Re: Finding cancer with 3D (not for the squeamish)

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 12 May 1997
>From: P3D Paul Talbot writes:
>..............
>The following "clues" are available:  a) the article describes the new
>procedure as "virtual reality."  Without trying to start a big debate as
>to what is commonly meant by a term, I took VR to imply stereoscopic.
>But the article also states the Doc would look at the "3D" images on a
>computer screen.  This suggests 2-1/2D...but LCS glasses *could be*
>involved.
>
>The use of the term VR could have been journalistic sloppiness and/or
>sensationalism, so Gabriel is probably right that the imaging is 2-1/2D.
>Gabriel, how did you conclude the procedure is not stereoscopic?  Anyone
>know anything definitive?
>

VR definitely does NOT connote stereoscopic! The web is full of references
to VR that is essentially flat. Virtual reality is that reality you become
aware of through artificial means. It's anything you may experience inside
your head, not directly associated with a solid environment. That includes
reading books as well as surfing the web. Some VR does in fact use
stereoscopic instruments because people do have two eyes and the result is
more *immersive*. Such stereo things are not part of the definition of VR
itself. Yes, the doctor could have used LCS systems to view stereoscopically
but if the writer didn't report seeing such devices, the chances are that
they were in fact referring to 2 1/2 D out of ignorance.

Their mention of 3D is based on the idea that the doctor can at will go and
observe different sides of what is seen. His view is likely a 2D view, but
by moving around he can observe other sides. This wouldn't be possible in a
typical Xray or sonogram. His computer holds a 3D environment, but his
monitor is limited to a 2D viewpoint at any given time.

Larry Berlin

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


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