P3D sub

[Charles Pflanze <cwpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In a previous post, "Sergio Baldissara" <winter@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
                                                                             
>May be I'm not converted, but 3d isn't a religion. (is it?)  
 
Not now, but think of the possibilities if somebody had somehow
miraculously produced 3D in say, 400 BC. 
 
>anyway, in "fine arts" questions about "superiority" (peinture vs
>sculpture, song vs poetry...) are seldom posed, and usually dropped as
>"not relevant" (nobody cares).  THE QUESTION should be: why 2d overcame
>3d? (How popularity of 3d can increase?)
 
I don't know about the general public, but I can see it becoming a lot
more popular among cave photographers, thanks to some pioneering and
promotion by Dave Kesner.  Cavers are always in wonder at the the bizarre
and fantastic three dimensional forms often found in caves, and 2D
photography is limited in capturing it all.  Caving is by nature an
experience in three dimensions.  I took my first stereo (Realist) cave
slides to a recent meeting, and already a number of our club members knew
at once what it's all about, they've already seen some of Dave's work at a
national cavers convention.  Even though my first slides had mistakes, I
had a ready and enthusiastic audience.  The green button viewer did make
the rounds that night.  Some of my projected slides suffered from parallax
errors, it was impossible to avoid ghosting effects on some slides that
had close-up and distant objects in the same scene.  I'm learning that a
slide that looks great in a viewer may be impossible to project nearly as
well, and scenes must be carefully composed with projection in mind.  All
the scenes with water in the foreground worked perfectly on the silver
screen, even though the water was very close in the photo.  Anyhow, it's
kinda neat to already have an audience available, and I don't belong to
any stereo clubs . . . yet. 
 
>3d provides more information, but still needs goggles or viewers, & in
>most cases it's more difficult to do. 
 
It seems to me that your average photography buff should enjoy the
challenges and gear fiddling that goes along with 3D. 
 
>When viewers or stereoscopes are
>needed, viewing remains an individual, hard to share, experience.
 
Well, with projection, all that is needed is a pair of polarized glasses,
and sit back and enjoy the show.  
 
>In the past 3d knew periods of popularity; each period ended when a
>luckier 3d medium has been introduced: VM reels give depth, but TV
>provides motion and voice. 
 
Maybe I'm strange, but I hardly ever watch tv and I find it annoying. 
 
>But the struggle again indifference is still hard to be won. In my
>country (Italy) there are about a dozen photo magazines , but none
>reserves pages to 3d. 
 
Sergio, your English is perfect!
 
>I don't know elsewhere, but I'm not too hopeful.
 
Well, one nice aspect of the lack of popularity is low prices on 
stereo cameras.  I'm shopping around for a "sacrificial" Realist I can
take with me in river caves, this camera will almost certainly be 
drowned more than once in the inevitable stumbling or loosing balance
episodes when "a man and his camera" go splash while trying to focus
on a shot.