Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997
>From: P3D Michael Kersenbrock comments:
>............................
>> 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.

******  Such things are currently part of the existig digital cameras and
have seen remarkable improvement. I expect them to get better and larger.
Connection to a computer would be after the taking processes.

>
>> 4. A camera that shoots 2D or 3D (variable base) or lenticular
>.............
>> 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).

*****  I'm not suggesting a timeline. I'm only pointing out that the
components currently exist and if someone put them together it could be
available in a fairly short time frame. However I see no evidence that any
of the industrial giants have figured out what is actually available,
because if they had figured it out, they would be doing a few things
different than they currently are. It's certainly a possibility though and
if it gains the attention of the right party, a timeline could then exist.

Not only is it possible, but putting the technology on a dedicated processor
chip would make it cost effective for the mass market, as well as usable in
more professional oriented systems. We are talking about an industry that
routinely follows these same steps to produce very complex systems that cost
very little in the current mass market. There is no reason to suppose it
couldn't be done with a stereo based camera system, should someone decide to
do it.

>
>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.
>

Acceptable viewing systems currently exist with very little content
available, so there is very little pressure to expand distribution. However
there is more than one major corporation sitting poised with plans to
greatly increase the distribution of existing viewing systems. They are
currently acquiring content to make it feasible. There are other viewing
systems in the works that could offer better circumstances in the near to
middle future. Yes, this needs more development, but there are those
committed to such development. There is such a thing as incentive. A camera
system that routinely provides stereo views is not only very usable with
current systems, but would increase the economic pressure for better
systems. All projects currently being developed could benefit by that
increase in pressure as it would tend to increase the money available for R&D.

Larry Berlin

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


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