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?).