Re: staying on topic - How about monitors?

[John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 13:52:02 -0600
>From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)
>Subject: Re: staying on topic - How about monitors?

>I was wondering, should I go for a bigger monitor, say 17"?  You know,
>displaying stereo pairs is my primary interest... The different monitor
>sizes must be creating problems in freeviewing stereo pairs.  Is this
>correct?

That depends on whether you can persuade everyone who produces side-by-side
computer stereo images to produce cross-mounted versions. (If you can
persuade them, that would be a worthy accomplishment.)

The 3" images that permit parallel free viewing would be a terrible waste
on a 17" monitor, assuming you can produce them at all. Even the full
resolution of a 17" monitor is not too much for a stereo image. For parallel
viewing, it would be better to have a very small, very high resolution
monitor (ideally much less than .28mm dot pitch).

If you can cross-view at all, you can always move sufficiently far away
that convergence and keystoning are within acceptable limits.

Flatness of the display surface is likely to be useful. (Concave would be
even more useful for cross-viewing, but that might be hard to find.)

John R


------------------------------