RE: 3D SPEX (and LCS in general)

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997
>From: P3D Andrew Woods writes:
>
>Firstly I'd like to say that I like all 3D-PC systems (interlaced, page
>flipping, sync doubling) because they all offer 3D.  
>However, each system has it's pros and cons.  One system may be easier than
>another in a particular application, and yet more difficult in another
>application.  Choosing the BEST system will depend upon an individual's
>requirements and budget.  Why does is this starting to sound like the
>Realist vs. ..... debate?

*****  Thanks for the message of moderation. At the risk of chewing on my
foot some more I will try to clarify. My comments were not aimed at any
specific product but at the technology. I too appreciate ANY method that
provides a stereoscopic experience. However, both interlacing and half
height images will one day be relics of this technologically difficult time
(for stereo). I've seen all these systems in action and as far as I can tell
they are all of high quality workmanship and all that. However, certain
factors dictated by previous technical insufficiencies are inherently
undesirable in the larger sense, and should be dropped as better pathways
are made obvious, and the opportunity exists to go beyond them.

During the process (and time) of surpassing previous limits, older
technology still exists and gets used, creating the need for systems that
still use interlacing or half height images. That doesn't in any way make
those methods any more ideal in a total sense, just in a temporary
application specific sense. I'm happy they exist and I'll use them if and
when I have to, but I won't fool myself into thinking they are an ideal
method. All of today's systems have lots of room for improvement and some
technical band-aid solutions should not be considered as tomorrow's staple
methods.

Larry Berlin

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


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