P3D zingmag 3D

[Steve Carter <Timelaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Two or three of them look "good" in the magazine paper version. (Granted I
have no taste and, by the way, I'm going to make damn sure not to show my
slides to anyone in the 3D community, for fear of mounting problems.)
Otherwise I agree it's not of much interest. As I said to a friend earlier
as we were looking at it, "I guess that's their individual idea of what to
do if someone gives them anaglyph glasses and asks them to make an image."
I wouldn't recommend that anyone shell out the 10 bucks for this thing
unless they just have to have everything anaglyph that they can find.
I can imagine my copy in the recycling soon instead of cluttering up my
tiny studio apartment.
You ought to see the book that came in the shrink-wrap with it. It's 92
pages; trade size paperback consisting of a list of musicians and their
works laid out like text in a novel.
I don't think I'm going to read it.



>There is the common error in the arts to confuse
>violating the form with making a statement. In
>the case of these images I think we can safely
>conclude that the artists know little of the art of
>stereoscopy and have the arrogance to believe it
>does not matter. I think to evaluate them you
>might want to use a rule that I like to apply to
>stereo images- does it lose anything if you close
>one eye? The vast majority of these images, even
>if you consider the trite abuse of retinal rivalry
>that exploits the anaglyphic format, do not pass
>the test. On the other hand, I like many of the
>images, regardless of the cheap play on anaglyphic
>format.
>
>Harold