Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!nelsun!srnelson From: srnelson@nelsun.Sun.COM (Scott R. Nelson) Newsgroups: comp.graphics Subject: Re: Stereo: some can't use; response Message-ID: <134252@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 10 Apr 90 20:33:11 GMT References: <10748@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Lines: 32 From article <10748@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - Product Assurance): > > The problem I find with stereo devices (aside from the flicker) is that > the eyes aren't focusing at the expected distance that the stereo view > would suggest (obviously), being fixed at the distance of the monitor > (or movie screen). This causes me extra eye strain; I wonder if others > have the same problem. Also, the stereo effect never looks totally 'natural', > probably for the same reason. Any comments? I find that if the object being viewed does not jump out of the screen, but appears to go back in, I don't get eye strain. Those who were fortunate enough to attend the 1989 Siggraph film festival will remember that Pixar's film "Knickknack" seemed much more natural than most of the other 3D films because it did not attempt to use extreme stereo effects such as having objects jump out of the screen at you. I found that the Pixar film looked very "natural" to me. If the image is antialiased, whether wireframe or solid, it causes less eye strain. This is much more important for wireframe objects since they have so many more edges than polygonal objects. Flicker is definitely a problem. Even those systems with 100Hz updates (50 Hz per eye) have apparent flicker. Technology will have to advance some more before this problem is solved. ----- Scott R. Nelson ARPA: srnelson@sun.com Sun Microsystems UUCP: !sun!srnelson "Proofread carefully to see if you words out."