P3D Re: List fragmentation

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

Peter Davis writes,
>I take the opposite view.  "Digital 3D" is of such importance that it
>deserves NOT to be segregated off into some other list.  Digital image
>processing will affect ALL image manipulators, film-based or CRT-based.
>What about processing images digitally and then outputting back to film?
>What list does that belong in?  It's becoming more and more common.
>
>This list has always been about stereoscopic 3D imagery.  It has always
>been host to a discussion of a wide range of capture, storage and viewing
>technologies.  Why pick one set of these and isolate it from the rest?

Thank you Peter, you just saved me alot of thinking and typing! :-)

There seems to be a consensus that P3D should stay as is (and I
don't mean "as is" minus digital, as has been purposed). 

Dr.T agrees,
>As Dan said, P3d is the "mother" of the 3d lists. 

Precisely for that point, digital should be included in P3D.
As I mentioned it is the melting pot of ALL 3-D.

There is also an agreement that a new list for digital 3-D should
be created. Therefore when the discussion gets too heavy handed
it can be transferred to C3D as is the case with T3D. Technical
discussions are not barred from P3D, so why should digital 3-D
(rhetorical question)?

Bob Aldridge writes,
>Do you think, perhaps, that GP3D could heal the situation! :-) :-) 

For sure!

P.S. Remember what happened to the NEW Coke!

The people have spoken. Your honor (Bob Wier), I rest my case! ;-)

Gabriel 


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