Re: Updated 3Discover Info

[P3D Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>You're saying then, that 3Discover should increase their price to $2000 in
>order to be more the same as Kodak a century ago?

Absolutely not! Again you're missing my point.  

Let me post the question a different way:

What is the dollar value of a good quality stereo camera today?

If JQ Public would only spend $19.95 to shoot his own stereo pictures, I'd
say he's not going to be overwhelmed by the reality of his images. He'll use
it a couple of times, get bored with the novelty of it all, and that will be it.

If JQ decided he was really interested in taking superb 3d of lasting
impact, and had both the intelligence and ability to actually take good
stereo photos, I would guess he would be willing fork out $200 or more. He
would at least appreciate the ability to choose from a range of ( at least
two) cameras with different features and price ranges.


>Does it make sense to build and sell a camera who's photographic quality is
>ten times the quality of the viewer it's built for?  Build a $4000 quality 
>camera and look at the results with a $30 viewer?
>

It doesn't make sense, and I never suggested that either.

I also not saying the 3Discover camera is going to be garbage. I can safely
say though I will not buy it. If they change their minds and offer something
beyond the disposable idea, a quality item with real glass optics, I may be
inclined. 
I actually am quite impressed with the 3Discover viewers as well their
cassettes. The images are good, which mean that anyone who uses the cameras
will probably expect the same quality in THEIR images. Were the originals
not taken with twin SLR's? Are you expecting a disposable camera to match these?

I know there's examples of low quality stereo which have succeeded. I'd
rather not dodge bullets on this issue. It's been said here in the past that
ANY new stereo camera manufacturer will probably be doomed anyway, so which
is better: One that offered garbage and failed, or one that offered
something to be proud of and failed ?

Nishika vs Nimslo: At least Jerry Nims and Allen Lo were proud enough of
their camera to put their names on it. Ever hear of Nish and Ika ? No,
because it's a ripoff of the names Nikon and Yashika. Nimslo unfortunately
failed because they could not "capture a significant part of the market".
Nishika failed based on sleaze. At least Jerry and Allan have a clear
conscience.

I would truly be surprised if the majority on this list would PREFER a low
quality item. I know 3Discover isn't targeting us either. That's their loss
in my opinion, as good reviews from those with experience is far better then
the views of the uninitiated. 


sam



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