What's the Holdup With 3-D Monitors?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple hack to get $500 to your home
Next: I request of NANA to expunge all Hughes posts where my name is at the bottom Re: An Ultrafinite Set Theory
From: herbzet on 10 Jun 2010 16:57 "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > > > > Why do you think sci.logic readers have any interest in polarized > > lenses? > > Don't feed the troll. LOL! You tell 'em, MT! -- hz sci.logic
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Jun 2010 20:02 herbzet wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > > > > > > Why do you think sci.logic readers have any interest in polarized > > > lenses? > > > > Don't feed the troll. > > LOL! > > You tell 'em, MT! If he won't eat his 'New & Improved Troll Chow ���', let him starve. ;-) -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: spudnik on 10 Jun 2010 20:13 yeah, that was a good idea, BC. > That's basically done : a lot of samsung LCD monitors are already > "stereo compatible" and use this polarization fact.
From: Bret Cahill on 10 Jun 2010 20:07 > > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > > If the orientation of each pixel could be changed back and forth > > quickly enough then both images could come from the same set of > > pixels. > > That's basically done : a lot of samsung LCD monitors are already > "stereo compatible" and use this polarization fact. It's not even > advertised. Not that I personally want it for anything besides CAD but it seems like the kind of thing that would really be a hot seller. > I'm not sure though what is the pattern of pixels and what polarization > is used (vertical/horizontal, diagonals, circular...). That would be easy to find out. > And to answer Giga2, there are indeed passive 3d monitors. Still > expensive and not very high resolution though. How would that work? Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 10 Jun 2010 20:07
> > It was assumed that newsgroups responders would be intelligent enough > > to figger out that _both_ lens would be polarized. > > Why do you think sci.logic readers have any interest in polarized > lenses? Would a self evident truth keep everyone happy? www.bretcahill.com |