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

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:07:16 -0500
>From: "P3D Gregory J. Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>

>John Roberts wrote:

>>This whole discussion of digital versus film has been pretty pointless -

>Has it been?  I don't think so.

>>the digital folks are talking about what's possible for the future, and
>>the film folks are talking about what's available right now.

>Then you haven't been reading it very carefully.  This "film folk" has
>been looking towards the future as well.  

What I was criticizing was the passionate broadsides fired into the fog
(figuratively speaking) in completely different directions. You can't claim
credit for any of those - your points were well thought out, and self
sufficient (not just a reaction to perception of somebody else's comments.)
So I'm sorry, you just don't deserve any criticism. :-)

>What *I* have been trying to point out as a counter-balancing opinion
>(not "Luddite" as was intimated) 

By who? (I've lost track already).

>is that there are certain capabilities
>that we have now with film that I *don't* see being developed in the
>digital realm-- and that since these technologies are rather sophisticated,
>we are at the mercy of commercial developers to provide them, or we must
>do without.  Specifically, a cheap, portable digital stereo viewer and an
>affordable mass viewing system a la stereo projection.

Which is an excellent point, and which needs further discussion. But I would
also be interested in *solutions* - for instance ways in which the new
technology might be able to accommodate these needs, or ways in which the
old technology might be kept alive (for example, in niche applications -
the medicinal leech business is still going for applications such as finger
and ear reattachment, and *extremely* obsolete photographic technology
is available as a novelty in some theme parks). 

>The technology proponents seem to thing these things will simply
>materialize out of thin air (or perhaps a "replicator"), but for a group
>who have been lamenting the fact that we can't even get somebody to
>produce an inexpensive modern stereo camera, that seems awfully optimistic
>to me.  

Don't think I wasn't being critical of the future technology proponents -
a description of what could be done in the future doesn't satisfy
current needs. There is sometimes at tendency (though I haven't seen much
of it here), when describing projected future technology, to assume that
current technology will be scrapped. That has not turned out to be the
case in many areas, particularly information storage.

>This is the last I will have to say on this particular topic.

I hope not - as you pointed out it's an important topic, and you've been
bringing up some good points.

John R


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