P3D Re: Stereo Projection

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: George Themelis <gthemelis@xxxxxxxxx>


>--- mail <TCNET058@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>I stand by what I said concerning 3d projection with
>>the old film method. (35mm Realist) Its tricky, requires
>>dedication and thought to go thru the hassle of mounting. So
>>film 3d will never be accepted for use by the general public.
>
>So, you are saying that 3d faded in the 50s because stereo
>projection was problematic?


No George, I think he said that "the hassle of mounting" was/is the
problem.  Based on the number of people on this list who even consider
using Kodak mounting despite the continued reports of the most basic
mounting errors (inverted chips and the like), I'd say he's probably not
far wrong.

I think the real problem is that stereo, in general, requires precision.
Whether it is precision in mounting in order to avoid eye strain, or
precision in developing and printing of film when making lenticulars, or
even anaglyphs, *good* stereo is something that is not done casually.
Never mind the skill required to take a good *photograph*.

The Nimslo/Nishika/Image Tech/whatever-the-latest-flavor business never
caught on, either, despite repeated attempts.  Certainly no mounting nor
viewer is required there, nor is projection even possible.  But despite
the (limited) stereo effect, I think the public sensed, even if they
could not articulate, the lack of quality in the images overall.  (The
increased cost and delays of sometimes months in getting back the
results couldn't have helped, either.)

There have been some recent attempts at quality 3D which are reaching
the public eye (e.g. 3D IMAX and various 3D theme-park attractions), and
those are making a mostly favorable impression.  But those attempts are
being done with a very substantial budget, and most importantly, with
skill and care.  Those latter two are too often lacking in much
commercial 3D, and most of the amateur, IMO.

>Stereo was and is enjoyed without projection.  The reason most
>people quit taking 3d pictures has nothing to do with stereo
>projection.  2d slide projection has also faded (used to be more
>popular).  That had no effect on the popularity of 2d
>photography.


That's right.  The average (in all senses) amateur photographer is lazy
and can't be bothered to drag out and set up a screen and a projector.
And even if they did,  they'd merely inflict a slide show of
poor-quality snapshots on a captive (bored, disinterested) audience.
Much easier to pass around a stack of prints, which the recipient can
pay as much or as little attention to as they like.  (Anyone who has
been forced by good manners while visiting family, to endure hours of
unedited, amateurish, unsteady, out-of-focus, insufficiently lit home
video of little Junior spitting out his breakfast and torturing the cat,
interspersed with shots of the videographer's feet and the ceiling, can
certainly identify.)

 Now add to that the prospect of the (captive, bored, disinterested)
audience having to wear uncomfortable cardboard glasses whilst having
their eyeballs twisted every which-way by badly mismounted slides, and I
think one can easily see why 3D hasn't caught on, except perhaps as a
means of extracting information from political prisoners in third-world
countries.  ("Sign zee papers, old man, or I'll adjust the vertical
alignment control again!")

When 3D is good, it is very, very good.  But when it's bad, it's
torture.  Unfortunately, it is much easier to produce bad 3D than good.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)