P3D Re: Berlin vs Magic Eye

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 
>From: ron labbe <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> comments:
>.................
>You'd not answered my original question about WHO was doing the AMAZING
>stereograms better than Magic Eye ever dreamed of. In fact, you still haven't!
>
>>So pick any of the artists publishing stereograms early on, and they were
>>likely more advanced than Magic Eye in use of the medium at that point in
>>time, relative to published works. For one small list see the book, Another
>>Dimension from 21st Century Publishing. 
>
>I know the book- it's a mixed bag- certainly nothing that blows away Magic
>EYE! You gotta be kidding!

****  No I am not kidding. That one book *at the time it was published* was
FAR and away superior to anything that Magic Eye had published up to that
same point in time. The resolution of the images was MUCH greater. The
creative use of the medium was mixed because it was a collection of many
artists, not just one, but it included examples that were more sophisticated
than what MEye was selling. Part of my point was the need in the industry
for all of these creative artists. Each artist has their own range of ideas
to contribute and that keeps it interesting. The only way to stimulate
continued activity in that medium is to encourage more and more individual
artists to contribute their work and unique variations to the overall scene.
MEye went the other direction and tried to *stay ahead* of everyone else. No
single artist can do that very easily. Especially not in a fragile
relatively new *thing*.

>
>>Several Japanese books that came out
>>later than Another Dimension went even farther. 
>
>OK- the Japanese STEREOGRAM books DID blow Magic Eye away: creativity,
>variety and text were fantastic, great, wonderful. However, they did not
>sell NEARLY as well here as Magic Eye, nor did Magic Eye attempt to squash
>their work. 

*****  The japanese books didn't have the distribution in the US that MEye
had through their big-time publisher. I talked with many book store managers
throughout this time. Which books got into which stores was a hit and miss
proposition. There is value in having a large distribution network, but that
by itself can't carry the whole weight. Those *more creative works* needed
to get to the thousands of stereogram interested persons, and they didn't
get there. Had they distributed the Japanese books along with their Magic
Eye books, so that a larger section of the interested public had access to
them, interest might have been maintained longer. However, since those books
were better than MEye, of course they wouldn't consider doing so. Why not
produce better books themselves? Why wait for the Japanese to show the way?
(nothing against the Japanese, just speaking about business factors here)

Had MEye been able to move ahead in style and innovation instead of
repeating essentially the same thing for so long, interest and purchases by
the customers would have lasted longer.

>So? In fact, Digi-Rule's book "Henry's Gift" is probably
>exactly the type of imaginative, new, exquisite stereogram book that you
>envision: but it came at the end of the cycle and didn't sell well- even
>with Magic Eye's name on it! If this doesn't blow away your theory (written
>by you as fact) that it was Magic Eye's bad marketing and patent abuse that
>killed the stereogram's popularity, I give up! (By the way, Blue Mountain
>Arts did some nice work, as well... and so did Bob Mannle, but he came in
>way late, unfortunately!)

****  Ron, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else. You have
your viewpoints and sources of information, and I have mine.

Yes, that book was the *right kind of material*. It wasn't conceived of by
MEye. It was wrong of Magic Eye to forcefully grab the rights to the book
*Henry's Gift* in the first place. It belonged to someone else. I know
everything got shaken out, folks came to terms and it went finally to the
already ailing market. We are all sad that it didn't do better than it did.
It might have done better with it's originally intended publisher, but we
will never really know...

The real point is that such a book should have been published two years
earlier. Videos (good ones) should have been available two years earlier.
Software should have been a lot better a lot sooner. Every software package
I found for stereograms seemed to be targeted at grade school kids
intentionally to prevent other artists from being able to create images
worthy of marketing, just so that MEye could have a market for their books.
By cutting out potential crowds of artists which would have invigorated the
whole thing, they cut down their own apple tree.

Maybe they would have lost out in the face of a public getting involved on a
large scale and making quality stereograms, but the field of stereograms
would have fared differently and better. Realizing this they should have
found a way to work with the public instead of excluding them. They chose
the exclusionary route. That's history. It didn't work in the end.


>
>>****  Yes, Digirule was one of the best, and he didn't learn it from Magic
>>Eye...
>
>Who said he did? Their technique blew Magic Eye away, they knew it. Which
>is why they attempted a hook-up...

****  Cooperation is good, but it was too little and too late. You ask *who
said he did*? The patent situation seems on the surface to claim possession
of the ultimate, unique, first possession, and better than others could do
without copying kind of situation. Since that's definitely not true and
Digirules work was superior in many ways, there was little worth patenting
or even patentable, especially with the effect it had. Analysts who know
these things said that from a legal point of view, there were other options
available, and it was known that seeking a patent might have a bad effect on
the fledgling industry. Other new industries have been ruined by similar
patents. Yet that's the path they chose.


>>The worst MEye stereogram product that I ever purchased, was the CD-ROM put
>.........
>
>It WAS terrible! Magic Eye had no shame and was really trying to cash in on
>the phenomenon while it was still hot... Magic Eye was doing extremely well
>in Germany as well. The video was no better- they were approached by a
>video company who had no idea what they were doing and Magic Eye had barely
>a hand in it... . You missed out on the awful Magic Eye neckties? 

