Talk:Nimslo

Not true
'''The Nimslo was the first consumer based three dimensional lenticular shooting device of its kind. Prior to the Nimslo, no stereo camera had been mass marketed in over 30 years.'''

That statement is far from true! When the Nimslo was introducted it had been less than 30 years since the height of the 1950s stereo photography boom and less than ten years since production of the Stereo Realist ceased in 1971! John Elson (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that the above statement has been improved, however calling the Nimslo a lenticular camera is confusing. The camera has no lenticular components to it. I would call it a camera which is used to make lenticular prints. 67.40.135.177 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to mention that the article mentions lenticular camera, which isn't a thing. Camera designed to make lenticular prints, yes. And there is, otherwise, no need for more than two lenses for a stereo photographic system. Gah4 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to mention that the article mentions lenticular camera, which isn't a thing. Camera designed to make lenticular prints, yes. And there is, otherwise, no need for more than two lenses for a stereo photographic system. Gah4 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh?
 This is disputed, though both Nimslo and Nimstec have ceased trading as digital cameras have made the product obsolete.

That doesn't make any sense. Both Nimslo and Nishika ceased production before digital cameras became commonplace, and there is still no widely available digital equivalent to either camera. If by trading you mean being bought and sold (as used or NOS), check current Ebay listings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Elson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrections and additions
Starks didn't say when Nimslo was sold to Nishika, and it couldn't have been in the mid 90s since the Nishika user manual was copyright 1991. John Elson (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues
I've added the POV-check template to this article to get some more experienced eyes on it. What I see as problematic could be original research, inadequate citations, or bias or some combination thereof. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article sounds amateurish and seems only to exist for the purpose of bashing the product. Faulty as the camera may be, this article should approach the subject more neutrally, and use fewer loaded statements (and exclamation marks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.204 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which camera are you referring to? I didn't think anyone was Bashing the Nimslo and as for the Nishika, you can't really be honest about it without bashing it. It started out as a stripped down of a failed product that presented itself as an improvement, followed up with misleading marketing tactics that soon degenerated into fraud and the deception about both its features and its merits relative to other products continues to this day in the marketing of used and NOS units. John Elson (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The importance of the Nishika is that it was the first of many Nimslo Knockoffs.


 * Good Article. Not one bit encyclopedic though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.85.138 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you like this new version? John Elson ★ 3Dham ★  WF6I A.P.O.I. 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Image/Text Flow
Good images. Text/image flow needs editing for improved page layout. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)