3D-Neotek-Flame

[P3D Ole Hansen <olejohan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good Day you Gentle Men
or - Enough is Enough

Why not keep a personal discussion without foundation in reality
to the private email adresses ? It takes to much time to read
all the nice argumentation for a cause misunderstood.
Mainly because english is not my mothers thounge.
I had to work hard to get to this mediocre linquistic level.

Too many wrote about:

> lossy systems, such as jpg/jps,
JPG is lossy because of compression (default 75%), and the
algorithm was written to make compression possible with a loss,
so why complaint ?

> DVD is a lossy format too
DVD is not a format, but a standard for archiving files.
The files might be lossy or not.

> Problem is Bill's success is owed mostly to an open system
Not so. He wrote FAT and was succesful selling the idea to IBM.
I have tried CP/M. DOS was a great improvement, thanks to IBMs
and Hollerichs concept of good manegement.

> Some of these markets are differentiated by quality/price.
What a blessing. You get the quality you need, and to a fair
price. That is hardly news. That was the case before Columbus.

> Thus it is wise to know what the pro's are using and the
> philosophy behind the approach.
If not from the pro's, where would you get new knowledge ?

> Most consumer digital cameras also use lossy technology.
All cameras use lossy technology. If you want to see reality,
take your one eye away from the viewfinder, and open both eyes.
Maybe its a good idea to turn your head a little too.

> lossy technology has negligable effect on 3D images.
Low resolution is detoriorating any 3D image as the depth
(angular) information is in the detail.

> PhotoCD is a lossy format.
All graphic formats are lossy, but PhotoCD is not the worst.

> to challenge something like a Realist system, then you will
> need the resolution of such a system. (6400 DPI)
A grand misunderstanding - the Realist chip holds 2300 DPI
if a high quality film like Kodacrome is used, and the aperture
is set to 8 or 11. Try to see the resolutioncurve for the lens.

> it is at best snapshot quality.
And that we all know, are used to, and pleased with (I hope).

> You simply won't believe what scientific image processing
> can do with high resolution data. But that capability, is
> almost on the desktop of home systems running Win95 or MacOS.
Hopefully its not a question of believe for too many readers
of this. And it has nothing to do with science or OS. Its simply
a question of the size of the negative (slide) and of the money
available for the hobby. To bye a 4x5" stereocamera, and to carry
it around, might be quite a burden for the average amateur,
but to got near to optimal picture quality, it is a must.
Anyway - that is what the pro's are using for serius 2D work.
The PC will not for the next decade be able to deliver the
picture quality of an Heidoscope with Tessars, but maybe
of the Realist ?

And to end up in a friendly and positive tone. I just bought
the small Kodak DC 20 (pricefall in Denmark). What fun it is
to use 493x373 pixels for sequiential stereograms. And to get
the pictures on the screen in 10 seconds.
I have realised that I am no darkroom addict (anymore), but
I would like to have the money for the DC 460 - Sweet dreams.
regards - Ole Hansen - olejohan@xxxxxxxxxxx



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