*****  I heard about them and maybe saw a few, but didn't buy any. It could
be a good idea if handled right.

>
>
>>NONE of Magic
>>Eye's books came close to most of the competition until AFTER the patent had
>>been awarded and competition was dropping out. Then the Magic Eye books
>>started using some of the more advanced techniques others had used first. 
>>
>
>Again, generalities! WHICH competition? WHAT advanced techniques?
>
>I'll tell you any change in technique had nothing to do with the patent
>which I cautioned against abusing. 

*****  I'm talking about techniques to make full use of the medium. To me
they were and had been obvious from day 1 that I saw my first stereogram. I
watched each book that hit the shelves to see when they would finally
actually use the medium as opposed to demonstrating that the effect worked.
The range of techniques I was looking for specifically, showed up very
slowly and always from some publisher other than Magic Eye. Sorry but that's
how it went. This is not a generality, it was a fact. NONE of MEye's books
were first in these specific advancement factors. I knew what I was looking
for, not waiting to learn from the next new book.

Two years of this looking is what persuaded me to purchase a computer in the
first place. Had I already owned one, the story might have been radically
different. The patent was awarded shortly after I bought a computer... At
that point I knew stereograms very thoroughly but had little idea about
computers. I have sense verified all my understandings first hand, but with
no stereogram market, there was little reason to pursue that direction,
especially with someone claiming ownership of the method.

That may have worked to my advantage, since I saw that the algorithm in use
had serious limitations relative to the actual medium itself. The result was
to pursue completely different approaches that were more consistent with my
knowledge.

>
>>when the business advisers got in there, they for sure had even less of an
>>idea why people liked the images.
>
>No one knows, not you or anyone. 

*****  There are some things no one knows, and other things that some people
do know and others don't. Just because you don't know some of the same
things that I know doesn't make them invalid.

>The quality often doesn't matter as to
>popularity or sales. Look at music, films, books or any artform: much
>garbage often sells millions, while great work is often appereciated by
>only a few. 

****  And in every case there are traceable reasons. Many industries have
found, recognized and used these reasons to advantage. Magic Eye and others,
collectively, failed to take that step or failed to recognize some key
answers that were right in front of them. I don't claim to have all the
answers, but I know that I had a number of key insights that they didn't
have, though I looked in the same place. Kind of like the whole stereogram
thing.... I also know that other industries have succeeded where this one
failed. My point is that they should have been looking, but perhaps they
were too close to the situation to really see it. Perhaps my entire
advantage was from looking in from the outside. They needed that kind of
insight, but they made getting it to them very difficult.

>
>>Consider that paintings are nothing more than colored matter smeared on some
>>surface, yet paintings have weathered the passage of time and are still very
>>much in use. Their value is what the artists put into them, not just in the
>>pigments used to do the job. 
>
>You're talking about a medium now, rather than content. 

****  I've been talking *medium* throughout this whole conversation. Content
is a part of the medium. It's difficult to talk about medium without
describing the pros and cons of various content. When content illustrates
that the medium isn't being used to full advantage, how can you talk about
it without criticizing the content? The lack of full use of the medium
contributed heavily to the decline in popularity of additional content,
possibly more so than the patent issue which affected a different set of
people. 

>Paintings are very
>accessible, while- as we know- stereo imaging is not. Far fewer people have
>trouble viewing paintings than stereograms, eh? As for content- we've just
>covered that...

*****  One of the things that stereograms taught was that stereo content is
and can be very easily available. Despite all the numbers and stats showing
how many *didn't* manage to learn it. The positive results speak quite well,
and taken in context it has a lot of importance for the future. It is an
illusion that stereo is *less available*. An illusion agreed upon by
thousands and maintained by relative ignorance. All that is lacking is the
motivation to cross the learning curve barrier. Stereograms for a time
provided such a motivation for some. The formula is still valid, have a good
reason and what's possible can easily be done.

Consider how many know how to drive cars, operate dangerous power tools,
learn computer programming etc. All these skills are accepted without
question as pretty common, yet all of them are far more complex than
learning to freeview. Freeviewing is our biological inheritance. We just
have to learn to use it. There are much better ways of encouraging the
learning process than creating an exclusive club of those who *can* who make
fun of those who *can't*. That was the stereogram promotion method. They
(MEye) literally refused to consider the use of optical devices to assist
the obviously high percentage that weren't getting the picture... Another
strategic mistake... dealing with medium, and access to the medium, not content.

Had a higher percentage of the population gained access to the images while
the idea was still hot, it might still be a hot product. Maybe it can be
again in another incarnation...

>
>P.S. Thanks, Martin Simon, for your insightful contribution!

*****  Yes, thanks from me too. 

It was only your demands, Ron, that brought out this whole thing. It was not
my intention to go into this kind of detail. It's history and history has
facets that don't always get seen.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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