P3D Re: Disposable 3D cameras

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> I recently bought a cheap "disposable" 3D camera - I'd never seen such a
> thing, and am intrigued. I haven't sent in the roll to be processed yet,
> but wondered how these photos would be viewed. I'm guessing they're not
> going to send back a stereo pair of each photo and tell me to cross my
> eyes, but I'm not sure what the alternatives are, especially on such a
> low-budget scale.


You get "lenticular" prints.  Flat print with a layer of plastic
on the top that has fine ridges.  Same sort of thing you see on
cereal boxes for showing two or more different images from different
angles -- except with the camera you get different viewpoints of the
same image to produce the stereo.  The really high quality productions
can look really good (first saw one at Dalia's room at NSA '97 last
year).  The ones using the camera you got will look 3D, but will
tend to show "layering" [not going to use the 'C' word] with "flat"
images at different depth layers.  Presumably due to fewer views and
low resolution.  They can be neat, but they are "different" from the
realist format sort of view.  I think different people see them 
differently, so you'll have to see for yourself.  Getting the processed
images back sometimes can take a while though, I understand.

> Also: any recommendations for a good, relatively inexpensive 3D camera
> for the beginning photographer? I don't think I'm in a league with most
> of you, but I do understand the principles of 3D and of photography.

That's an easy one.  Get a Realist f3.5 camera or a Kodak stereo.  Both
are inexpensive (good "user" quality ones for under $100) and one can
start with the $3 viewer from Reel3D, and go from there.  The Realist
is more rugged, and the Kodak is easier to use.

Mike K.


> 
> Thanks for the help -
> 
> Joel Bass
> 
> 


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