Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: Stereo Picture TV
Message-ID: <11386@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 14:29:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11386
Posted: Fri Jul  5 14:29:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 06:02:14 EDT
References: <8794@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 22

> When is somebody going to come out with a good stereo picture tv system?
> 
> ...
> 	
> There is still the inconvenience of having to wear polarized glasses, but
> it seems like a small price to pay. Ditto for the extra bandwidth required
> to send twice as many images for the same picture quality.
> 
>    Maybe it will have to wait until after the high resolution tv standard
> is developed and in place.

I'm a big fan of 3-D (stereo or holographic) imaging.
However, you're not going to see much stereoscopy in commercial
video because people do not like to wear goggles.  Also, about 30%
of the general population seems to get nothing out of stereo
pictures; I don't know whether this is due to eye dominance or what.

Stereoscopy puts high demands on resolution, so you should definitely
use high-definition video for it.  Unfortunately, if no provisions
are made for the second channel in the basic specs, it will be too
much trouble for broadcasters and tape/disk producers to hassle with
(remember AM-FM stereo simulcasts?).