Re thought provoking or stupid

[P3D Peter Homer <P.J.Homer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck Field asks "Why cant someone make a hologram of a lenticular screen
and use that to give ridge-free lenticular 3-D images?" Although it would
be ridge free (actualy holograms have microscopic ridjes) physicaly it
would still be as coarse as the original opticaly. An idea I had myself was
to make the screens from the simplest type of hologram a holographic
grating. Made by splitting the beam in two and then recombining them on the
plate without either one going to any object . This should produce a simple
interference pattern and if the  light is polarised (many lasers are anyway
) it would just consist of parralel lenticulars which could be as small as
1/2 the wavelenth of the light used provided the emulsion is capable of
this sort of resolution. Even if they had to be made much larger by
allowing the beams to travel further to the plate they could still be well
below the resolution of the human eye which is about 1/4 mm at minimun
distance of distinct vision of about 25cm .
 This could then be mass produced by the embossing method used for the
holograms you see on magazines etc and coated with conventional emulsion on
the back. Exposure would be made through the lenticles as developed by
Nimslo etc developed and a protective backing put on. There is a tendency
to diffract light with this material producing a rainbow effect but this
has already been largely solved by te manafacturers of holograms . An
unscrupulous person might emphasise the "holographic" technology in such a
process in order to convince people it enabled them to take there own
snapshot holograms in full colour but they would still actualy only be
lenticular stereograms hopefully of better quality.

                                                                 P.J.Homer



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