Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.periphs,net.research,net.graphics
Subject: Re: volumetric displays
Message-ID: <1793@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 14:22:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1793
Posted: Sun Sep 29 14:22:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:03:25 EDT
References: <2@unc.unc.UUCP> <486@olivee.UUCP> <394@bbncc5.UUCP> <306@bdaemon.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.periphs:874 net.research:240 net.graphics:1152

> Obviously, resolution is a function of the third power of the bandwidth ...

That's not obvious at all.  Once you get near the eye's resolving
ability, further improvement buys nothing.  Not only that, but very
effective stereoscopy has been done with two 512-pixel square images;
pixel-to-pixel coherence makes the depth resolution argument less
significant.

Interesting point:  It was reported in the 1950's (when stereo
photography was popular) that something like 30% of adults have
defective binocular depth cueing.  Perhaps this helps explain why
stereoscopy keeps failing to catch on with the general public
(eyestrain brought on by defective techniques didn't help, either).


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com