Re: single use stereo camera

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997
>From: P3D Michael Kersenbrock writes:
>
>>> ....(P3D Lippmann  writes:)
>> >_ 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 ?
>>  .....  ( I replied)
>> *****  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
>
>
>I don't think that's the reason.  If you made and somehow sold disposable
>stereo cameras, what would the user do with it?  How would they view the 
>results and still be as easy as current 2-D disposables (and get the results 
>at a 1-hour joint)?  Even if you owned the 1-hour joints as well.
>
>Camera is the easy part.  Acceptable processing/viewing/using result is the 
>hard part.   I think this is a constant in all of the 
>why-doesn't-everyone-do-stereo topics.


******  You raise valid points but miss the main point. The cameras could
easily be made and provided to the marketplace. The market for the stereo
cameras would be quite limited at this point in time, and like my comment in
an earlier post, one has to do more than put a product on the market, if
it's 3D. It requires an educational approach to succeed.

Processing is easy, it's the same as existing single use camera processing.
Image use is somewhat more difficult, but could easily be accompanied by
information about how to view, and how to scan and use anaglyphs etc  on the
internet. The cameras could even include a simple viewing device for the
resulting prints. None of your problems would be impossible. No one would be
expecting the stereo version to outsell the 2D version, at least in today's
market. It wouldn't need to. (My comments weren't intended to say this is an
ideal product idea, but it is a viable one anyway.)

>
>For the general public, any solution has to NOT require explaining what
>a "window" is!  Won't fly.  Just won't.

Specifically, I have to disagree with you here quite strongly. ANY stereo
imaging system for the public to use HAS to include information about the
window and alignment. That's certainly an important aspect to their
enjoyment factor, so it is VITAL to the marketing process. Think of all the
special instructions that arrive with hundreds of other products. Despite
how often such instructions don't get read, they are vital to many other
marketing situations. The windowing and alignment wouldn't be all that
serious to deal with in the suggested camera. Windowing is almost automatic,
based on the examples someone recently posted to their website. Alignment is
easy to explain, and anyone who can learn to drive should be able to
understand why alignment might be important. If the camera is carefully
used, neither adjustment would have to be extreme. We are NOT talking about
weight shift technique here which tends to create a requirement for
specialized 3D knowledge.

>
>I think the best shot at meeting this sticky point is the use of computer
>screens which may also be one's living room ...........................
>............................
>This solution, however, favors a digital camera solution rather than a 
>disposable film solution.

****  I agree with the digital direction of your thoughts and the future of
3D. However it doesn't have to be a part of the marketing of a single use
stereo camera, unless you mean the simple expedient of being bundled with
stereo editing software. 

Larry Berlin

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


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