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