Re: Anaglyph configuration

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:11:41 -0500
>From: P3D William Carter  <wc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re:  Anaglyph configuration

>John W Roberts writes:
>>>A "standard", but supported by what organization?

>And Jim Crowell adds:
>>This is exactly the problem.  For example, all of the clinical testing
>>anaglyph glasses that I've seen have red over _right_...

>I will assume you meant for that to be given as an example of the "exception
>to the rule", "the rule" being red left/cyan right. It's been "the rule" in
>most (if not all) publications, and until next week, all films and
>professionally manufactured photo systems that I am aware of. 

There was a discussion on P3D in February of a number of films that were made
with red on the right.

>And, it will
>remain that way, being it has been the de facto standard for decades.

A de facto standard for this kind of thing is useful if the end goal is to
have grounds to gripe when it's violated.

Note that a standard doesn't necessarily exclude all but one option - the first
goal is to clarify the nomenclature. VHS and Beta coexisted in the consumer
marketplace for a number of years, each with its own standard. All it took
to minimize confusion was that the type (VHS or Beta) be specified for each
transaction. Similarly for audio CDs and analog audio tapes - when you go
to buy some recorded music you specify which format you want, without
expecting the dealer to know that one or the other is the "de facto standard".

If you can make a legitimate case (i.e. with evidence) that one implementation
is preferable to another for technical or historical reasons, then it's
reasonable to include in a standard a statement such as "Option A is
recommended for all new implementations".

>I guess the only advantage to setting a more defined standard would be as a
>defense against the small time huckster, who smells his profit in scaming
>products which exist only because they won't integrate with extant systems.

Does that mean you're for it, or agin' it?

Since you have more money invested in red/left anaglyph technology than most
of us (the non-reversible glasses), I would think you would have more interest
in a set of standards that people are actually going to pay attention to.
With the increasing prominence of digital 3D, real standards are going to
be even more worthwhile.

John R


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