Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 
>From: P3D  Paul S. Boyer writes:
>
>Stereo's FUTURE
>
>I recently attended a presentation (at my
>"flat" photography club) on the latest camera technologies,
>including APS and digital.  Some amazing developements will
>be appearing soon.  Cameras will be lighter, some SLRs
>will dispense with the weighty pentaprism, and light-weight
>zoom lenses will have amazing ranges in focal length.
>Sorry to report that with all this technological ability, nothing
>is being applied to stereo.
>..............................
>The new technologies are truly inspiring to a technophile like
>me, but have their downsides.  I always recall how great an
>accomplishment the Kodak reel camera was, and how useless
>for taking good pictures!  APS has 40% less film area than standard
>35 mm, so there is no way that it can give as good results,
>given the same film. ..........................
>..........................
>In all this, stereo is being left in the dust, perhaps even more
>so than when SLRs became popular.  [I am putting on my flame-
>retardant shirt now.]  I think that we stereo-enthusiasts
>should recognize that stereo for the foreseeable future
>will be strictly for tinkering hobbyists.

*****  You can think that all you want. As long as you do and a few others
do, you encourage and tend to create what you are suggesting. The reality is
that as long as 3D is kept in the closet it won't get into general usage.
With current new technology, and people like on P3D who are interested in 3D
applications with the latest technology, the possibility exists to bring 3D
out of the closet and into general usage. It can't happen until the general
public becomes aware it's even available, and they have to see examples for
themselves. The current problem is no one is bothering to provide worthwhile
examples other than those who promote fake 3D. Keep looking at that picture
and of course 3D won't go anywhere. Start looking at what 3D can and does
do, and you see a lot of hope for the future.

>
>To anticipate, I expect someone to say how great stereo is
>on computers.  Sorry, but 72 dpi just doesn't make it,
>no way, no how.  Stereo requires detail.  Stereo on an
>insuffient medium is lousy stereo.  Stereo enthusiasts
>are often so engaged by the 3-D effect that they neglect
>other aspects of realism in photography, such as good
>focus and fine grain.  Some even accept lenticular,
>which to me is utterly unrealistic.

******  You sadly miss the whole point about 3D on computers when you
complain about 72 dpi. You might as well complain about slide film and 3D as
if viewers and projectors didn't exist. Or try baking an apple pie without
any apples. 

The real point about 3D on computers is that the tools usable on a computer
allow you to get into your images and work with them instead of being
prisoner to your camera and it's limitations. The computer doesn't replace
the camera at all. It isn't intended to. But it is a very useful extension
to cameras. They are very compatible tools. The fact that they are very
compatible is the reason computers can be expected to draw the interest of
more people into 3D imaging. 

Among the benefits are: 
1. Ease of viewing that doesn't require setting up a projector or passing
around a hand viewer. The experience can be shared by a number of persons.
2. A flexible environment where at a moment's impulse you can change all
sorts of things about an image you are viewing. Try that with slides alone.
3. Control over each of the stereo properties of an image. A mounted slide
once mounted is fixed. Some mounts allow you to change things, but you can't
do that easily while looking at the image at the same time. Nor can you
easily crop the image on a film chip, without making the image itself smaller.
4. Far more people have computers and monitors than own any kind of
traditional stereo viewing equipment. Therefore 3D on a computer is ready
made for expansion into the current mainstream medium. Try that with any of
the older devices and it just can't and  won't happen on a large scale.
5. Computers allow the stereo enthusiast to be immersed into the stereo
realm instead of just observing it from a distance. Until you've seen it and
done it for yourself that may not mean much to you, but it's true. 

>
>As one who is resigned to being a tinkering hobbyist,

****  Continue insisting on using only a camera for 3D and you will remain a
tinkering hobbyist. I'm glad such hobbyists exist and will continue to
exist. However, that's no reason to believe that broader acceptance and use
of 3D can't happen. 

>I think that our task should be to make stereo cameras
>with GOOD LENSES! .....................

*****  Yes we do need better lenses. Anyone teaching a course on lens
making? We might have to make our own someday...

>
>My experience has been that slide-bar stereos made with
>my modern SLR are incomparably better in technical
>quality to anything one can make with 1940s or 1950s
>stereo cameras. ..................

*****  I think this will bring more flame response than anything else you've
said! ;-) I tend to agree with you about current cameras and slide bars.
Rather than considering that as the end of the thought, it should be the
beginning. Where do you go after you've determined the best lenses and
methods? Back to the 50's camera? Or into the future by adapting better
tools? The genius of past times isn't so much in the raw ideas as in the
effort made at adapting what was available. There is current growth in 3D
interest. That's enough to encourage me to think that there will be
commercial pressure somewhere along the way for the better stereo camera to
be developed. 

I believe that the better stereo camera will be digital in format and will
produce consistently better pictures than a film camera. It doesn't exist
yet, but if I had the money and the time, I could build it with components
that I know of and which exist today. Therefore I believe the better camera
can exist tomorrow, or some nearby tomorrow. In the meantime, stereo imaging
as we have it right now is exciting. Any really exciting activity can catch
on to large sections of the general public. I see no reason for pessimism
for 3D itself, but there is reason to be critical of establishment
industries that are wasting their effort in pointless directions. (the best
criticism is to not spend your money) On the bright side is the fact that
many new technologies have areas of usefulness that are yet unexplored
because those working with them have no vision of their own. That's where
you can make a difference. Continue using and developing your vision. Share
what you see and think with others. Look for unrecognized benefits in the
new toys. 

True excitement can be catchy and there are thousands of bored persons out
there just waiting for something to get excited about. That something could
be 3D.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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