Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> It's true that it might not be real soon. However the obvious reasoning
> isn't so obvious.
> 
> Suppose that some company wanted to get the jump on the competition. (what
> greedy company doesn't?) It's totally within the realm of possiblility that
> some company with such a goal could start out with the intention to create
> the following:
> 
> 1. A consumer grade camera that obsoletes all the current crop.
> 2. A camera that is easy to use, 
> 3. A digital based camera with direct to computer output and optional film
> processing from the data.

Add that it has to store data internally as well.  *Requiring* a cord
to a computer won't make aunt Mildred happy taking photos at the Zoo.

> 4. A camera that shoots 2D or 3D (variable base) or lenticular
> (multi-lenses) at the consumers choice, all with one camera, no attachments
> needed, just flip a switch. 
> 5. With an output quality exceeding the current 35mm full frame image. 
> 
> Such a camera would take over the market almost overnight. It's output

Do you *really* think someone is coming out with that camera for a couple
hundred dollars (maximum retail price) anytime soon for the  mass 
consumer market?  That's the current competition.

I don't think so.  Not soon.

If they could, it'd take over the world -- but I'm not holding
my breath (but hope it happens).

And for a 3D version, the viewing system still is a problem that
has to be tackled either first or at the same time.   As I said in
another posting, I think the camera is the "easy part" of the
system design.  Efforts using lenticular technology had the
right goal, but IMO falls short of the price/speed/quality that's
needed for mass consumer market success.

Mike K.


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