Re: New 3D business opportunity

[P3D apec <apec@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gregory wrote:

> 
> 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.

Where can I get the detail info on David's stereo digital camera?

> 
> >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...

Adam's concern is the right barrier to any 3D beginner. I think, with a
single camera, digital method is the most easy way for any beginner to
master 3D photography in few hours. If you can see what you shot in three
minutes, you'll learn and master the skill quickly. Beginners will be
upsetted when they saw their 3D was a mess after many hours working. I
think this is one of the reasons why traditional 3D population is still
limited.

> 
> 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". :-)

If you want to integrate multimedia, i.e. text, 3D graphics, music, I think
digital is the most easy and inexpensive way to do that. Don't you see the
inconvinience of traditional slid show. You need to change slide one by
one. With the electronics album, you can relax yourself and ejoy really 3D
show with soft music just by click the mouse once. It takes you not much
time to integrate photos, text and music in a album if you know how to
operate it.

> 
> 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.

If for commercial use, I believe you need to do more effort on editing in
whatever case, digital or traditional. If just for fun, why not just "take
the shot" and "enjoy the result in few minutes". 


> 
> 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.

For personal use, you don't have much valuable images to keep. Since
digital is easy-come-easy-go. If you really need to keep it, you can use MO
or CD-R. A writtable  CD-ROM is cheaper than $3 and is able to save
hundreds of photos. Don't forget, DVD is coming soon.


> 
> 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.

With the traditional viewer, you only can show your 3D for a person at a
time. With the help of internet, you can allow millions internet users to
enjoy your 3D at the same time( if you got a really great shot like NASA's
stuff). It's clear that which one is "portable". I agree that resolution is
a main problem with digital. I think you know why fast food is much more
popular than Chinese(real Chinese food, not like those cheap one you have
at China town), French or Italian food. CHEAP and FAST! LOW QUALITY IS
SUFFERABLE! It doesn't mean that Chinese, French, Italian food will
disappear. Just like traditional still has its value even digital become
poplular overwhelmly. For example, I won't use digital to produce my CD
title. But I'll put digital to my web site once if I have something new to
show immediately.


Albert Lin


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