Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will
From: will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Digital Holography
Message-ID: <269@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp>
Date: 14 May 91 01:14:59 GMT
References: <1019.282B28FD@nwark.fidonet.org> <1991May10.235611.18365@nas.nasa.gov>
Organization: Ryukoku Univ., Seta, Japan
Lines: 32

In article <1991May10.235611.18365@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>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.
>
	Eugene, I completly disagree.  The fact that Leah is obscured is
	most important for graphics like scientific visualization.  Such
	as the oil reservoir problem.  If your computer can produce such
	an image it won't make any difference about the extra costs of
	computation time and data storage.  Other algorithms such as for
	transparency, etc will handle the rest.

>I still think we will need ball-and stick models, computer generated CAD-type
>3-D sculpture outputs, sounds, etc.  But, holography might be helped if
>optical benches, and analogy and digital optical computer were cheaper
>and available.  Computing one pixel or voxel at a time is inefficient.

	Agreed, ball and stick models will always have their place.


>I just don't think it will be the end-all of computer graphics.

	Also agreed, I don't think that holograms will be the end thing.  Their
	are so many ways that data must be shown for humans to get the most of
	it.  Besides, once the hologram problems are solved, we will most likly
	as is always the case find new methods as good or better.  Research is
	never ending.  There is always a place for new ideas.


						Will....