Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D Michael Kersenbrock wrote:

> 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.

Megapixel computer displays are about $300 these days.  Why wait for HDTV?

>
>
> > 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?

That is a piece of cake with a digital camera so long as the two frames have a
consistant registration.  You don't need any photofinisher support, just access to
the hardware.  The manipulation to correct for inconsistancies in lens magnification
and distortion etc is simple in the digital darkroom.

> 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.

Converting digital data to a 4x6 print requires far less capital investment to get
the quality of one hour photolabs.


> 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.

 I don't follow this.  Must be some kind of artistic argument.  :-)

> 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.

 We may agree about difficulty, but I think the increasing use and competition among
3D computer interfaced goggles is going to open the door as they become common
computer interfaces.

I agree that the techies go on and on about this.  But at snapshot level quality, the
current digital hardware lies just above consumer level pricing.  The only thing
lacking is software interfaced to a non-technical person and a tutorial on
calibration and all but the computerphobes are in business.


.My contribution to confusion.

--

John Ohrt * Toronto * ON * Canada





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