Re: New 3D business opportunity -- let's get rick quick!!

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Adam Beckerman had this flash of inspiriation:

>Since Intel and Microsoft (according to Albert) have created 
>a specification for 3D glasses, thus making them a potentially 
>cheap and widely available peripheral, and the quality and 
>price of digital cameras is ever-improving, why don't we all 
>pool our money to form a company to create the FIRST 
>STERO [sic] DIGITAL CAMERA!!!

In order to be first, you have to be, well, first. :-)  I believe
David Burder is already selling a stereo digital camera; I think I
saw an advert for it in "Stereo World".  Someone else here on the
list undoubtedly has more info. on it.

>Imagine spending $500 (about the same 
>if not less than many of you have spent on a stereo camera) 
>and never having to spend another penny on mounting 
>supplies, projection equipment, no lost hours spent preparing 
>the slides or prints for viewing, no worries about film not 
>advancing, lost pictures, double exposed pictures, and 
>again, the list goes on...

With the right film camera you don't have to worry about many of these
things (double exposures, lack of advance) either.  And while many digital
cameras allow you to preview your results, they are by no means foolproof
when it comes to exposure (small comfort that you know on the spot that
that once-in-a-lifetime, backlit grab shot was grossly underexposed).

Most of my shots come back from the processor, get sorted and edited on
a slide sorter, and go straight into Carrousel magazines: no muss, no fuss.
It takes less than two minutes each to precision-mount in RBT mounts when
desired, and I don't consider this time to be "lost". :-)

The digital photographer still has to preview and edit, set the
window, and probably crop and/or retouch.  I'm willing to bet that,
given the essentially "free" medium of digital photography, digital
stereographers will typically spend even MORE time at the computer
fixing up images that a conventional photographer would have spent
greater time composing and framing to reduce film waste, than the
conventional stereographer currently spends mounting.  The digital
stereographer will feel freer to just "take the shot" (and take more
of them) since there's no virtually no waste, knowing he or she can
"fix it in the mix", to borrow an audio production metaphor.  In other
words, the time spent mounting will be replaced with time spent doing
other digital manipulations, so I don't see a win there, timewise.

Th digital stereographer will still have to store his images somewhere;
while reliable storage media isn't expensive, it still isn't free.  And
digital images with resolutions rivaling film's will not be small, even
assuming the use of as-yet-undiscovered forms of compression.

The main drawback I see with digital (disregarding resolution, which
will become sufficient eventually) is, "How do I take my images to any
arbitrary place to show to people"?  A Red Button and a box of
RBT-mounted slides is a lot more portable (not to say cheaper!)
than a portable computer with a sufficiently high-res, color display
that can accomodate LC shutter glasses.  Until *everyone* has this
equipment, there will be people who simply can't view such images.

	-Greg W.


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