P3D Re: What the heck does "success" mean?

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> I wasn't speaking of "Realists" but stereo cameras and photography as a whole.  My point was  
> that "stereo photography" was not a success.  It's got it's die-hard adherants, but generally  
> speaking it failed to gain widespread acceptance.  

I agree that its success has been limited in recent times.  In the heyday of
stereocards, it seems to have been successful then.  I wasn't around then,
so I can't speak "for sure".

> >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.
> 
> If you view Instamatics as a segment of the category of "automatic" cameras.  They were and  
> remain a massive success.  Most of the people buying cameras abandoned the old manual ones  

Well, you see my point.  Part of defining "success" is the definition of categories to
measure it against.  Instamatics were very successful if put into the category of "cameras".
All cameras.  Or category of "still-image cameras".  Just as one can make Viewmaster
Personal cameras "wildly successful" when taken in the category of "Viewmaster reel compatible
cameras".  It's market-share in that category is/was very high.

Which brings up the other notion of how success is measured.  One way is the way
you are using.  That is, total domestic (U.S.) household penetration.  Another
way may be world-wide household penetration, where many things "very successful"
like VHS VCR's may be considered flops.

Another way, which I think is a bit more fair when talking about success of 
implementations is market-share. 

There are more ways.  For instance, my wife is a Dentist (a "service company").  
Is her practice unsuccessful unless she has 90% of the nation's (or even 90% of
the town's) people within her practice?  Her business can be very successful
with even a very small marketshare.

Success is a tricky thing and can be manipulated to mean almost
anything. I think it's a subset of "statistics".  :-)


> Again, just because somebody somewhere is taking pictures, doesn't mean it's a "success".  I  
> personally doubt that even a successful holographic implimntation (whatever youthink that might  
> be) would probably be a success.  The reality is most people simply don't give a rat's ass about  
> stereo.  Public awareness was pumped pretty well during the 50's, but very few people bought  
> into it.   Most everyone were still very happy with their flat cameras.

People love Mercedes autos, but their sales are a pitiful percentage of the auto
market.  Does that mean that people don't give a flying fig about that which
Mercedes offers, or does it mean that there are tradeoffs that they just
don't want to make?

I think people like stereo, almost 100% of people who I show it love it.  It's not
the stereo itself they don't want, it's the "cost" to produce it.  And I don't
just mean monetary cost.  If stereo were just as easy to use as 2D and costed the
same monetarily, then I think it'd fly in a second.

Big if's.

I think that which has failed in your eyes are the implementations, not
the category of stereo.


> George T quoted the number of cameras manufactured - thanks I couldn't remember the number.    
> But it was 300,000 total.  That's Realists, Kodaks and the rest combined.  You could add the 7P  
> cameras onto that and it wouldn't inflate the number significantly.  I know that the Argus  
> company made a big stink when they sold their 1,000,000th C3 camera.  It was produced at  
> roughly the same time as the stereo cameras for far fewer years.  That's over 3 times as many  

I thought one of the reasons there were so many C3's around was that it was one
of the record holders for length of manufacture.  :-)

How many polaroid cameras have been sold vs. non-polaroid ones?  Probably a pretty
small percentage.  Is polaroid technology unsuccessful?  IMO, it has been a success.

> is that most people aren't that interested.  Damn near everyone was introduced to stereo at an  
> early age in the form of ViewMasters (the only stereo product which has enjoyed any sort of  
> long-term success in the marketplace).  But how many get turned on enough to want to make  
> their own?  very very few.  

In my experience, I only get negative vibes after they ask the question "what is
needed to make these?".  I think interest is there, but not for the methods available.

> 
> You can solve all the technical problems with the camera and viewing systems you want to, but  
> you can't make people care about it.   I'm sure that everyone on this list has shown their stereo  
> photos to all their friends, relatives, a few random people on the street etc etc.  I'm also  
> confident that we all probably followed it up with the "you can do this too" speech.  But very few  

That speech usually is in response to them *asking* what it takes.  It's my answer that
isn't liked.  

This is the reason that having to have "mounting classes" is such is a newbie killer.

"Selling" current methods has to be with "snap pictures and send to Kodak, then
put results into viewer".  If mounting *has* to be mentioned up front (perhaps
when showing a FED) then talk ONLY about slip-in mounts.  :-)


> people were really impressed enough with the image that they tried doing it on their own.

Given only current methods (or 50's methods), I agree that niche success is the most
one could expect.  The automation that's possible in the digital world, particularly
after maybe 5 or 6 additional "generations" of DSP processors (plus price
plumetting for digital camera technology) could change things.  A lot.

I think the problems (talked about ad infintium in P3D ) will be solvable.  That is,
3D photography about as easy and not much more expensive than 2D.

I just hope I live long enough to see it.  :-)

Mike K.


> 
> mike
> watters
> 
> 


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