Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bdaemon.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!bdaemon!carl From: carl@bdaemon.UUCP (carl) Newsgroups: net.periphs,net.research,net.graphics Subject: Re: volumetric displays Message-ID: <309@bdaemon.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 22:27:34 EDT Article-I.D.: bdaemon.309 Posted: Tue Oct 1 22:27:34 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:36:52 EDT References: <2@unc.unc.UUCP> <486@olivee.UUCP> <394@bbncc5.UUCP> <306@bdaemon.UUCP> <1793@brl-tgr.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Daemon Assoc., Boulder, CO Lines: 19 Xref: watmath net.periphs:878 net.research:244 net.graphics:1159 > > 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. Are rare instance when Doug misses the point. A stereoscopic display consisting of two 512-pixel square images is fine if all you want is a nice *static* picture of Granny in front of Old Faithful. However, a dynamic sequence showing Granny walking to the right spot, Old Faithful gurgling and spitting before finally starting to spout at full speed etc., etc. will require about 30 * 2 * 512 * 512 = 1.57 * 10 ^ 7 pixels per second if each pixel is either on or off and if we want to avoid excessive flicker. If we assume that 8 bits are needed for a decent gray scale, 1.26 * 10 ^ 8 bits per second are necessary, a fairly hefty bandwidth for a pretty crummy picture. Carl Brandauer:{allegra|amd|attunix|cbosgd|ucbvax|ut-sally}!nbires!bdaemon!carl Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com