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

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 05:19:27 -0700
>From: Chuck Field-ECF004 <Chuck_Field-ECF004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D RE: did stereograms advance interest in 3-D?

>  I've been reading the discussions between George and Larry, with great 
>interest.
>  My own opinion falls somewhere between the two, though I think I'm leaning 
>(perhaps pessimistically) more in George's direction.
>  It's certainly true that it's a tiny bit easier to explain my hobby, these 
>days, by comparing it to that defunct craze.  

One interesting feature of the popularity-versus-time curve of SIRDS is that
it was basically known ahead of time. The 3D mailing list was active when
SIRDS started to become very popular - it was pointed out that there had
been a similar craze in Japan, which had faded out after a few years, so it
was a pretty good bet that the same thing would happen in the US. Given
that previous experience, SIRDS are probably doing better in the US at this
point than I would have expected.

>But, when the person I'm 
>explaining it to was not able to freeview stereograms, they still have 
>little understanding of why I'm so impressed with my passion.  In fact, some 
>people seem so turned off by (what they consider) "all that bogus 3-D stuff".
>.. that they're not interested enough to come to my office and peek through 
>my stereoscope.  

A local person used to claim that SIRDS were a fraud - that everybody just
pretended to see depth in them. I had a SIRDS generator program, so I made
a SIRDS containing the text: "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU'RE NOT (the
person's name)." Without telling him what it said, I challenged him to
take it around to other people, to view it for him. He eventually conceded
the existence of SIRDS. He has since gone on to photographic 3D, but I
think the SIRDS might have been what initially attracted his attention to 3D.

In general, however, by far the strongest name recognition for stereo is
ViewMaster.

>  And who's got the money to invest on new ideas, that might only be useful 
>to a fairly small percentage of the public?

New ideas aren't necessarily expensive to implement. Some can be described
in simple terms so that all who are interested can implement them, without
the need to find the capital to build a factory. I believe we're still at
a point in the development of 3D where it's reasonable and proper for a large
portion of it to be conducted on a not-for-profit basis.

John R


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