Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!pangea.Stanford.EDU!rick
From: rick@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Rick Ottolini)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Digital Holography
Message-ID: <1991May13.204436.28802@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 13 May 91 20:44:36 GMT
References: <1019.282B28FD@nwark.fidonet.org> <1991May10.235611.18365@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Lines: 17

In article <1991May10.235611.18365@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>This film (Star Wars) seems to be THE image of what we think holography might be.
>I hope not.  We have some fundamental human limitations with our
>eye balls.  Retinas are flat.  We need to look (no pun intended) at
>what we want in 3-D (and 4-D).  Things like depth cues, superposition
>information, etc.  But it fundamentally does not get rid of problems
>like hidden objects.  You can't see what's behind Leah, she obscures it.
>That's not good.  You won't be able to see behind that 3-D rendering of
>an oil reservoir without doing something else (head parallax, time
>varying (or not) cross-sections, etc.)  This costs is computation time,
>storage, etc.

I prefer to think of digital holography as a RENDERING method not a MODELING
method.  As rendering, we would compare DH to the current methods of lighting
models, etc. and the sensory sheaths of virtual reality. IHMO DH may be better.
As to modeling, I am not implying that DH has to be "realism".  We can pull
apart objects, create fantasties that are physically unrealizable.