P3D Re: New Member sends greetings (hobbies)

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>For some people, of course, it could be money and "just how much is
>it worth to them in both time and money".


Certainly a factor in many peoples' decisions, and one not easily
dismissed.  You'll get no argument from me that stereo is more expensive
than flat in terms of repeating costs (film, or film+mounts).  One can
spend more or less for a stereo camera than for a modern flat camera
capable of producing an equivalent image in terms of sharpness and
contrast.  Feature equivalence is another issue entirely...

>Each roll of my wife's photos yielded TWO 4"x6" prints of 36-images.
>
>Each roll of my 3D photos yielded about 20 unmounted uncut images.
>
>Which costed more?  Her film was much cheaper to begin with AND the
>processing described above was also slightly cheaper for her
>processing +  72 prints than for my single-roll E6 processing-only.
>
>And I still need to add the time and cost of up to 20 RBT
>slide mounts.   I've still not mounted any of mine, while
>we already looked at all of her images "instantly".


OK, no argument, but that's not necessarily true of other stereo
formats.  A pair of 35mm twinned point-n-shoots (for example) could
expose dual rolls of slide film, which could be sent in for standard E6
processing and displayed as-is in Pinsharp viewers (Boris Starosta's
favorite) for only double the cost of the equivalent flat slide
photography, but with the addition of depth (which of course is
priceless (-; ).  BTW I use a Pinsharp for looking at my 2x2x2 images
when they come back from the lab, so no slight is intended nor implied.

Are you certain about that pricing?  When I have shot prints it has cost
me significantly more (~$14 for 36 exposure prints with "free" second
print vs. ~$8 for 36 exposure slides).  Oh, wait, you're factoring in
the number of distinct images.  Got it.  But if a (flat) picture's worth
a thousand words, what's a stereo picture worth?  Since a flat picture
has two dimensions, but a stereo picture has three, I'd think it'd be
the square root of 1000, cubed, or about 31,623 words.   That means a
stereo picture is actually worth about 31.6 times that of a flattie,
making it a downright bargain at only twice the cost.  :-)

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)





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