P3D Re: StereJet (was: Stereo Printing)

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 
>.............
>>From: Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>It seems the polarized printing inks are here, but OUCH are they expensive.
>...
>>I expected *expensive* but these prices seem to go way beyond expensive and
>>into the realm of the absurd and ridiculous.
>

>From: boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)
>For corporate/industrial applications, such prices may well be "worth it."

*****  Later I found out that this is NOT a polarized ink process.
Apparently VRex is still sitting on that technology preventing anyone from
gaining the use of a very good idea... It's been years now... 


>
>>From what I know about stereojets, the high cost comes from labor.  Because
>it is such a new process, much hand adjusting goes into the printing,
>particularly the alignment of the two images.  My guess is that there are
>some throw-aways for each successful print made.

*****  Your description is FAR more detailed than any Stereojet has offered
so far... Their original ad sent to my email made claims without any
explanation of process, making it sound like polarized inks instead of what
it turns out to be... It turns out they didn't even know polarized ink existed!


>.............
>>From my viewpoint as a technical illustrator, the StereoJet solves several
>problems.  I can get a full color, very high resolution, and high depth
>resolution image from a relatively simple computer file (only two
>viewpoints). PLUS stereojets can be projected (though I've only heard about
>this).

*****  As long as you don't have to pay the bill!


>
>My other options: anaglyphs do not give the color resolution, and
>lenticulars require many more viewpoints and are still limitied in depth
>resolution.
>
>Boris
>

***** Of course the potentially better ink option is being hidden away from
consideration...

Aside from the high price, this new method sounds like it has value, where
price is no problem...

As an artist who would like to sell computer generated 3D art, $880 to *just
print one set of images* seems like a lot (no framing included). Add some
cost for creation time (days, weeks, months, how does one compute such
things?), then double everything for a gallery price tag, and the gallery is
the only one making any real money, while the buyer is restricted to those
with big money to burn for small pictures AND an interest in stereo 3D. How
big a market is that? It seems one would have to be Picasso to command that
high a price for something as small as a 17 x 22 that isn't over 50 years
old... How does one age new art?

Then there's the minor issue that the picture has to be viewed with
glasses... Attached to the frame??? Sold with a dozen pairs of glasses? Or
get fancy and create a carved wooden box, lined with velvet, with Gold
corners and Gold handles on the lid to store the glasses? The box would be
less expensive than the picture... ;-) Or maybe the glasses requirement
makes it more appealing?

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/