Re: [photo-3d] Re: 2D into 3D END OF STEREO

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, what's wrong with glasses?  Most people don't object to wearing
sunglasses (count how many drivers are NOT wearing sunglasses on a sunny
day).

Glasses, even liquid crystal types can be quite lightweight and comfortable.
And, they are far cheaper than autostereoscopic systems, especially the
passive polarizer types.  Besides, they permit higher quality images (within
reasonable cost factors) and have very little restrictions on viewing
positions.  (Even though there may be distortions that many people seem to
ignore, polarized glasses permit stereoscopic viewing from any location
where the screen can be seen).

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "E R Swanson" <ers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:09 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Re: 2D into 3D END OF STEREO


>
> Bob Maxey is bang on with his assessment of 3D. I think the conversion
> process is just around the corner, but the audience is the key factor for
> it being a viable product. As long as you have to use liquid crystal
> shuttering glasses, or even polaroid glasses it will remain a gimmick as
> far as movies go. Theaters even resisted setting up for doing the recent
> films like Spacehunter or Jaws 3D, because a reflective screen is
> necessary. There will have to be a simple, television-based system that
> doesn't require wearing glasses, and that is compatable with standard tv.
>
> I wear virtual i/o glasses for 3D movies, but most people wouldn't put up
> with that massive chunk of headgear.
>
> It *is* a small, internally focused community, and the track record for 3D
> movies ranges from really bad to mediocre-- with the possible exception of
> Dial M for Murder which Hitchcock made in 3D under studio duress.
>
> Elliott
>
>
>
>
>