS Glasses" link to a small set of tutorial pages.  In particular,
I try to explain the difference between interlace, page flipping, and
sync-doubling.

I know that these differences must seem like minutia to those of you who
are not sure what all the fuss is about.  Im sure some of the fine
points elucidated on P3D must seem that way  to neophytes or others who
have never experienced the difference of a truly fine stereograph (like,
what is proper exposure?).  Thats why there is a fuss about HMD vs. LCS
glasses and interlace vs. Pageflip vs. Sync-double.  These are
fundamental issues for the new stereo technologies.  As fundamental as
Parallel Axis  vs. Convergent Axis stereoscopy.  Or as different as
Stereo Projection vs. Hand-held Viewers.

It is true that I am selling some products, so in theory I cant be
objective.  Dr. T. sells products too.  Do you think he makes a lot of
money from it?  I doubt it.  Is he less objective or critical?  From
recent posting, it appears that his effort to maintain high standards
are not appreciated by some members of P3D.  Part of the reason I am
promoting NEOTEK products is that I believe that they have offer some
true advantages over alternative approaches.  But to understand and
appreciate these differences, you need to either:

1)  See a demonstration so that you can percieve the difference first
hand, or
2)  understand the theory and design tradeoffs of the product, and rely
on the recommendations of respected independent evaluators.

Neotek tried approach 1) above in Rochester at the NSA conference, and
it was a spectacular failure.   Everybody who saw the high quality
stereo images was impressed, but very few people were willing to spend
the money to own a system.  Here are the reasons that I believe explain
Neoteks experience:

1. Many attendees at NSA conventions are primarily interested in
collecting views.  Those that also make stereographs primarily use
conventional photography and vintage cameras.  There is very little
penetration of electronic technology in NSA.
2. Many people who would be interested in the quality display of
electronic stereoscopic images were not at the conference, or are not
active in NSA. 
3. The system demonstrated at NSA was a commercial system designed for
medical education offering many software features that are of little
value to individuals.  The KnowledgeVision Complete system sells for
$600.
4. Not only is there a lot of confusion surrounding the new stereo
technologies, but there are no well established standards.  When people
are confused, they are hesitant to commit resources.  (This, I believe
is a valuable human characteristic that has helped the human race
survive to this day).

After the conference in Rochester, NEOTEK decided to abandon the retail
market, even though the number of customers could be very large.  They
had decided to concentrate on their commercial sales simply because
there was not enough margin in their high quality products to try and
educate individual consumers.

This is where I come in.  I am a technology consultant who specializes
in emerging markets and high growth companies (see
http://www.skypoint.com/~catalyst/ ).  I offered to be a low-margin
distributor of their products, and NEOTEK has responded by helping me
address the problems (1.-4.) listed above.  I am trying to use approach
2) above; the educational approach.  Here, in a corresponding list are
my solutions:

1. The Photo-3d list reaches more people who are actively interested in
stereography, and who can be informed on a regular basis.
2. I purchased a high quality slide scanner, built an adapter to allow
scanning of 35mm stereomounted pairs without removing them from their
mounts, and I am offering scanning services at well below prices of
commercial service bureaus.  This will help people get their images
converted, although is it still too expensive to convert an individuals
entire collection.
3. NEOTEK put together a product aimed at the individual (personal)
market of stereo enthusiasts.  The hardware and software of this
product, VR-Vision is EXACTLY THE SAME QUALITY as their commercial
product, but is available for $299.
4. I created a home page that provides graphical, easy to understand
information about the technology used in the product.  My belief is that
once people understand the differences and get the information
corroborated by well know and respected individuals, they will commit to
it.

So beyond any money that I might make, why am I going to all this
trouble?  Partially it is because I see the situation a little like the
situation in the 50s.  A convergence (no pun intended) of technologies
and events created a serge of  interest in stereoscopy.  This time
around the changes are a precipitous drop in the price of digital
hardware, software standards, and the emergence of the Internet.

But beyond a cycle of opportunity, I also see more analogies with the
50s.  Its a little like View Master vs. Realist.  I have nothing
against VM per se, but it is what it is;  the design tradeoffs are
primarily for low cost so that it could be sold as a toy.  What was
given up was image quality and technology independence.

Many of the low-cost Electronic Stereoscopic Display (ESD) systems
available today have made exactly the same design and engineering
tradeoffs.  They are designed to be used with Video and PC games, and as
a result, image quality takes a back seat.  The NEOTEK system makes
different tradeoffs.  Their system is designed to offer much better
viewing quality with enough technology independence to provide lower
cost and greater compatibility (less obsolescence) now and into the
future.  See http://www.skypoint.com/~catalyst/syncdouble.html

Each one of these claims deserves an explanation, which I am more that
willing to give.  I have been reserved up till now in part because I
dont want to use P3D as an advertising forum.  However, to the extent
that the technological issues presented are generic in nature, I plan to
be more active.  I have been pointing readers to my web page,
http://www.skypoint.com/~catalyst/stereoscopic.html .

Perhaps most stereo photographers are very conservative, late adopters
of new technologies. Historically, it seems as if individual enthusiasts
do not value high quality design until after the vendors stop making
products, or go out of business.  Fortunately, NEOTEK has its
educational and commercial systems on which it will thrive.   Still, I
would like to see hobbyists endorse NEOTEKs efforts. 

Jon Gross


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