Re: Anaglyph configuration

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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... 

Yes.  They sometimes forget that overall quality is even more important than
quality of the base-technology.  Beta's original version being able to 
record (unattended) only half of a movie with beautiful quality wasn't 
*real* quality at all.  The only quality that really counts is that 
which is both accessable and usable.  Things with "potential quality" are 
only good for what-if conversations.  :-)

In terms of standards between 3D-product companies, they probably
are *ALL* in favor of such standards (assuming they are like other
industries that I'm familiar with).  But it usually is the case that
each and every one of them are only in favor of standards if the
standards will specify the way *they* do things.  In practice,
this is a problem for companies that don't dominate.

So until somebody (or some way of doing things) has defacto
domination of the specific marketplace, then a standard is unlikely
to happen.  Sometimes standards groups will get together where
the "rule" in standards making is that the result will not match
*anybody's* current technology.  This *can* solve the impasse
problem, however this rule might be difficult in choosing if
red goes on the right or left.

Would purple on one side and green on the other work (and can
I assume nobody does it this way now)?  If so, it could be
proposed and maybe agreed upon by all parties because it
doesn't give the "other side" an "unfair" advantage.

Mike K.

P.S. -  Substitute some other color combination that nobody uses
        but would work.



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