Re: Anaglyph configuration

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 1 May 1997
>From: P3D John W Roberts writes:
>...................
>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"..................

*****  In the VHS vs. Beta issue there were real and obvious differences
between the two *standards*. VHS became the preferred standard for some
rather simple reasons, which surprisingly Sony never caught on to. VHS
offered longer play times per cassette and significantly more special
features on the playback machines. Sony seemed only able to make a claim for
higher quality. What ever happened to higher quality plus all the features?
Why build something that provides quality but leave out the usefulness of
the extra features? Seemed dumb at the time and it still looks that way. Too
often companies seem to make their decisions in some strange kind of
netherworld vacuum... 

Anaglyphic issues have no inherent physical or other properties that
determine one configuration is better than another, unless you can prove
that one eye is more or less sensitive to red or blue colored light for any
significant % of the audience. Any effort to actually standardize such a
thing becomes completely an arbitrary imposition, which becomes hard to
enforce or justify. There is need to standardize the newer LCS systems
though because there are physical, software, hardware and technical reasons
for one vs. another. In addition to which the investment for both
manufacturers and their customers is much larger than for anaglyphic
glasses. They who are most comprehensive with the features and successful in
meeting the desires of the audience will come out on top. (There's room for
more than one at the top!!!)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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