Re: [photo-3d] Re: Re: Manual Fed

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Herbert C Maxey wrote:
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
> With the high price of the RBT, it seems to me that they could have
> designed an actual stereo camera from the ground up. Does anyone know why
> they kludged together two existing cameras rather than start fresh? Was
> it to save the cost of implementing auto whatever systems, or what? Just
> curious.
> 
> Bob


Speaking as an engineer, although not an optical one, you're right
that they could have done that.  However they'd be nowhere near
turning a profit as of yet IMO, even selling the units at the same price
they sell them now.  It likely would have been hopeless to regain
their capital costs and the compounded associated interest on that money.
Instead, RBT can rake it in.  :-)

Take whatever you think it'd take a major camera company to design and
produce a new camera and associated items and at *least* triple it.  RBT 
probably doesn't have the shared infrastructure those companies have for 
executing from-scratch camera designs (unless they're part of Leica
or some other camera mfgr in Germany).  Maybe even more than that because they
may not have the inhouse expertise for some things that will require
hiring contractors which costs a great deal more than in-house expertise.  
RBT will have even less expertise in whole-camera assembly
which likely would have to be subcontracted to an assembly-house in
SE Asia, and just having that done needs another set of specialized skills.

However, Ricoh or one of the majors might have been able to do so
without as substantial design and tooling costs, but they elected not
to do so.  They'd still would have had to sell for the same price, but
might have hoped to turn a tiny profit.  Their costs would be lower because
they already have design and tooling done for existing cameras (which
RBT doesn't have) and they'd leverage off of existing designs and the
related company infrastructure. ROI probably 
would be expected to be way too low to be worth the trouble.

Sadly, there really isn't the volume available to support high-capital projects.
It's been talked about quite a bit in the past why there isn't and my
two cents have usually been along the lines that there isn't the 
infrastructure for it, even if there were the desire for it (which I don't
think really exists either unless it can hook up with the digital wave).  Something
like the Loreo system tries to use the existing structure, and that's a
good try.  The lenticular cameras is a good try  where the money
would be in the processing, but that so far hasn't worked out too well either.


Mike K.

P.S. - A major company would have done the same thing philosopically
       in that they'd join two existing designs, it just wouldn't have
       been cludgy.  Except for the roughness of the X3's custom plastic
       parts, it's probably not far off what Ricoh might have done had
       they made a stereo version based on the same base cameras.  Just tidier.

P.P.S. - Ricoh or other such companies would also get MUCH MUCH better
         prices on supplier parts than RBT could even wish for 
         in their dreams.  Volume does wonderful things.  RBT buying the
         components inside of a Ricoh camera they're buying now would cost
         them more money even if they left them unassembled.  RBT's volume
         is just way way way too low.