arliec@tekig.UUCP (Arlie Conner) (06/02/84)
I might be classified as an afficionado of 3D, probably not an expert, so take what you get- Firstly, attempts have been made at 3D displays, both moving and still for over two centuries, and a summary of the early stuff is not too realistic. The major developments led to the current 3D movie technologies, holography, and several wonderful contrap- tions with enormous cuteness and very little practicality. I did enjoy the Eastman-Kodak exhibit at EPCOT Center very much; it consists of a 3D movie which you must view with *polarized* glasses. This is the most viable system for mass viewing, and it has excellent dimensionality (reality?) as well as a notable absence of side-effects (as opposed to drugs ::=}} ). I'm not much a fan of the red/green or red/blue glasses, although it is supposedly possible to use these with a TV, and a single projector is sufficient. I recall getting a headache trying to watch one of these a while back and I don't think I was able to synthesize the 3D effect at all. Maybe I had the glasses on inside- out... A couple of television systems have been proposed recently- two that I've heard sketchy details about suggest compatibility with NTSC (which will prevent me from being too excited at any rate) and seem to make use of perceptual tricks (alluded to earlier) such as the ability of the brain to ignore the left-eye image coming into the right eye, and vice-versa. A fairly reasonable quality display has been developed by a S.Cal. company whose name escapes me at the moment, based on a vibrating mirror (actually mounted above a large woofer, and forced to oscillate at thirty Hertz, if I recall correctly). The first versions were monochrome; color is possible, but the writing-rate requirements favor a very high speed CRT, since each 'layer' of the image must be written in a short amount of time (the depth is created by time-multiplexing the image-planes). Naturally, MIT has a fine alternative with two CRTs, and a special headset which must be calibrated to the user (you must'nt move your head either) but upon which you can paint and draw in true 3D! This I saw demonstrated, including the 6-degree of freedom 'space-light- pen' (wrong name, but descriptive nevertheless) sensor gizmo which was used as the drawing/painting implement. As for the advent of 3D holography, I'm not holding my breath. It's not feasible to make holographic plates the size of a theatre screen, for starters. Holograms the size of 70mm film are not very exciting, unless you get very close. EVEN the Russian-made true-holographic film which lasted 5 minutes and cost many thousands was only visible by one viewer (subject matter was tropical fishtank, I believe) and was of course green throughout. Holography is not the way to do this kind of stuff, for many reasons. As a simple philosophical/physics question, consider the ideal 3D projection system: How many viewpoints are really necessary to a) create the illusion of three dimensions, b) allow the viewer to see different points of view as he moves his head about in the 'theatre', c) completely disorient the viewer and cause him/her to suspend their disbeliefs, i.e. lose touch with the arm- chair and spill their popcorn? Viewpoints can be thougth of as eyes, cameras, CCD arrays, or even holographic cameras, for the sake of answering the question posed. Hope this partially answered the musings upon 3D, send any new developments along for my scrapbooks, Arlie Conner !tekig!arliec P.S. Did you know that humans do not develop stereo-spatial perception until about six months of age; a Bell Labs researcher provided con- ving study to show that the brain must learn to see in 3D.