P3D Re: Re: Uniqueness of the original

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:23:46 -0700
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: Uniqueness of the original

>I have been thinking about John's posting during the entire weekend!

>>Having attended an actual stereo club meeting and seen a great assortment
>>of slides, I appreciate stereo slides more than I did before, but I still
>>suspect that a heavy emphasis on slides tends to encourage a number of
>>mental "habits" that are not entirely appropriate:
>>...There is a tendency to think of the physical stereo photo as a unique,
>>hand-crafted item. 

>My first reaction:  And what is wrong with that? [Good description of benefits]

As I mentioned later in the same message, it's not a matter of "rightness"
or "wrongness", but more a selection from among several choices of a single
path, that has both positive and negative implications. One-of-a-kind stereo
slides offer fine image quality, and convenience for group viewing with a
projector at stereo club meetings. They are also (I believe) the most common
medium among stereo photography enthusiasts who participate in stereo clubs.

When the one-of-a-kind mindset is embraced, one of the biggest "costs" is
in market power. Even in the field of 3D, the things the general public
is most aware of are the things which have been mass produced. Almost
everybody (in the US) is aware of the existence of View-Masters, and a
very high percentage know about Holmes-style stereo prints (not necessarily
as a format for personal photos, but in terms of going out and buying
ready-made prints). Relatively few people I've met outside of the stereo
community appear to know about Realist- or European-format slides.

I think it would be fair to say that at present, slides are the dominant
technology among the 3D "community", but that in the consumer photography
business, negatives/prints are far more prevalent than slides. At a rough 
estimate, the 3D "community" (both slides and prints) may consist of 2000-20000
people, while the "print community" (both 2D and 3D) is probably in the upper 
hundreds of millions worldwide. The negative film/print business is driven by 
this huge consumer base, and those who use this medium for 3D can "piggyback" 
on its widespread popularity. The slide users among the 3D community are not 
sufficiently numerous to have much effect on the film companies' decision on 
whether or not to make slide film - the continued availability of their needed
material is dependent on the continued interest in several relatively small
markets - amateur 2D photographers who prefer slides to prints, and
professional photographers (who still generally prefer slides, last time
I saw something on that topic).

Does anyone know the relative slide film consumption rates among amateurs
and professionals? That could be important to the near-term future of the
slide film industry. I would guess that amateur 2D photographers who prefer
slides are not likely to make any abrupt changes in their preferences as
long as slide film and processing remain relatively available. On the other
hand it appears likely that the first major incursion upon film cameras
by high performance (and very expensive) digital cameras will be among
professional photographers. If the majority of professional photographers
should switch from slide film to digital format, would there be enough
market among amateur 2D slide photographers to keep production of slide film
worthwhile to the film companies?

Note that even if negative film should be replaced by digital cameras, it
is almost certain that there will continue to be a huge demand for prints -
so print 3D is not threatened by possible conversion to digital cameras
at the consumer level. Digital input to 2D *slide* output would be a much
smaller market, thus hard to drive good availability and cost. On the other
hand, a large and vigorous 3D community might still benefit from slide
presentation in an era of digital cameras - and with sufficient membership
might even carry enough market weight to justify the continued production of
slides in some form.

But by keeping the mindset of stereo slides as unique, handcrafted items,
we make it more difficult to build up the number of people involved in 3D
slides to sufficient levels (i.e. millions) where they could exert some
significant market weight in the evolution of film/imaging formats.
Of course, if it becomes impossible to make new stereo slides, the existing
ones will become even more unique and valuable! :-)  :-)  :-)

>...Special, low contrast slide duplicating films 
>exist and can be used to duplicate slides.

>I have done some slide copying work, mainly to *improve* (and not just 
>duplicate) the original.  

Could you furnish details? It is my opinion that widespread distribution of
this knowledge could be extremely valuable to the 3D slide enthusiasts -
as I mentioned earlier, to give to slides some of the advantages usually
associated with prints.

>The slide from Sea World that Brenda carried 
>with her in the stereo club meeting is a duplicate and enlarged 
>version of the original.  

And a beautiful slide it is.

John R


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