P3D RE: did stereograms advance interest in 3-D?

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

John Roberts writes:

>[Strong assertions by Larry and George that people have / have not
>benefited from the popularity of SIRDS, as a way to get into stereo.]

Exactly which assertion of mine do you consider strong?   I have
not suggested that people have not benefited (or benefited little)
from the popularity of SIRDS as a way to get into stereo... I know
people who have developed an interest in stereo imaging starting from 
SIRDS and I recognize the contribution of SIRDS in that respect.  
The specific statements that I challenged are:

>Researchers claimed that the pattern *cannot* be seen without a
>stereoscope.

and:

>Today you will find very few people who haven't heard of or tried to view
>a stereogram. Whether or not they were successful, they have some idea what
>you are talking about.

As Chuck said, there is a lot of frustration involved in trying and not
being able to see what this is all about.  This can turn people off, so I
don't consider it a positive factor.

Also, Larry wrote:

>****  Steteograms went a lot farther in a short time for promotion of
>stereo imaging than stereo photography had gone in a long time.

In your opinion, how long is long?  

-- George Themelis


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