Re: [photo-3d] Stereo Demise AND CONFUSION OF TERMS LONG POST

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

I think one problem for stereoscopic photography is terminology and poor
technology. The general public really does not know what 3D is. They
confuse 3D with Stereoscopic. 3D and Stereoscopic are not the same thing,
but we can use the term 3D on this list because there is a knowledge
base.

3D is a term given to lots of things that are not really 3D, and many of
us on this list need to use the proper terms when discussing 3D. Then
there is Viewmaster - of late, really poor quality in my opinion. Not
representative of what stereo photography can really do. VM sits on
shelves and more than once have I dusted off some 3-reel packets. VM is
not promoted that widely, and that seems to have killed 3D VM for some.

There is/was (Who can answer?) the 3Discover system. Clearly a better
consumer oriented product than VM - larger images and very sharp as
commercial stereo goes. Is it still around? I never saw a commercial
display of the product, and I have yet to talk to anyone who has seen
3Discover, outside my little group. In this day where everyone thinks
7-Perf Stereo is better, why is there not more interest in the product by
members of this little community?

What killed 3Discover Stereo and potential for a new Stereo Camera with
processing and mounting is lack of real support by the 3D community.
Ironic, huh?

Consider how surprisingly good 3Discover was, and then consider the
public's complete rejection of the system. You had great stereo, well
exposed, viewed in a nice viewer, but no public interest. If stereo is to
make a comeback, something has to change. We have everything we need
except customers.

There was talk of a 3Discover Camera, but I suppose that has gone away,
too. Here was a chance for a larger format Stereo Camera, with supposedly
a good retail base. You could shoot wide stereo with Kodachrome and you
had a viewer capable of showing the images, but it is no longer being
discussed.

3Discover is a perfect example of a system with potential, that offers
most everything the people on this list wants, but how many supported the
system to a point where a camera would be released? Few, I gather. If you
stereo photographers won't support a stereo system, then how can you
expect the public, who are "Stereo Ignorant" to show any interest?

Realist Vs. RBT. The masses are not going to spend 2 or 3 grand for a
camera. The public is not going to shop eBay for used Realists and there
is no supply if tens of thousands suddenly wanted a Realist. If 10,000
people wanted them, the price would climb to a grand or more because of
supply and demand. Those who did get a camera would loose interest fast,
and everyone and his dog got into stereo mounting, some would be poor at
it and the decline would start once again.

There is no processing available and the public is not going to mount
them. They want it fast and cheap, and in an hour, and that is not
possible in today's stereo climate. Not to mention the average drugstore
employee has nary a clue about stereo, is not capable of troubleshooting
stereo related problems, and is not about to learn. The average Camera
Store employee is equally dumb when it comes to stereo. 

At one time, when Kodak offered stereo mounting in a more reasonable way,
we had lots of regular customers using stereo. Kodak stopped mounting,
and supplied lists of others who could mount stereo tucked into the
little yellow boxes, and away went most customers who used Kodak's
services. Many stopped taking stereo photographs. It seems the interest
in stereo was tied to availability of mounting. So who killed Stereo?
Kodak could reasonably be blamed to some extent.

The Nimslo, my last choice for stereo photography, was an interesting
idea, but then I saw examples. Bill Shipler Photo was filled with people
who intimately understood stereo photography. We never stocked the Nimslo
or dealt with processing, and no one we showed sample prints to was the
least bit impressed. Realist was not making cameras anymore (The only
factory new Realists to come into the store were the Macro Models). 

We all watched the decline of stereo, and the final blow was when the
David White sales representative informed us that they were discontinuing
the manufacture of Realist Metal Masks. We ended up buying thousands of
boxes of masks as our way of delaying the end. We were desperate for
anything stereo to help slow the decline we saw coming, but we could not
bring ourselves to offer Lenticular Stereo. Poor quality, expensive
processing and other factors kept us out of that type of stereo
photography. 

