Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!sjuvax!bbanerje
From: bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: 3d movies: does this make sense?
Message-ID: <310@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-May-84 18:39:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.310
Posted: Tue May 22 18:39:30 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 12:51:34 EDT
References: <2045@usceast.UUCP>
Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa.
Lines: 30

>> 
>>      The effect can be seen one eyed because information from both
>>      perspectives is present on the screen in alternating frames,
>>      thus with persistence of vision, the brain can reconstruct depth
>>      without input from the other eye.
>> 
>> This is such a simple idea that I suspect it must have been thought of
>> before.  Does anyone know if it has been tried with movies?  It seems
>> that it would be easy to implement : just have a camera with two lenses
>> and have them alternate in exposing frames.  The final product would
>> need no special equipment to project nor any headache inducing glasses to
>> view.
>> 
>> How about if folks? Would this work? Has it been done, or is the idea all wet

I saw a brief TV demo of this when it was first announced.  The
personal impressions were that -

	a)  Flickered far too much.
	b)  The 3-D effect was minimal.

As this was based on a 30 sec. clip (showing a cat climbing through
the window), I'm open to being shown otherwise.

Regards
-- 
				Binayak Banerjee
		{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje
P.S.
	Send Flames, I love mail.