P3D Re: disposable 3-D camera

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Ron Keas <rondonna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>This camera is one of the bad ones. It's like lenticular 3-D but
>not even that good. You don't need a viewer for the prints because the
>effect comes through a fine etched plastic covering the print.  Instead
>of real 3-D, what you get is layers of 2-D. The picture looks like 3 or
>4 layers of flat picture cutouts. It impresses some people, but it is
>not 3-D.


Ron, your description sounds exactly like a low-quality (e.g. Nishika)
lenticular print.  While I share the opinion that poor-quality
lenticulars are among the lower forms of stereographs, they nonetheless
qualify.  Please enlighten me on the difference between that and what
you are describing.

>visit my site, 3-D VIEWMAX at
>http://www.3dviewmax.com


I have two comments.  First, the use of the term "stereopticon" to refer
to a stereoscope is a misuse of the term.  Perhaps you should say "also
sometimes erroneously known as a stereopticon".  In the interest of
educating the public, of course.

Second, on .../page3.htm, most of the graphics fail to load.  In looking
at the paths of the ones that work vs. the ones that don't, the failures
are of the form:

    <IMG SRC="file:///D|/D_inprod/INPROD~1/Starss.gif">

whereas the successes are of the form:

    <IMG SRC="Starss.gif">

Hope that's helpful.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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