Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bdaemon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!bdaemon!carl
From: carl@bdaemon.UUCP (carl)
Newsgroups: net.periphs,net.research,net.graphics
Subject: Re: volumetric displays
Message-ID: <309@bdaemon.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 22:27:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: bdaemon.309
Posted: Tue Oct  1 22:27:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:36:52 EDT
References: <2@unc.unc.UUCP> <486@olivee.UUCP> <394@bbncc5.UUCP> <306@bdaemon.UUCP> <1793@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Daemon Assoc., Boulder, CO
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.periphs:878 net.research:244 net.graphics:1159

> > Obviously, resolution is a function of the third power of the bandwidth ...
> 
> That's not obvious at all.  Once you get near the eye's resolving
> ability, further improvement buys nothing.  Not only that, but very
> effective stereoscopy has been done with two 512-pixel square images;
> pixel-to-pixel coherence makes the depth resolution argument less
> significant.

Are rare instance when Doug misses the point.  A stereoscopic display
consisting of two 512-pixel square images is fine if all you want is a nice
*static* picture of Granny in front of Old Faithful.  However, a dynamic
sequence showing Granny walking to the right spot, Old Faithful gurgling
and spitting before finally starting to spout at full speed etc., etc. will
require about 30 * 2 * 512 * 512 = 1.57 * 10 ^ 7 pixels per second if each
pixel is either on or off and if we want to avoid excessive flicker.  If we
assume that 8 bits are needed for a decent gray scale, 1.26 * 10 ^ 8 bits per
second are necessary, a fairly hefty bandwidth for a pretty crummy picture.

Carl Brandauer:{allegra|amd|attunix|cbosgd|ucbvax|ut-sally}!nbires!bdaemon!carl