P3D Re: VM and Kids, inter-whatever

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Talbot wrote
> I pulled out my standard-issue red VM viewer to supply the info Bruce
> requests and find: a) wearing glasses: it requires quite a bit of care
> to align the viewer with my eyes for maximum 3-D effect.  On several
> "quick look" evaluations, I noticed I was losing about 1/3 of one of
> the images.  Careful fine-tuning got it down to just some darkening
> of two corners.  b) without glasses:  I *think* I can see all of
> both images, but they are too blurry to really say for sure.

Yes, about what we would expect, right?  Not to be too personal, but
what is the Talbot IPD, exactly?  (You can whisper it to me off-list
if you like. ;-) )

(snipping slightly)
> I suspect the 3-D effect can be seen even with a very small IPD.  But
> if the object were toward the side of the image, it could go in and
> out of 3-D as the observer shifted the viewer side-to-side trying to
> get the proper alignment.

That can't be very satisfying.  I'm wondering if the narrow limit of
VM viewability is not as small as we were guessing.  If I wanted to
know VM's official opinion on this, where would I look? 

Isn't shifting the viewer from one eye to the other what Chuck Fielddd
said his sonny was doing?  I suppose if he could repeat the cycle 24
time a second, persistence of vision would take over and he would see
full frame VM 3D just fine.  ;-) ;-)

BS
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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