Re: My flash of inspiration....

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

Adam responds to my response:

>>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.

>OK, timewise, there may not be a win, but at least the digital 
>stereographer has the CHOICE between spending more time 
>framing and shooting than doing post-manipulation OR spending 
>less time shooting and more time manipulating.  It's up to the 
>user, which I believe is a nice benefit.

Sure.  I just meant to point out that *some* of the things a film
stereographer does (editing, cropping, setting window) would still
need to be done (at least sometimes) by the digital stereographer.
Of course the right display/manipulation software should make this
simple, intuitive and interactive.

>I'm sure that by taking MORE pictures, there is a greater chance 
>to get good pictures (missed opportunities will be far less).

Also true, but let's be realistic.  The digital cameras that I've
looked at work in one of two ways.  They have some fixed amount of
internal storage which must be downloaded to the computer once
it's full; or, they take some kind of removable storage medium.

The former case is like a  single-use film camera, and is not the
best the medium has to offer, so we'll ignore it.  The latter case
is much like film (change carts when the current one fills up).  The
limitation will be on how expensive the storage medium is and how
many the average person will carry.  Since they're reusable, presumably
indefinitely, the cost is one-time, unlike film, but again there is
going to be a *practical* limit on the total number of available
exposures, though not a theoretical one.  There will also be the
time required to transfer the images into the computer, which requires
more of the end-user's time than sending out film and waiting for it
to come back.

>And these manipulations that can be done _may_ be more rewarding
>in producing great stereo than the manipulations performed in
>mounting slides or prints.  This is because the available effects
>can be used to enhance the stereo image and achieve near-perfection
>in the taker's eyes.

Again, no question.  But again, let's be realistic.  Programs like
Photoshop give the trained user *incredible* control over digital
images.  But how many people ever master even a *fraction* of its
capabilities?  Most people will be happy with a program that lets
them crop the image and set the window and perhaps do some basic
gamma/level correction.  And it will probably take them as long to
do it as it currently takes to do the same operation mechanically
on film, so your *average* consumer won't really be much better
off.  Power users will be in heaven, though. :-)

>>"How do I take my images to any arbitrary place to show to 
>>people"?

>Here is the potential for more product development.  What 
>about something like a discman in which you place your 
>CD-ROM or minidisc of images (written using the standard 
>CD-R equipment with your future computer), attach your 
>digital glasses (that will be similar to a VR headset), and 
>view away (no display other than the glasses necessary, and 
>you just press the play button).  OK, again, we're a ways off 
>with this technology, but a similar work around with existing 
>technology is very likely possible.

What do you say we make that "Play" button a big, red arrow (>)?
Congratulations, Adam, you've just conceived the Electronic Red
Button viewer. :-)

Actually it isn't as impractical as you might think.  There exists
today PhotoCD players not much larger than a CD Walkman, and NTSC
LCD glasses do exist.  All that's needed is the development of the
stereo protocols and a vast increase in resolution of the glasses.

>>Until *everyone* has this equipment, there will be people 
>>who simply can't view such images.

>This is true of just about anything.  Since I don't have LCS glasses, 
>I can't view images created specifically for such viewing technology.  

There's one huge difference.  It's perfectly practical for me to *give*
someone a $3 steal-the-light viewer a long with a bunch of duped slides.
In fact it's practical for many such "someones".

It isn't practical for me to *give* people the necessary hardware to
view digital images.  Because of the technology involved, I doubt there
will *ever* be the equivalent of a $3 viewer for high-res digital images.
Thus the only ones I will be able to share my images with are people
who have already bought into the technology, and those who use mine.

And the problem will be worsened if there are (heaven forbid) competing
standards.

	-Greg W.


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