Re: stereo future

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 
>From: P3D Lippmann  writes:
>
>Perhaps that this debate can be stated in a few questions :
>- many people appreciated the Realist camera. So one question can be :
>  Why does the Realist camera exists ?
> the answer is probably that the company that designed,built and marketed it
>hoped to sell it to EVERYONE and not only to people ready to spent time,energy
>and ...money in just a hobby.

*****  If many people appreciated the camera that can certainly contribute
to it's continued existence. I agree with your *answer* but will point out
that in it's time it served a different set of needs than exists today.

>- why does stereophotography was commercially successful around 1900 and no
>more in our so called "high tech" days ? does EVERYONE no more exists ?

******  TV replaced stereo cards as the popular entertainment, so the
photography behind the cards diminished, but didn't disappear. They should
have started with stereo TV systems, ;-) but it's taken all the way to the
90's for that to get started. Now there is hope for 3D on the popular
mediums, though TV still lags behind the newer medium of computers. I think
that's an example of technical/bureaucratic/corporate inertia.

>- why cameras designed for EVERYONE (lenticular 3dmagic or loreo/argus) seems 
>not to be very successful ?

*****   Have you used one? How many people like waiting 4 weeks for results
from their pictures? The results are something less than the quality of
standard flat prints, due partially to the lenticular material itself. It's
a convenient method of presenting 3D content, but doesn't really approximate
an ideal system. If printing services could be speeded up dramatically it
would make quite a difference. Even better if they would provide lenticular
prints AND flat prints for side by side viewing. That would cover more 3D
bases from the same 3D camera and film. For me, it's far more satisfactory
to process locally and get prints in 3 days, than waiting 4 weeks for the
lenticulars. After waiting I still need the regular prints for scanning
stereo pairs. Their system makes things twice as hard as it should be. Plus
with the Image Tech 3D Wizard, the problem with severe occasional light
leaks really spoils the fun.

Speaking of prints from the Image Tech, I find that I prefer the scanned
photos over either the lenticulars or the prints themselves. The reason? I
can sharpen the focus using software and get a better image than exists on
the prints themselves and certainly more detail than is visible in the
lenticulars.

>_ Disposable cameras are very successful, why not a stereo one ( I built one
> from 2 single-lens disposables, it was easy and it works ) ?
>Any answers ?

*****  Simply because you don't own a company that makes disposable cameras.
It takes vision and knowledgable purpose to create such a simple and obvious
product. The companies that make disposable cameras don't have their own
vision. Only accountants eagerly focusing on the *bottom line*. I object to
the whole concept of single use cameras for the following reasons.

1. The are ecologically unsound in concept.
2. They are relatively low quality in optics.
3. They are another excuse for ripoff profits on the part of major
corporations. It's the same as packaging two crackers in a single pack and
getting 10 times the value of the crackers themselves, just because of the
convenient packaging. 
4. It's not cost effective to the consumer.

Look at the cost of those single use cameras and compare that to the cost of
a single roll of film. Or better yet, the price of a multiple pack of film.
Now consider that once you have the technology in your hands, ie: the lens
and box to protect the film and operate the film advance, you should be able
to continue using that technology for the purpose it was fabricated for. Why
send the whole thing back somewere? That creates even more shipping needs
and is bulkier than necessary along with potentially damaging the components
in it due to possible mishandling. Recycling of these single use devices is
a good idea, but reusing it yourself some larger number of times, while it's
already in your hands, is the most important part of the recycle equation
and it's deliberately left out because they make high profits in the
process. Taken to it's logical extremes, it is not a sustainable or
efficient method. 

Far better to purchase a reusable camera and load film into it as needed. 

Larry Berlin

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


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