Viewing System of Choice

[P3D Jonathan R. Gross <catalyst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  David Hutchison (<DavidH8083@xxxxxxx>) recently posted:
> 
> >    I would vote for the Polaroid version, since the LCD version suffers
> >    from the sync problems inherent to field sequential display systems.
> >    The problem manifests itself with that well-known distortion of rapid
> >    action in which fast-moving lateral action breaks up into a kind of
> >    apparent "watery ripple". I find it very annoying.  Others are less
> >    bothered by it.

First of all, I agree with the recent P3D postings that differentiate
between LCD (Displays) typically used in Head Mounted Displays (HMDs),
and LCS (Shutter) glasses used with frame sequential systems.  The above
referenced" LCD version" actually should be "LCS version."

Secondly, the statement "sync problems inherent to field sequential
display systems" is representative of the confusion that many people
have about the new stereo technologies.  Sync problems are no more
inherent in field sequential display systems than poor image quality is
inherent in photography.  If the first color photograph you ever saw
were a fuzzy print from a Brownie Instamatic, you might assume that
color photography was a weak technology.  The confusion is between the
technique (technology) and the product (design). The problem is that
many frame sequential systems use designs that are constrained, for
various reasons, in the maximum refresh rate that can be used.  Anything
less than 100 fields per second (50 pairs per second) is going to be
consciously acceptable to only about 20% of the general population, and
annoying to about 80% of the population.  Obviously David Hutchison is
part of the 80%.  Unfortunately, extended viewing of Frame Sequential
Displays showing less that 100 Fields per second are also unconsciously
(precognitively) stressful to most of the population.  Anyone who has
tolerated Frame Sequential INTERLACED video at 60 fields per second can
attest to that.  At 100 frames per second and above, frame sequential
displays are acceptable to almost all of the general population with
only a small fraction perceiving stressful, unconscious flicker. 

At about 120 frames per second, a wonderful effect occurs;  the flicker
normally associated with frame sequential systems and "flicker glasses"
goes away for almost the entire population, both consciously and
unconsciously.  It is a phenomenon similar to the one discovered early
in this century for the cinema; almost nobody sees flicker in
(monoscopic) movies shown at 24 frames per second and above.

Of course, its not quite as simple as just flashing the images a lot
faster, although that seems to be the single largest factor.  There are
also other issues having to do with image persistence, display phosphors
(when using CRTs), light intensity, color saturation, contrast, and
dynamic range, but those are some of the issues addressed that separate
a system with adequate (minimal) design from a system with superior
(innovative) design.


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1817
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************