Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.graphics Subject: Re: Stereo Picture TV Message-ID: <5760@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 19:45:06 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5760 Posted: Sat Jul 6 19:45:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 19:45:06 EDT References: <8794@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 21 If 3D movies don't sell consistently well (and they don't: 3D movies are a periodic fad, with no obvious staying power), then there is no reason to expect the heroic efforts (new standards, etc.) that would be needed to achieve 3D TV. TV is also at a considerable disadvantage due to its (usually) small screen and close viewing distance -- 3D TV would give you a choice of six-inch people (between you and the screen) or a rather narrow field of view (behind the screen, which then functions as a porthole). There is also a persistent technical problem, in that the 3D image one gets from orthodox techniques (like polarization) has some tendency to produce mild eyestrain. The difficulty is that it requires viewers to vary the convergence of their eyes (which is a function of how near the objects appear to be) independently of the focus of the eyes (which is a function of how far away the light-emitting screen is). Most people are not used to this, and I am told that it gets uncomfortable after a while. (Either I don't have a problem with it, or I've never watched 3D material for long enough to run into trouble.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry