Why they don't 3D cameras anymore?

threed123 wrote:

uuglypher wrote:

My guess:

It seems evident that a few photographers have strong affection for the commonly perceived characteristics of the “two-view stereoscopic” 3D illusion and many more others do not. And this is likely the reason behind recurrent loss of interest in stereography with broadly spaced intermittent resurgences of brief episodes of the “3D fad” - generally among those who were just youngsters during the previous 3D fad two or three decades earlier. Just a guess, of course…but I await a better explanation.

Dave

Your guess is as good as all of ours. There are people fascinated by 3D when they see it and get into it, and others (like the rest of my family) that could care less...lol. My wife hates it, my daughter gets dizzy, several cousins think it's just a gimmick, my son likes it, but is more into 3D gaming now, and on and on...I'm alone in my universe of 3D movies, home video and 3D pictures....:0(....

Taking 3D is supremely easy.   Watching it has always been an obstacle.  It is inherelty an individual exercise.   When it was as they say a fad, there were complete systems that made it deliverable without a lot headache.   If Kodak prints were tough to make or had to be sent off or were a pure hobby exercise--which 3-D Has become , it too would fade interest.      For me, it still shines, but I wish there was a complete shooting viewing system.....looked like it might happen after Avatar, but did not last/