Re: Anaglyph configuration

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:59:27 -0500
>From: P3D William Carter  <wc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Anaglyph configuration

>I have a nice pair of glass Bauch and Lombs, left over from the old
>anaglyphic aerial mapping days. Red left, cyan right. The only improvement I
>could imagine being made would be if they were dichroic. 
>Now I'm asked to go to Wendy's so I can instead use some cheapo cellophane.
>...I see no other reason
>for the de-evolution of what has long ago become a standard. Should we next
>fue fdwwyo g avrtn#
>    ygkkrd gydfn

A "standard", but supported by what organization? This gets back to my comment
of a few weeks ago that as long as none of the 3D organizations is willing
to put in any effort into defining some standards, chaos will reign supreme
in 3D.

Note that even voluntary standards can provide a motive for conformance, as
long as they're clearly defined and the name of an organization with some
reasonable degree of continuity is attached. As it is now, the 3D community
is relying on "de facto" standards, some of which do not have universal
consensus, and expecting everybody entering the field to somehow determine
which is the "correct" version. That seems to work tolerably well for
something like the 5-perf format and mounting (or is there a written
specification somewhere?), but poorly for cases like anaglyph, Pulfrich,
etc. where there are several choices that work about equally well.

John R


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2031
***************************
***************************
 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 sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************