P3D Re: 3D Comics

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ray Zone noted that 3D comics have sold well since the 1980's - and
rightly so, at least the ones that had his and/or Tony Alderson's name on
them.

I have a fairly complete set of the 3D comics from the 80s, and the
quality of the printing, stereo "separations" and anaglyphic color choice
in the Blackthorne Publishing series (by far the most 3D titles) is almost
all poor.  The odds are that readers did not make a distinction between
the good material and the bad, in terms of the source, and today there is
at least as much chance of picking up bad 3D in the used comic market as
there is of finding the good.  So the perception persists, I think,
especially among the general comic-buying crowd, that 3D is a
headache-inducing, hard to read the story, novelty without artistic
interest.  This is exasperating for those who know better - I cringe at
the reception I get when I enter a comic shop asking about 3D.  

But did the practical decision to use the stock of red/blue glasses
exacerbate the problem?  As a consumer, not an expert, I suggest yes.  The
red/green anaglyphs are much more satisfactory for easy stereo viewing,
because of the better extinction (ie, less ghosting) - illustrations in
Girling's "Stereoscopic Drawing" drove that point home for me.  The fact
that blue is better suited to "full color" anaglyph, and deliberate
retinal rivalry effects (if I'm not misunderstanding Ray's explanations)
wouldn't seem to mean much to the typical reader.  Personally I still find
those effects rather distracting from the stereoscopic ones, the main
reason for doing anaglyph after all.

Should I think of this in some other way?

Bruce
At the risk of   



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com