On 06/04/07, Steven C. Barr(x) wrote:
> This is one of those things which, to me, sounds like
> "It should work, in theory..." but, IIRC, my dad never
> sprung for the 3D projector. Was there ever a ViewMaster
> equivalent made?
I think the Viewmaster projector was mono only.
>>> We're still waiting for an image/viewer format that will allow the
>>> display of true 3D images on existing computer monitors...!
>> Not on standard monitors, but there are monitors with
>> a lenticular screen as used on 3D postcards and "tilt
>> to see moving image" postcards (one vertical, the other
>> horizontal that can display stereo images without
>> glasses. There are also other technologies, such as
>> spinning LED displays, that can dispay what appear to
>> be solid images in three dimensions.
> Every time I've seen "3D" used in reference to computer images,
> it has referred to "video games"...and then to more-detailed
> images which could provide "fake 3D" through the use of more
> accurate shadow images. These images, of course, require larger
> files, as well as more effort on the part of the creators...
Yes. They use "3D" to mean "a 2D image with perspective". They would
call a painting by Canaletto "3D".
> So, what we need is something which can tell our left eye,
> "Okeh, this is what YOU see"...and the same for our right eye.
> Next step will be a way to code "touch" data and feed it into
> our brains...of course, right after that there will appear a way
> to digitize real objects by providing all the data on the type
> and exact locations of the atoms involved (as large as it may be,
> that is still a finite number...)
The number of atoms is finite, but their relative positions might need
specifying to an unlimited number of significant figures, if you want to
[log in to unmask]