P3D Re: verbal pummeling of bogus 3-D

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>I sent that "3D4Free" guy a message too, telling him that 3-D requires two
>images.  I asked him not to contribute to the massive array of products out
>there claiming to be 3-D when they're not.

>This was his reply:

>"Listen, I've had nothing but compliments and thanks from my customers. If
>i had two pics from them, i'd do it. But no matter how i do it, they love it.
>...this sticks off the page, so as far as i'm concerned, it's 3d."

Since we know in advance that nobody's going to do anything about it, what's
the point of complaining about it on P3D? I've suggested several times that
if the NSA and ISU were at least to come up with a classification of some
of the more common types of 3D (and possibly submit these classifications to
a standards organization for consideration as a standard), then dealers in
legitimate 3D could both advertise compliance and describe the type of 3D
they use, and it would be harder for people to come up with non-stereo
effects and convince the public that they're 3D.

Every time I've suggested that, the response on P3D has been more or less that
there's no need for it, that people should be able to call whatever they
want 3D, and it would be silly to think of having a standardized nomenclature.
So if this guy says his product is 3D, then it *is* 3D, because he says so.
For those who want to complain about it, my response would be "So what do
you intend to do about it?".

[My opinions.]
John R


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