P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3588

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Ronald Beck <ronald-beck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


>Actually, I saw an ad for "TV glasses".  They're LCD glasses that, when
>worn, give the viewer the effective viewing size of a 56" rear
>projection TV.  As memory serves me, they were quite expensive (arount
>$900.00).  But, the technology's there.
>
>Now, I can't vouch for the clarity of the picture.  Nor can I be sure
>there's a left and right viewing channel which would be ideal for our
3D
>use.


Anything developed for video will never, in our lifetime, achieve the
image quality of a good film transparency.  Even with HDTV on the
horizon (where it's been for at least 10 years), we are talking maybe
1024x768 resolution.  (Current state-of-the-art video technology
achieves more like 640x480, your average television maybe half that on a
good day.)  TV video resolution is a joke compared even with mid-range
consumer digital still cameras.  A 35mm slide's theoretical resolution
is more like 6144x4096.  Even allowing that such resolution is rarely
achieved due to imperfections in the camera and taking conditions, a
good slide is still ~3x better than what's supposed to be coming, some
day, if the powers-that-be can ever decide on a broadcast standard.
Now, NTSC came in sometime in the late 1940s.  HDTV might appear in
2000.  That's 60 years for about a 2x improvement.  I won't be around
for the next 2x improvement, if they keep to that schedule.

>I can forsee a day when we'll watch "tv" through glasses like this with
>the receiver beaming our show to our headset wherever we are in the
>house.  I can also forsee a "translucency" switch so you can either
view
>the show or see "through" the view to the scene around you.


I can foresee a day when electronic images are produced directly in our
visual cortex by induction.  I wonder what "too much depth" will mean
then?  ;-)

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)