Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> An APS image taken in HDTV format and scanned by an APS standard processing, is
> about 1.3 Mpix.  That is best case.  All other formats, square, 3:2 (classic),
> and 3:1 (panoramic) are significantly lower.  So I think comparison with the
> current pricing of 1+ Mpix digital cameras under $1000 US is a valid comparison.

Larry's original "proposal" being talked about included "resolution 
being as good as film".  For the case of the HDTV in the living room
use, I agree that the camera prices can be adequate (there are two threads
being intermixed here, maybe I'm contributing to getting them mixed up)
relatively soon.

That's one reason why I earlier said that the "camera part" was the easy
part.  Getting those HDTV sets into the living rooms isn't to be here soon
en masse from what I read, so the scenario that I see as a possible winner
is in the 'eventually' category, but not in the "soon" category due to
the interdependancy.


> Lets look at it another way.  Holmes cards are still popular.  The resolution of

Can I just take pictures with my P&S camera and have the photofinisher
give Holmes cards back to me?  Holmes cards are popular among people who collect
them, but I daresay, that's a very small percentage of the population when
compare to those who use 2D cameras of any sort.  We in the NSA (for instance) 
are a good group, but we surely don't dominate America or the world by any means.
And some of those who collect them (including me to some extent) don't because
of the great photographic quality -- but do so because of personally perceived
historical interest.  Even the low-contrast coffee stained ones can be
interesting.

Let me repeat:  I think digital cameras are wonderful, I think they *WILL* take
over the world eventually, I *DO* think that long-term that film is doomed.

But I don't think it's death is anytime soon.  For the forseeable future,
digital cameras don't primarily displace film (IMO), they primarily are used for
new uses.  The big weakness for film-displacing uses is in the viewing mechanisms.
The digital camera's current success is primarily in those uses for which
it is uniquely qualified.

With current film technology, the viewing mechanism is usually the 4"x6" print.

That device costs maybe about a dime, is very lightweight, is portable, 
requires no batteries (or sunlight to charge batteries).  It can be compacted
into a wallet.  It's scalable to different sizes very inexpensively, and even
one a couple meters in size can still be moved and easily handled by one person.

Current digital technology has niches that have been mentioned repeatedly and
I need not repeat them here again -- and some of those niches are pretty good
sized when taken in absolutes.  However I suspect they are dwarfed by film-based
product numbers.

In terms of 3D, the viewing system "problems" are even worse.  I ask again:
if 3D is so great for the mass market why did the market reject it in the
50's and 60's?  I think one answer is that the viewing/mounting system was not
good enough to compete with the color paper-based 3D photograph IN IT'S
OWN USAGE DOMAIN.  And although I think there is a solution, I don't think 
it's been presented to the marketplace as yet.  I think it a toughie.

IMHO anyway. 

Jumping off the soapbox again... :-)


Mike K.



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