Pulfrich vs "true" stereo

[P3D Marvin Jones <Campfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>      It is unfortunate that a group as influential as the readers of an=
d
> contributors to the photo-3d mailing list and 3D Frequently Asked
> Questions file are so enthusiastic about the use of the Pulfrich Effect=

> on television. It would seem apparent that bandwidth would better be
> spent attempting to convince television networks and producers to use
> the available and true stereoscopic techniques.

I can't say I have noticed this unbridled enthusiasm over the Pulfrich
effect here, but the simple truth is that, given the technical limitation=
s
of NTSC television and the need for mass-disseminated broadcasts to be
viewable by everyone, with or without special equipment, Pulfrich is abou=
t
the only game in town. As ABC viewers know, anaglyph simply looks like
garbage when broadcast. That's a fact of life. It always has and it alway=
s
will. Alternate field images are incompatible with FCC rules because they=

require expensive decoders. This pretty much leaves Pulfrich which, for a=
ll
its many admitted limitations, can produce a startling and impressive
stereo image under the proper conditions. And despite the sniffy comment
about "true" stereo, the Pulfrich image is every bit as "true" stereo as
any slide pair shot with the "rock and roll" method. As was well describe=
d
in the above letter, it sends to different perspectives of an image to th=
e
brain which are fused into an illusion of stereo -- it doesn't get any
"truer" than that.


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