Nimslo again

[P3D Derek Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sam writes:
>The Nimslo was a $20 camera ?? Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the
>Nishika? The Nimslo WAS a $200 camera. It was well made, mostly metal
>construction, and precision optics. There's no way they could have sold it
>for $20. 

Well, it might have cost more than $20, but I doubt it was much more.  It
certainly was no $200 camera.  And no, I wasn't confusing it with the
even crappier Nishika.  It must cost even less to build (in 1980ish dollars).

>You can't rely on just making money on the processing, as people will always
>try to get around paying high prices for their prints. If the lenticular
>process HAD taken off in 1980, other labs would have followed and competed
>against the original. Don't forget that even now that there is a limited
>success in lenticulars, several independant labs are in production. Plus
>there will be people like us who would use it as a stereo camera instead.

I don't buy this argument.  Nimslo had the process pretty sown up.  Yes,
others have gotten involved after the fact, but they seem to be doing
things in very limited volume.  The main reason for the demise of the
Nimslo/Nishika is that people just aren't willing to pay that much
for the limited 3-D effect of the 3 & 4 lens lenticulars.  It was an
expensive novelty.  I will hand it to Mr. Lo however, for learning
from his previous mistakes and continuing to make lenticular cameras
and processing available through ImageTech.

                                   Derek Gee


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