Re: single use stereo camera

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >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.

You are missing my point.  Your very statement of "The market for the stereo
cameras would be quite limited at this point in time" is why it won't happen.
And the reason for market not to be there isn't lack of education.

Although education is needed for promoting any new product and as such is
a necessity, it's not the whole answer that's required.  IMO education up
the kazoo will not make current methods of viewing 3D images popular with the
general population as a replacement for the 2D snapshots that are used now.

Even educated to the extreme, it's still much easier to look at 2D paper
snapshots like one does now than to use *ANY* 3D viewing solution I've seen 
proposed to date.  Having to have a *thing* to view it specifically for that 
purpose is IMO unacceptable.   Why?  Because it has to replace the current
system where no such device is required.  I can pull a photo out of my
wallet and push it in front of you to admire.... well, hmmmm, I suppose there
could be a reason for device-requirement being "better".  :-) :-) :-)

> Processing is easy, it's the same as existing single use camera processing.

I include "mounting" as part of the processing step.  The mass market
user isn't going to all mount their own slides using RBT mounts
(no matter how much Jon would love selling a billion-units-per month :-).

> 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

Uh... I'm going to tell Aunt Mildred to toss out her point and shoot 
paper 2D snapshots because instead she can just "scan and use anaglyphs on 
the internet" instead?  That's so much easier?  I don't think so.

> 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

The market will not change until the viewing problem is solved with a new
solution.  The idea of lenticulars is exactly in the direction needed.  It
is *used* like current 2D snapshots.  Only "problem" is with quality, speed,
and price.  All of those could improve somewhat with greater volume, but
it couldn't be simultaneously anywhere near price AND quality of the 
competition (2D prints).  But it's the right idea.  The solution has to
work in a brain-free fashion.  The public *HAS* to be told that one shouldn't
put a ladder into their ear -- else the ladder company will be sued (ever
read the warnings on a ladder? Amazing!) .  Things for the mass public 
has to be *SIMPLE* -- at least somewhat as simple as what they use 
now (which is VERY simple).

> 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.)

I don't think it a viable one until the viewing portion is solved.
Completely and without requiring the user to do anything whatsoever.

One approach is to sell the viewing portion *first*.  If it becomes popular,
then try selling a camera to those who like your viewing mechanism.  The
camera's market will be smaller than the viewer's, but you have an idea of
the marketsize ahead of time.  This seems to have been the approach of
Viewmaster in the past, and could be the approach for 3Discover. 
And even then it might not work.  

One thing I'd like to know is exactly why viewmaster stopped making/selling
their cameras, and why would that reason not be repeated with a new effort.  
This may be common knowledge, but I don't know what it is.  I have guesses, 
but don't really know.  Clearly, the viewers have persisted, so it wasn't
"that" specifically.  (I mean other than "they didn't sell", if that were
it, I'd want to know *why* they didn't sell).

> >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

We'll have just to disagree on this one I think.  I think viewing and
viewers are the crux of everything 3D.  That's where the pavement meets
the eyeballs, so to speak.  

> 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

Exactly !!!!!!!  You now see the problem at hand, and probably the answer
to the question that's been asked forever on this mailing list ("why didn't
stereo photography succeed in the 50's marketplace... and since then").

I say it can't require the knowledge, you say it has to be.  Therefore
if both are true one summarizes that 3D photography can't succeed in the
mass consumer market.  And this seems to have come to pass.

I don't believe it though, I think there are solutions to be had w/o 
"windows and alignment" knowlege by the user, just as they don't
now need to even have heard about "f/stop".

> 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.

IMO, it'll never fly.  3D photography has to be a Point-and-shoot technology
to succeed with the masses.  Mounting knowledge certainly *is*
required, but it has to be constrained to the processing folk and/or the 
camera & view-system designer-folk.  The user has to not be concerned about 
it.  If something doesn't turn out sometimes, that can just be 
"the dumb camera... maybe we should sue the mfgr", but it can't be
that the user has to know more than "point and push the button" -- in
order to succeed with popularity that the P&S's do now.


Mike K.


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