Re: Busy busy busy - another metadiscussion

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

> From: P3D John W Roberts 
> Subject: Re:  Busy busy busy - another metadiscussion
> 
> >Does anyone think stereo computer graphics warrants its own group 
> >as opposed to photographic stereo?  They overlap so much, it would 
> >seem like dividing the baby, but computer discussions do get into 
> >such non-stereo, or very-loosely-related topics it's truly amazing.
> 
> I'd prefer that the stereo computer graphics be kept on this list rather
> than split off, but the preference isn't very strong. If it were split off,
> I suspect the volume on that topic would shoot way up, and it would be
> more about how to use such-and-such a commercial package and less about
> basic theory and technology.

What is the difference between a discussion on how to modify the hot
shoe on a stereo camera, and a discussion on a clever way to use a
(commercial) software package to achieve a new visual effect?  Perhaps,
one is tangible, and the other is not.  A strange criteria on which to
differentiate by people interested in stereoscopy. 

Electronic stereoscopy does NOT REPLACE photographic stereoscopy.  These
two technologies compliment each other.   Electronic Stereoscopic
Displays (ESDs) dont have spatial resolution or dynamic range even
close to a poorly taken stereograph.  Without appearing too short
sighted, I believe that it will be many years until low-cost
high-density electronically driven displays will become affordable
(unless you count HDTV, which I dont).

Every technology, every design, and every product has its desirable
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:22:10 -0600
Errors-To: 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
From: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: PHOTO-3D digest 1821
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List  

characteristics and its less desirable characteristics.  And the
assignment of what are good and what are bad characteristics must be
relative to a set of priorities or values.  For technologies and
products, the values and priorities are determined by a specific
application and context of use.

If I want to create a breathtaking stereoscopic image, I use a camera. 
And when I view it, I will use a hand held viewer that fills my entire
field of vision to the point that I actually sense that Im there, part
of the scene.

What do I do if I want to share this image with a group of people?  Here
again, the specific application and the context of the use may alter my
choices.  Are they friends over for a visit?  Maybe Ill pass the
viewer.  While we are waiting for each one to look, well chat.  Are
they fellow stereographers who are conducting a peer review?  Maybe each
guest will bring their own viewer so that they dont constantly have to
spend time adjusting a shared viewer each time they get a new slide. 
Are they business associates to whom Im trying to explain a complex
concept that is intuitively understood when represented stereoscopically
in 3D?  Maybe Ill create a stereo slide and project it onto a screen.

What if I want to make a duplicate?  What if I want to animate the image
to bring in the fourth dimension?  What if I want to publish the image? 
What if I want to enhance the contrast, brighten an object in a shadow,
or add a label that is next to the object in the scene in 3 dimensions? 
I enjoy being a member of a National Stereoscopic Society circuit.  What
if we could post our photos on the Internet, vote on the best ones, and
then circulate the winners?  What if I want to share a stereograph with
my sister in Pittsburgh?

The point is that stereography and the new Electronic Stereoscopic
Displays do not really compete with each other, they are complimentary
to each other;  each one is more or less appropriate for an application
and specific use.

Stereographers do not understand why the general population does not
share their passion for stereo.  Except for a short period at the end of
the last century, stereography has been largely a novelty, a curiosity. 
Even 3D cinema was primarily a gimmick that Hollywood hoped would draw
people back into the theaters and away from their newly purchased
Television sets.  Cinemascope, Cinerama, any spectacle that could not be
shown on the little screen.  When people kept going to the movies, then
3D when the way of Smellorama.  Turns out, the cinema and TV are
complimentary (although it is interesting that Disney recently released
the sequel to Aladdin directly to video).

Here is an opportunity for stereographers to share what we have known
for a long time; people are born two eyes.  The people who subscribe to
Photo-3D know a lot about stereoscopy.  We can share that knowledge with
a lot of people who will be introduced to it on PCs and the Internet, or
we can say "Sorry, if there is no emulsion involved, Im not
interested."

Jon Gross


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