P3D Re: Realist system successful? HA!

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> rise of movies and it's never made any kind of real comeback.  There was a roughly 20 year  
> period where passibly-decent cameras and viewers were manufactured, but the manufacture  
> and sale of flat cameras DWARFED that of stereo cameras.   Just because there's some people  
> who were turned onto stereo at some point and still use the old things doesn't make them a  
> success.

It seems they *were* a success.  It's a matter of tense.  Realists
were a success, but they aren't one now.  They were NOT dominant within the
category of "cameras" but perhaps were dominant during the early 
pre-Kodak-stereo years of the 50's for the category of stereo cameras.

If there were a *single* camera winner, it'd probably have been
Kodak Instamatics or some such that really hit large volumes (judging
by thrift stores) -- but I don't think that makes everything else a failure, 
especially with the "winner" not being made anymore too.

> success.  Same's true of Beta VCRs, reel-to-reel tape decks and 8-tracks.

Those were a success during a period of time as well.  VHS machines made during
the time of Beta's existance would be a flop *now*, so those designs are no
longer successful now either, just as those Beta designs aren't.  Some VHS machines
(mine for instance) has a beta transport mechanism in it (made by Sony).  So
which was successful?  An extended VHS "format" has temporarily won, but not any 
of the original implementations.

Knowing now that DVD (or something else) WILL at some point make VHS machines obsolete, 
does that mean that VHS machines are  unsuccessful?  Are machines made
by the tenth largest maker of VHS machines "unsuccessful" even if they're profitable
to the company making them -- even without being dominant?   I don't think so.

"Stereo photography" will be much more long-term successful than VHS 
technology.  Absolutely no question about it.  

Reason being that VHS is only an implementation of the general "video recording/playing"
category of technology.  Stereo photography is a sub-category of photography, rather
than being an implementation of photography.  Realist's certainly will kick the bucket 
completely  at some point, but stereo photography won't.  About the only thing to 
make stereo  photography go away completely would be something along the lines of 
successful holography implementations.  I suspect VHS will be long gone before that 
happens.  Hope I'm wrong and it happens sooner.  :-)


> What's behind this failure?  I don't think any of this can be blamed on the Realist.  This is the  
> failure of an entire way of doing things.   An entire format.  The vast majority of people just didn't  
> care about stereo photos.   They didn't see an obvious advantage over the photos they were  
> used to seeing at that time.  Compound that with added problems of special viewing  
> requirements (glasses/viewers), cameras with serious limitations (fixed lenses, restrictions on  
> subject location, the extra layer of rules for making a decent stereo photo over a decent flat  
> photo) and it just never took off.

That certainly limited the extent of its success.  But the general format (stereo) 
still  exists, albeit on a smaller scale.  Stereo in terms of a viewing format
exists in pretty reasonable volume (viewmaster, LCD glasses, books with hand lens 
viewers, books and magazines with anagraph images, etc).

Even major Science museums have "shows" that feature stereo photography.  There's
one at the end of this month at OMSI, for instance.  Thousands of people will
probably see stereo photography displays in just one weekend in one smallish
town (the 50th or so largest market in the U.S., I think, which makes
the city very unsuccessful?).

A lot of this depends upon what one means by "success".  Success in becoming a
major even if not dominant photographic format?  Then probably not.  Success
in becoming a long lived niche technology?  Then certainly there is a measure
of success, if even if just Viewmaster and DDDiscover and advertising uses
are taken into account.  And there's more around than that.

To become a major format, stereo photography has to solve the problems
you listed -- and this has been discussed at great length within the last
6 months or so ago (about digital technology opening a gateway to solving
those problems in a reasonable manner, eventually... with I being a pessimistic
about it happening soon, but being strongly optimistic about it happening
eventually -- It's taking at least 50 years to ease out of NTSC video, and
that hasn't actually happened yet).

Stereo photography has been successful and will continue to be at various levels.
Realist cameras (and their accessories) had been successful to some extent but
will continue to diminish as it sinks into the sunset.  Other stereo 
implementations will reach various levels of success (or not) -- and new
"attempts" continue to be tried (like the new camcorder attachment, 
as well as activities at Nuvision, etc).  The future is undoubtedly
digital, and the home "entertainment center" is an opportunity waiting
to be developed using stereo techniques.  Only thing it may take
50 years. :-(


Mike K.

P.S. - The "viewmaster water tower" says Tyco on it (as of yesterday anyway).  
       Wonder if it'll ever say "Mattel" on it?




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