Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:4265 rec.arts.tv:8525
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc10!cs161agc
From: cs161agc@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (John Schultz)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,rec.arts.tv
Subject: ShowScan
Keywords: TV 3-D graphic
Message-ID: <72@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 89 22:02:30 GMT
References: <3230@datapg.MN.ORG> <3047@pixar.UUCP> <41153818.16321@apollo.COM> <3069@pixar.UUCP>
Reply-To: cs161agc@sdcc10.ucsd.edu.UUCP (John Schultz)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 23

In article <3069@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.uucp (Go ahead.  Make my day.) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>...there's nothing they can do to get information to you at a
>faster rate.  (On the other hand, ShowScan, a film process, *can* do that.
>And it's a lot better than 3-D.)
>		--Craig

  I saw ShowScan at the Reuben H. Fleet Space theater; it was
incredible to say the least.  Some women in front of us were crying
because the view of the mountain ranges was so breathtaking. It
really stimulates the brain.  They stated that they couldn't do a
film like Predator in ShowScan as it would be too powerful of an
effect for people with health problems.  At 60 frames of new
information a second, very large reels are needed for ShowScan
films.  They stated that is would cost on the order of ~$100,000 to
convert a theater to ShowScan.  The only change to the screen is to
make the whole front of the theater the screen.
  I wonder if they have tried ShowScan in 3D [120 frames/sec, 60 per
eye]. To date, that would be the ultimate...


  John Schultz