Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:992 comp.sys.next:1242 comp.sys.mac:25055 alt.cyberpunk:1329
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!tekig5!danm
From: danm@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Daniel Milliron)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 3D display (Was: replacing the desktop metaphor)
Message-ID: <3670@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 89 21:15:40 GMT
References: <4362@pitt.UUCP> <257@gloom.UUCP> <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <47308@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 17

In article <47308@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald) writes:
> >A year ago, at MacWorld Expo SF, E-Machines was demonstrating an
> >experimental 3D monitor for the Mac II along these lines.
> 
> I've seen systems like this in actual use, and they work pretty well.

One known problem with 3-D displays that is noticed only by non-average
people is that the images are created/recorded assuming a particular eye-
spacing.  While my friends with average eye-spacing are impressed by 3-D
movies, I see them out of focus because my eyes are set slightly farther
apart than the norm (but not unattactively ;-), causing the left and right
images to blend incorrectly.  I know of no existing technical fix for
this phenomenon, but if, in the case of computer images, the 3-D image is
computed dynamically, then the eye-spacing could simply be an adjustable
parameter of the algorithm.

Dan Milliron