File formats (JPS) and Electronics (Interlaced, etc.) Issues

[P3D <URBANIC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I usually try to refrain from posting here about comparisons between other
systems and Neotek's, because it really is an apple-and-oranges situation to
compare $99 video-game oriented glasses and educational equipment.  Of
course our image quality is vastly superior, but our basic system also costs
three times as much.  However, in light of the confusion that this discussion
has raised, I hope that some of our Web pages might prove useful
(www.neotek.com), in particular our 3D Theory pages:

                      http://www.neotek.org/3dtheory.htm 

I can't help but interject on a few points that have been discussed.
Interlace, by definition, uses only the odd or even lines for the left or
right field.  So, if you look at one field, there will be blank lines between
each line, cutting down on brightness.  As LCS systems already sacrifice
50% of the light to the shutter, and as the cheaper systems add in dark lens
filters to help reduce flicker, this results in an exceptionally murky image.

As we choose synch-doubling for our products (although this requires a fairly
expensive video processor previously referred to as the "black box"), I feel
I must correct the one point listed in the "disadvantages" column of a
previous poster's summary.  Synch-doubling, by moving the real-time processing
to external electronics, is the only system that is really Windows compatible
at this point in time.  All of our software has always been completely
compatible (no video drivers required) with Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and 
Windows NT.  We don't actually have a DOS product as we rely on Window's
multi-media features.  All LCDBios based-systems (and all of the video-game
glasses are) must be run under DOS.  This means that none of them will ever
work under Windows NT, which is rapidly arriving as the standard.  NT can not
provide the real-DOS mode required.  Even systems that use a custom
interlaced mode video driver to work under Widows 95 (and I am sure many of
you can provide driver installation horror stories), will not be able to do
so under Windows NT/Direct3D.  Synch-doubling, by remaining outside the video
system, allows users to use their manufacturer's recommended drivers and to
upgrade them as recommended to take advantage of nifty things like DirectX
and Direct3D as the hardware and software technology progresses.  And let's
face it, the 2D world still dominates, so you want to be able to use these
advances.  I don't want to be a bore here, but I did want to point out that
calling the only system that runs on _all_ windows platforms (as a real
32-bit Windows application) windows-unfriendly was a bit unfair.

I will close the discussion with this: Stereographics and 3DTV Corporation,
the only two long-established companies in LCS both carry all three types of
technology: Synch-doubling, page-flipping and interlace.  If you call either
company and tell them that you are a serious user and require high quality,
they will both direct you at their synch-doubling products (CrystalEyes versus
the page-flip/interlace SimulEyes in Stereographic's case) without hesitation.
There will be no other discussion regarding tradeoffs.  It is simply a matter
of whether you can afford the price of the video-processor.  All government
and industrial systems use this technology (I'm sure you've all noticed
CrystalEyes on PBS or in science magazines).  Likewise, in our main market
(education), we have never had a competitor.  No university or high-school is
going to use a flickery system that causes students to get headaches if they
use it for hours.  You may or may not believe that we honestly choose synch-
doubling because of quality reasons, but I think our above competitors pretty
much make the case for it since they carry all options and their unabashed
high-end products are synch-doubling.  3DTV's latest and greatest, their
impressive DVD based stereo-movie system is based on synch-doubling.

On a differant topic, when we started developing stereo materials we could
find no file format that we thought adequately addressed stereo issues.
Everything was a concession to existing 2D requirements.  We needed a format
where one user could set a parallex (window/registration/whatever) that suited
their needs and display environment, while another user/author/viewer might
want to change those parameters completely.  This isn't an issue in 2D imagery.
So, we created a format that includes alignment and cropping information and
does not destroy any of the original left or right image in the process.  You
can go back and re-window any image without getting weird border problems,
or permanently cutting off border information.  This is just not an option
with any 2D standards.  And since Version 1.0, we have used feedback from
publishers to add in additional features, such as an indelible and encrypted
copyright and author stamp that, once-attached, is always a part of the
file.  So, you can post your images to the Web or on a Web-ring and be certain
that, no matter where the file ends up, your attribution will always be there.
Since we developed this for our customers, we really aren't pushing for this
to become a standard (our software allows all normal formats to be converted),
but I would suggest that you folks, as a community, get some input into
whatever standards are emerging so that they actually incorporate some stereo
features.  If you want to look at our file format features, take a look at:

                        http://www.neotek.org/neo.htm

Boy, this got long.  I guess I've been holding my breath too long so that no
one would accuse me of crass commercial promotion.  I hope you found something
informative in this as we've found this group a intersting source of ideas
(including some of the .neo format features mentioned above), and many of
our customers have been pointed to the archives for photography pointers.

John Urbanic


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