Re: 3-D ink

[P3D Bob Wier <wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Jim Roberts writes:
>"Regarding the stereo print, I suppose that if one gave up any hope of
>viewing the print without polarizers, that it would not be too 
>difficult,..."
>
>I'm pretty sure that's how it would work. You'd have to view the print 
>with polarized glasses. Unless, of course, the image had been shot in 
>Single Lens 3-D.
>
>>Or you could put a continuously rotating plarizer over the light
>>source & get a moving picture!
>>
>>-Jim C.
>
>What a great idea!

I think that the "Polarizer over the light trick" was used by
a Fort Worth TV Station (WBAP - one of the early birds in broadcasting -
supposedly the call stands for "We Bring A Program"). This would have
been late 60's or early 70's.

There were arrows and other symbols used on a weather map (painted
on a wall) which had some kind of polarized
reflective surface material. Apparently
there was some kind of combination of polarizers used on the light
source/tv camera which rotated. When viewed on TV you got the effect
of alternating light and dark bands moving across the object. It was
used to denote direction of movements of fronts and so forth. Actually
it was pretty effective. Occasionally I'd see other things doing a 
cyclic lightening/darkening (perhaps once a second) which were producing
some kind of polarization and inadvertantly  being picked up by the camera
(like highlights on a desk or something).

I havn't seen that used for some time, though, with the switch over
to computer graphics boxes.

THANKS

   -------- Bob Wier ----- wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----
  East Texas State University Computer Science Dept.
   keeper of the Motorola MC68HC11, ICOM Radio, and
   Overland-Trails mailing lists and the LDS Genealogy
                     State Research Outlines 
         "Congress - n. - the antonym of Progress"



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