Re: [photo-3d] Decline of the stereo market

[Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> At that time, we had three options: mounting our own stereo slides, having
> the lab mount them in cheesy cardboard mounts (usually incorrectly,
> difficult to view or especially, project), or shooting non-stereo
> conventional flat pictures with no other work required.  No contest.

Was commercial stereo mounting as bad in the 40's and 50's as it is
today?  I find it hard to believe that there would have been any boom
at all without some reliable commercial processing services.

In the 40's and 50's, and even into the 60's, slides in general were a
lot more popular than they are today.  Almost all recreational
photographers shoot prints, which can easily be passed around.  For
group viewing, people shoot video, or have their prints transferred to
video.

I think the single biggest reason why stereo photography is not more
popular than it is is difficulty of viewing the results.  For most
people, it requires some kind of viewer or special glasses, and even
then, some significant percentage of the population are not able to
see the stereo effect.  Lenticular prints partially address this, but
the overall image quality of consumer-grade lenticulars does not
compare with even 2D prints, let alone 3D slides (in my opinion, of
course.)

If a *very* unobtrusive viewing system could be devised, then I think
commercial processing services would spring up to support that
system.  Possibly digital photography, viewed on a computer with LCD
shutter glasses or even a View-Magic type of viewer will meet this
need.

-pd


-- 
--------
                             Peter Davis
               Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com
    List of resources for children's writers and illustrators at:
                  http://www.pfdstudio.com/cwrl.html