Re: Don't Call LC LCD!

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks John,
I welcome this long and informative post relating to the new and evolving
technology arriving for the benefit of stereoscopic 3D overall.

>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:27:04 -0600
>From: P3D  Jonathan R. Gross  writes:
>...........snip..............
>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.

**********  That must have gone up since I was last there. Great I'll go back!

>
>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.

*********  Well said and it relates the less-known new terms to known
aspects of the field of 3D.

>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...........snip ...................................
>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.

*********  I would hardly count anything they did at Rochester a failure
unless they failed to show up. Haven't they heard of promotion and exposure?
What did they expect, a hundred orders of a new almost unheard of product?
These things take time to sink in. You may make sales that started from that
point in time, but they make take a year or two to ripen into a decision.
It's absurd to relegate any exposure attempt at this point as a failure.
That's like saying *the game is already lost so why play*!!! Tell those
accountants to get an education! (aren't they the only ones who make such
hasty and rash judgments? ; -)

>..............snip..........................  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.

*********  I see some advantages, but to be honest and state a personal
opinion, this seems of very high quality but a bit overpriced as compared to
other products that are adressing the same issues with quite similar
strategies. Ultimately I'm hoping for a more universal level of access by
all of the various devices and systems that get developed. And yes I do
expect to see differences in price between different systems. The winners
will be those who make it the most accessible to the most folk in the most
comprehensive way. 

I sincerely hope it doesn't end up a hodge podge of new formats all of which
are exclusive and locked away behind *proprietary* doors, making the 3D
scene into a variety of private parties each of which will be requiring
their own high price tag to participate (deadly to all). I see strong
evidence of cooperation, but the trend to create special file types that no
one will talk about is the scary part. Ultimately we don't need new
proprietary file types to see stereo images and moving in that direction
could end up squelching a really good thing. What I think we need is a
completely open and free-for-anyone-to-use file type that works in all
systems and doesn't choke existing file handling programs, like web
browsers, where GIF and JPG are universally important and used by everyone.

>...........snip.......................
>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.  

*******  Each major system I've heard of is making dramatic improvements
weekly and current products sometimes reflect this with new ones on the way.
Among the features everyone is considering and/or using is the use of
*double synch* or something approaching that level of frequency. This is
true of today's products being shipped by at least two other companies.
Everyone I've talked with or written to about these issues is conversant
with and in some way adressing these issues. The only way I would be able to
differentiate and develop a real opinion will be to try the various systems
and make feature by feature comparisons for myself. This I intend to do over
the next few months. However it's not possible (right now with my budget) to
go out there and buy every system that exists, so I have to take it one step
at a time. I expect it will be a fun experience whatever I think of any of
them!  : -) Maybe there will be seveal systems to check out at Bellevue this
year.

I do know at the outset, and without having seen any of them (other than a
brief glimpse of some (?) system while viewing EXPO2 at Eddie Hosey's place.
Thanks Eddie!), that price is one area of extreme importance to this new
technology. Price or basic affordability will affect the product's
penetration in the overall market (very important!). Affordability is
important precisely because the technology isn't all that difficult, only
*new* with typical new product challenges and since it's changing rapidly,
people are less willing to invest in the high end, since it may not be high
end tomorrow (or likely far less expensive). Products that provide more than
one application for the same price and provide almost universal usage, have
an extreme advantage over one that is limited to say, the PC only or LIMITED
in usefulness in ANY other way. This *universal usefulness gauge* is perhaps
the *most critical of issues* because it is already pretty much present. It
could and should become the lowest-common-denominator kind of standard, not
something to be sought in the future. So it's *price per feature and
package* as well as quality and *comprehensive functionality* overall that
are most important right now.

>..............snip ....................
>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 .

***** I'm sure this particular product is every bit as high quality as you
claim. I'm also willing to learn more about it as it's one of the available
options, one which I didn't know about a few short weeks ago.

>
>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

******  As hobbyists, it would be great if the new LCS systems, regardless
of make, get to be tried and used to any significant degree by P3D
enthusiasts. This industry is still evolving and feedback from users is
still being listened to. 

I would encourage everyone with an interest in 3D to check out one or more
of these systems whenever you can, soonest within your convenience. Further
I would suggest that you NOT approach it from the point of view of this as
*substitute or replacement* for any *beloved system* with which you may be
familiar. You can have those type of comparison thoughts if you like, but be
more objective with the current reality that this is basically something
new. Any *objections* you may have by comparison to the red button viewer,
for example,  will have to wait for comparison to LCS systems after the next
generation or two, if at all. It is basically a different tool.
Complementary not competitive. It helps extend the reach of whatever cameras
you are using. The LCS technology is a current example of the kind of
thinking that gave us the 50's camera systems. 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1815
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************