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

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg W. says:

> 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.

I'm willing to take you up on that bet if you talk in terms of equivalent
yields.  What I mean is that digital photographers *will* take more time
as you say, but it's because they may be able to "save" exposures that
a film photographer would have tossed as unusable.  I betcha a quarter!

I think the two camps will get equivalent yields -- if not higher in
the digital camp due to instant pre-view with instant redo.

What's your yield (per roll) of great shots using film?  I get loss 
using my FED just from the )(*&*(&(^*& focus bumping off it's setting 
all the time. That wouldn't  be a problem with previewed digital camera 
work.  I do all kinds of dumb things that cuts my yield which wouldn't happen
with preview -- much like having a SLR keeps one from leaving the lens
cap on.  Of course it could be that only I do dumb mistakes and that 
everybody else has twenty-something award winners per roll, 
but I hope not :-|.

But then, I'm also pretty free with my finger on the film-camera's shutter
button, so I can't imagine my getting any "worse" in that regard.  :-)


> The 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.

Writable CD-ROM disks are 4~5 dollars.  Tape Drives for slow-access
storage gives one perhaps 8 or more gigabytes per inexpensive DAT tape.
DVD-RAM disks will be here soon.

Storage is not free, but it's quite cheap now and cost is going down further 
in a *hurry*. Gigabyte hard disks are under a hundred dollars and continuing to 
drop very rapidly per Gigabyte.

In terms of LONG term storage, digital images should theoretically 
last forever as long as the data is periodically copied onto new media.
This isn't true with film, even Kodachrome that's NEVER looked at (kept
in the dark) at optimal temperature and humidity.


> 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.

That time will come.

Digital photography *will* dominate, it's only time.  I'll bet another
quarter on that too. :-)

It also will eventually be 3D (whether "stereoscopic" or something else).


Mike K.


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