P3D Re: Why 3-d? / marketing 3-d.

[Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>]

Boris Starosta wrote:
>The question nagging us is this: why has stereo
>not caught on in these areas?  Are the technical hurdles still too high >to effectively present 3-d to the masses?  Is there, or has there been >too much "bad" 3-d in the marketplace?

In my opinion, it's the technical hurdles, not the plethora of "bad" 3D.
If the only way one could hear stereophonic sound was to wear
headphones, almost all audio would be monophonic. If you had to wear
dichroic separation filters to see color photos, or pay a high price,
color photography would be a novelty (the case not so long ago...) We
need something like holography that is as simple and inexpensive as
process color to produce and as easy as nature to view. As far as I
know, nobody is close to that yet. But someday, we'll figure it out.
When that day comes, asking why 3D will seem as strange as asking "Why
Color?" Now that color is so cheap and easy, the question is: "Why shoot
in black and white?"

Of course, when 3D imaging is common, there will be even more really bad
3D! But it won't matter. It will just be bad art, not an insult to
everyone that makes 3D, because that will be everybody.

In the meantime, Boris, you have to reinforce yourself with the
knowledge that you will be well regarded in the future. I'm sure that
was a great comfort to Van Gogh...

Good luck and keep pushing. Efforts like yours will usher in the utopia.

Tony Alderson