Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >.............................(about digital image memory)..............
> >Intel's new "di-bit" flash will reduce costs, but not by a hundred fold.
> 
> ****  What do they predict regarding memory capacity with their
> soon-to-be-developed technology? Is their data organized as planar matrixes

"Planar matrixes" is how memories have been built for the last 25 years.

> or multi-dimensional arrays?

Not yet.  That's been a long time wish, "not there yet".  Their big
announcement of using di-bits is a "trick" that's been used for
at least 20 years or so.  Signetics used that for a CAM design I
think it was a VERY long time ago.  "Di-bits" also is the term
I recall Signetics using, I don't know what Intel will call this
new reinvention.

Long term prices will drop 100 fold, but still not soon.  First of all,
the prices will drop to get below the compeititon.  There won't
be any substantial further drop until the competition can approach or
be below their costs. I use the word "costs" in terms of their customer's
not Intel's cost.   What happens first is that their margins get large
and they'll milk that large margin as long as the market will allow.

We've use Intel flash in designs here (but not for camera purposes :-).

> 
> >.........(about cost)........
> >Even the ~1 Megapixel DC120 camera is about $800 street price, and
> >it's nowhere near being better than film for general purpose use.
> 
> ******  Cost is a function of several things. A fundamentally different and
> simpler technology would tend to be cheaper than existing digital cameras
> that are based on the CCD. Especially when miniaturized, mass produced and
> carefully mass marketed. The difficult technical stuff would be software
> oriented and hardware supported.

Yes, but consider the fundamentals.  What's the fundamental difference between
a digital camera and a film based one?  It's that the film is replaced by
an electronic imaging mechanism.  So to get cost-parity, the electronic 
imaging (and data storage) mechanism needs to cost about what the film
winder/rewinder and film-speed finger thingies cost.  Quite a challange,
especially for 40-Megapixel resolution with current production technology. 
The Flash memory cost by itself is a challange.

> 
> >....................
> >Aunt Mildred, and everybody is going to have to have a computer and glasses
> >to look at their snapshots down at the zoo?  Ick!
> 
> ******  If Aunt Mildred has a computer and uses email, the internet and

A very big if.  The percentage of people using computer, email and the internet
is still quite small.  So chances are Aunt Mildred doesn't have that stuff.
Buying that stuff for photo's is added to the digital camera's price.

> various other computer tools, she will love the convenience of viewing their
> Zoo shots, in full screen color stereo, with LCS glasses, or polarized
> glasses. Many color printers produce very nice results and services abound

Even if a person likes seeing images that way, it doesn't mean that they'd
like to have that be the way they see them.  I like to see movies at the
movie theatre, but I would NOT like it if that were the only way to see them.
Not even my first choice because it's not "handy" -- as well as being expensive.
I'd want that to be the once-in-a-while method, not the norm.

I've very much a "power" computer user -- I sit in front of my Sun Ultra 
Workstation almost all day and then "play-computer" at home (connected to
the Internet with a 128Kb ISDN line, etc).  I even now have a pair of LCD
glasses (the "free" ones, they arrived yesterday).  However, I still would
NOT want that to be my primary method of viewing.  For one thing, the
computer sits in "my" room above the garage.  If I have friends over, I'm
either to move my monster computer setup into the living room, or invite
them up over the garage?  That'll be better than pulling out a photo-album
and sitting on the sofa next to the fireplace and looking at the photos of
our trip to the zoo?  While sipping a rum toddy?  :-) :-)  I don't think so,
 and if there were *anyone* on this planet easy to convice, it'd be me.

Not that I don't invite people up, it just isn't my preference.

That's why I have hope for living/family room based HDTV's with
integral computer (Gate's "vision" which at first I thought dumb,
but have grown to see the logic in it).  But that's a long
time off.  Even with the mandated switchover schedule.

> that will create better ones from your digital files. Maybe one of these
> lenticular screens we hear hints of will become a reality too. The point is,
> a number of choices exist now and more are on the way.

I don't doubt *something* will come about eventually, my only point is that
it won't be anytime "soon".  Even if the most perfect system came out
tommorow and was priced cheap, it'd still take 5-years to become commonplace
(based on history).  And there would be competing systems, some would
go bankrupt, and their customers will be all mad because of their abandonment due
to the greedy money grubbing suppliers who wanted to be paid.

Big things just move slowly.  :-)

> 
> *****  First, I gave no timeline. Merely noted that the necessary components
> exist now. *If* put together now, they could become a product reality in
> some reasonable time frame. Still an unknown time frame. Consumer level

Although not familiar with the new process that gives film-resolution
for real-time photographs (I long ago mentioned camera-backs that 
essentially have a mini-flatbed scanner and goes real slow with high
resolution).  But spy satellites are supposed to be pretty good, so
I assume the technology may exist.

However such a device w/o any cost constraints, to me, isn't a "product",
it's a technology prototype.  To be a product, it has to at least be
expected to be made at a profit w/o expecting Bill Gates to buy ten. 
And I mean "for real", not "projected to eventually be ....".  That's
what I've been saying ("eventually...").  :-)

> pricing, yes, because other similar (in manufacturing character) products
> exist at those prices. The viewing issue is currently solved and getting
> better.

I still don't see the solution.  Ones you've mentioned aren't acceptable
for 2D photo replacements for the general snapshot taker.  

There are solutions for 3d-photo'ites, but IMO, not for aunt Mildred.

> Remember this camera system creates wonderful 2D pictures. Guess
> what Grandma might choose to print out? Note that the same camera in your
> hands might yield a stereoscopic self portrait with digital embellishments
> to be sent to your closest friends by email less than 5 minutes later. The
> same camera, different setting, same cost. Grandma will have a stereo option
> that previously didn't exist so she will likely try it. Prints and a simple
> viewer could guarantee 3D access. Anaglyphic or any other stereo viewing
> option is supported by current digital stereo viewing systems. Digital can
> be transferred to film. Most people would probably not use the highest
> resolution modes anyway, except for that occasional extra special picture.
> The kind you enlarge and prop somewhere in the livingroom. It's nice to have
> options.

I think that's all nice and good, but most would not want to fuss with anything.
Point and Push the button -- then look at the results (perhaps after paying somebody
to do anything required inbetween).  People en masse have trouble
setting the time on their VCR's (at least in terms of the "classical" example).

> What's long or short for a time period depends on one's point of view. :-)

So I see.  :-)

I have to make schedules for all this kind of development stuff, I even have
to schedule my "breakthrough's".   :-)

Lemme see.. I've got my next nobel prize breakthrough scheduled for July of
'99  ... ask me then if I'm still on schedule... :-)

Actually writing to photo-3D is getting me behind... back to work!...


Mike K.


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