[photo-3d] Re: unwilling to read (was C.G. vs. real)

["Tom Deering" <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Maxey wrote:
> As for me using "Lots" and "Plenty"...... find a bigger Nit to pick, will
> you please? If you are interested enough, you will look for them. I did a
> quick web search and found more than 50 - some I remember, some I do not
> and some that exist on line. And Deering ......do not infer I am a liar,
> thank you!!!!! 



You have repeatedly trumpeted an opinion that has no basis in fact.  The word for that is not 
"liar."  Is it that difficult to find even one example of a thing that is so plentiful?  Please, enlighten 
us.

I contend there are very few competitions for computer generated stereoscopy.  This type of 
art is often specifically disallowed, even in "digital" stereoscopic competitions.  Perhaps it's to 
keep Boris from getting too many awards.

And needless to say, submitting a stereocopic image to a non-stereo competition is possible, 
but pointless.  You might as well send an 8-track tape.

It all seems odd to me.  Can you imagine if the Academy Awards were only open to footage 
from a physical camera?  That would be silly, because computer generated films are still films, 
nonetheless.

Tom Deering