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 be accurate. ;-) Regards -- Don Cox [log in to unmask]