What is the attraction of anaglyphs?

Gerry Siegel wrote:

Long History with small investment. Anaglyphs were one of the first projection methods in the '20s and '30s. Using one strip of film MGM made audioscopics. Colored cellophane was cheap and throway. No change in projection techniques needed except higher illumination. No special screen. Anaglyphs were also amenable to print. The Illustrated London News and Realites in France in mid '30s. And later on, the comic books widely sold. No special devices needed to achieve the depth effect. They are still sometimes a cheap and easy way to show stereo in print. No size limitation. I never had attraction for them myself. But well done and it takes some doing, they can be attractive. I hope that contributes to your query some...gs

Thanks, Gerry,

We two must be “of an age” ‘cause I recall the history of anaglyphs pretty much as you do. My question deals more pointedly with what the aficionados of anaglyphs consider to be the attractions that makes them keep going back for more.

I agree that doing them well takes more than a bit of doing, but can result in a laudable 3D image...but there is d——d little of that quality of anaglyph production going on.

Most of what I see makes me wonder why I keep the glasses within reach of my recliner.Crummy resolution, and bad color rendition combined with crosstalk/ghosting makes me wonder why some few folks seem addicted to it.

It all makes me wonder “What am I missing?”

Dave