Re: Updated 3Discover Info

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:52:25 -0600
>From: P3D Sam Smith  <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Updated 3Discover Info

>Let me post the question a different way:
>What is the dollar value of a good quality stereo camera today?

Remember the lengthy discussion on intrinsic value we had last week?
(BTW, I finally understood Greg W's follow-up explanation - my connection
crashed as I was sending email to thank him, and I never got around to
trying again.)

You're the only person in the world who can answer that question to your
own satisfaction, because everybody else will have different numbers.

>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.

Your analysis appears to regard the public as a monolithic entity. I'd say that
for the examples you describe, there are at least three categories of members of
the public that are of interest in this case (not making up the entire
population, but applicable here):
 (A) People who would be willing to buy a ~$20 camera, but would not under any
       circumstances they can presently envision consider buying a $200 stereo
       camera.
 (B) People who would consider buying a $200 stereo camera, but they're not
       sure they'd really like it, and would much rather get some idea of what
       it would be like at a lower cost (that's how I did it).
 (C) People who would not consider buying a cheap yucky $20 stereo camera,
       and who are anxious to buy a $200 model right from the start, at which
       point they find out whether they really like it, whether they're
       stereoblind, etc.

I submit that the number of people in categories A and B is much more than
ten times the number of people in category C, and if a manufacturer is really
interested in making some money, they would do well to start out with the
cheaper model and think about expanding to the more expensive model (at which
time some of the people in category B may have decided that they want a $200
model after all).

>...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 ?

>From the viewpoint of a company trying to run a successful business, neither
one is better, if you accept the premise. I don't accept the premise, and I
don't think a company that's coming out with a new stereo camera does either.

>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 ? 

"Ika" means "squid" in Japanese, so perhaps an "'N'-ish ika" is a squid
that is sort of like the letter 'N'. :-)

>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. 

Most of the people on this list who want stereo cameras already have nice ones,
or can buy or build one as needed. That doesn't apply to most of the members
of the general public who would potentially be interested in getting into
3D photography. It would be like a car company that wants to make and sell
a large number of cars to middle / lower middle class income families,
soliciting and following the advice of owners of classic Rolls Royces or
racing cars!

John R


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