P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:15:07 -0700
>From: Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

>>>Researchers claimed that the pattern *cannot* be seen without a stereoscope.

How long have medical practitioners been using free viewing of X-ray
photographs for diagnosis? 

>So why the separation of so much time between the
>DIRD and the SIRD? They are exactly the same phenomenon, discoverable in the
>same 30 minutes of work.... 

You seem to be implying that the mathematical algorithm for the derivation of
a SIRDS is intuitively obvious given the knowledge of the DIRDS, and that it
requires only a minor modification of the DIRDS algorithm. What are the
algorithms used for DIRDS and SIRDS, and how do they differ?

I knew about DIRDS years before I encountered SIRDS, and the idea of SIRDS
sure didn't seem obvious to me. I was also aware of "wallpaper" type
stereograms, but they don't necessarily tell you much about the behavior
of a SIRDS that depicts a *non-repeating* stereo image (which is the case
for most SIRDS).

It's popular nowadays to look back at some discovery and say, "ah yes, how
obvious - people must have been stupid or blind not to realize that earlier"
(not to imply your statement was quite that strong). I feel that doing this
unfairly belittles the effort that went into the development of knowledge
and technology. Our ancestors got into all sorts of predicaments that we
could easily solve given our greater knowledge - as a single example, it
appears to have taken centuries to figure out that maybe bloodletting wasn't
a great all-purpose cure. Leonardo da Vinci had brilliant ideas, but they
came from the starting point of the knowledge of his time - he didn't get
as far as unified field theories and microprocessors. Mathematical
expertise also evolves over time. 

>You're missing some obvious points in the effort to make your point. For one
>thing, if dreamers had to work against the measure of such absurd concepts
>as *competitive cost*, we would be still living in caves and rubbing sticks
>together for fire. 

In the display field, if competitive cost were an issue, we'd still mostly
have CRTs rather than flat panels on our desktops, and LCDs would still be
the dominant flat panel technology. :-)

But seriously, in the creation and evolution of an idea, there comes a point
where it has to establish a niche for itself, which often means competing
with an already-existing approach which is far more advanced and developed.
It is *not* necessarily a good idea to subject a new idea to this level of
scrutiny at the instant of its creation - the concept of "brainstorming" is
that one avoids inhibiting the creative process, by soliciting and uncritically
recording a large number of ideas (which are scrutinized *after* the
brainstorming session. That was my main criticism of George's attacks on your
recommendation that we look for new ideas - to use a racing analogy, it
sounded like he was saying we should catch the horses at the starting gate
and turn them into dog food, because of the possibility that they might not
have won the race.

As I mentioned earlier, in order to be considered successful, an idea
must establish a niche for itself at some point in time. George emphasized
the short-term business case (can I start manufacturing it right now, and
can it beat out the competition for some currently existing application, and
make me lots of money). But I don't believe that's the *only* way of looking
at it. Some additional factors to consider:
- An idea might not be competitive now, but further development or future
  conditions (a new need, loss of an existing resource, change in fashion,
  etc.) might make it worthwhile. Active development might or might not
  be worthwhile at present, but it may be useful to keep it in mind.
- Financial success isn't the only criterion for success. If an idea
  advances the field of 3D, that may be a benefit in itself. As an example,
  distributing instructions by which readers can build or improve their own
  viewers can increase the availability of good 3D to many people.
- A successful idea still has to provide some benefit over what's already
  available. Plans for a viewer that's very difficult to construct, costs
  $500 to build and is very inferior to the Red Button wouldn't be much use
  to anybody.
- One of the more subtle benefits a new idea might have for 3D: a lot of the
  3D equipment now in use is in finite supply, and is no longer being
  manufactured. Just increasing the amount of 3D equipment available can have
  some advantages in the long run.
- Another possible benefit for a 3D idea is if it greatly increases the number
  of people who are involved in 3D, thus growing the market, and increasing the
  incentive to innovate.
- Marketing of 3D is important for development of ideas, and as an idea in
  itself.

John R


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