Incidentally, in the '60's, Eastman Kodak offered a service, equipment
and services for a process called XOGRAPH. This was a high-end lenticular
process and it was absolutely amazing. I can absolutely guarantee that
virtually no one knows about XOGRAPH - including Eastman Kodak, The
George Eastman House and every Kodak Collector I have ever e-mailed. Then
there was another system offered that used a lenticular plate at the film
plane, with a shifting lens. Great process, and 10 years before the
Nimslo. What killed that was the same thing that killed Lenticulars as a
quality way to make 3D.

Then Holography - a poor example of 3D but seen by millions of people.
Ask people about 3D  and they will not mention slides in a stereo viewer,
they mention holography, Viewmaster and Lenticular - not truly
representative of great stereo. People associate what they see with some
self-derived truth. To the public, the stereo they see is not the stereo
we all wish they could see.

Movies - no way, for many of them are poorly presented and produced so
the stereo effect is what carries the show, not good stereo photography.
The effects are overt and when poorly done, the viewer can tire of them
quickly. As with sound effects and music, stereo should never be seen by
the movie goer. They should be aware the film is in stereo, but it must
never be so overt and obvious. That is not done these days, most stereo
movies are poor in quality, and filled with 3D that the public tires of.
They consider these late model films to be novelties, to be laughed at or
sickened by, but never consciencely considered great movies. 

The majority of recently produced stereo movies I have seen seemed to do
a fine job of killing off stereo movies. I find it ironic that stereo
movies seem to be made with the idea of revitalizing the 3D market, but
what some of these producers create, are great examples of what served to
kill off the publics interest in 3D in the first place. Bad production,
krappy projection, poor all around.

Once people see bad examples of 3D, all 3D is most likely bad as well.

However, I love them, but I also like stereo, so I am conflicted between
a great story line and excellent photography, and having everything come
off the screen at me. Remember the scene in "Parasite" where the bad guy
gets stabbed with a pipe that came out into the audience? I tolerate
that, but not the general public. Anyone see "Commin (Coming?) At 'ya"?
Poor promotion for stereo movies in general. Poor 3D Movies kill the
market.

Less than 1% of the nation's theaters can show stereo movies, and very
few are able to justify the installation of the required equipment. Not
to mention there are no projectionists who could properly project stereo
motion pictures. A resurgence of stereo must start at places like the
movie theater, in my opinion. People need to start to believe that stereo
is the natural way to see, and start to believe that stereo photography
is the best way to take pictures.

As for producing movies in stereo - there is no way stereo will replace
conventional photography. A few might try, but not on a big scale.
Consider this: We have the knowledge, we have decades of history to fall
back on when it comes to stereoscopic photographic equipment, we do not
have to reinvent stereo because it is a well understood technology. We
also have movies that are effects driven and since many of them use
computers not models, this brings up an entirely new list of problems for
those who want to make stereoscopic motion pictures. Incidentally, almost
anyone who posts to this list is capable of defining what a stereo camera
needs to be. Stereo is no big mystery, what is the mystery is why the
public cares not one whit about it.

Today, the public wants sophisticated effects, and that can be done in
stereo but since the computer creates these images, it would most likely
double the costs involved.

There are more 3D graphics programs out there than you can shake a stick
at. They produce 3D but it is not Stereoscopic. Personally, I never use
the term 3D  - I prefer Stereoscopic or Stereo Photography.

I see silly examples of the use of the term 3D - there is a snack chip on
the market promoted as 3D. Granted, this is not a big problem for me -
just another example of really bad usage of terms. It might be possible
that this overuse of terms confuse the public to a point where 3D is not
important to them, thereby killing stereo. Am I saying this issue is a
reason Stereoscopic Photography declined - well, no, but it is a problem
just the same.

So, what are the reasons there seems to be a decline is Stereoscopic
Photography? Hard to say because it is a complicated issue. We do go
through trends where 3D becomes more popular, perhaps we will see a
resurgence. Stereo Cameras - both still and professional motion picture
camera, could be developed and sold to the public. Stereo mounting could
easily be done and in a large scale. How Stereo works is well documented
and understood so there would be little problem reviving stereo, and the
public, could be persuaded to embrace stereo in a large scale. There is
absolutely no reason why stereo could not be raised to a very high level.
But it will not happen, because of some factors we do not understand.

I'll shut up now.

Bob