P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3064

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Ronald Beck <ronald-beck@xxxxxx>


>> Perhaps if stereo photos cost exactly the same and were as easy to
get
>> processed virtually anywhere and didn't require special viewers or
>> produce degraded image quality like cheap lenticulars do, then it
would
>> replace conventional photography as stereo has replaced mono in
audio.
>
>Oddly enough, this describes perfectly the Loreo camera I just
>acquired.  The cost film and developing is exactly the same as my
Konica
>SLR.  Only catch is the "special viewer" needed to view in stereo.
>Still, the photo can be viewed normally.  Some folks at work here
>couldn't get my Lorngette (sp?) viewer to work properly.


No.  I was speaking of autostereographs which require no viewing aids
whatsoever, not even the ability to freeview (which requires no
apparatus but must be learned).  That doesn't describe the Loreo (which
doesn't produce particularly sharp images, either).  Yes, you can view
the stereo pair monocularly as twin images without a viewer, but that's
not really the point, is it?

>I guess what would be interesting is the possibility of a one hour
>processing system that would take a two or three lens camera photo and
>create the foil style hologram.


A very interesting idea!  While holograms require proper lighting to be
seen properly (most white-light holograms prefer a point source), they
certainly don't require viewing aids.  I wonder if it is possible in
some way to convert a stereopair to a holographic equivalent?  Obviously
it would be from a single perspective point unlike a true hologram, but
it seems that the display methodology might apply.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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