What's the Holdup With 3-D Monitors?
in [Basics]
|
Prev: NEC 870 for Lighting on the Web?
Next: Strange behavior driving a relay from a 555 time in monostable mode
From: herbzet on 10 Jun 2010 20:54 Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > 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? Nah, the place is littered with 'em already. But cereally, this is off-topic for sci.logic. Could y'all remove sci.logic from the list of ng's, as I have? Thanx. -- hz
From: Salmon Egg on 10 Jun 2010 21:47 In article <4C1105A9.4687BF21(a)hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <UncleAl0(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > Take a pair of movie 3-D glasses, walk into the bathroom, look into a > mirror, and close one eye. Look into the transparent lens and the eye > behind it. I have seen various versions of such glasses. Various 3-D exhibition systems can differ from one another. Looking at a METALLIC mirror can be surprising results. For example, light reaching the eye and getting scattered to the mirror will have a 50% loss of intensity loss with an ideal Polarioid linear polarizer. Ideally, after reflection from the mirror will not change the polarization state, and there will no additional loss in the Polaroid on the way back irrespective of the polarizer orientation. If you do want to see a real effect, take a polarizer sheet and place it in front of a cube corner. Rotate the polarizer and look. Use TIR cube corners and silvered corners and compare. Do the same with a porro prism. Al, predict what you will see before doing the experiment. Bill -- An old man would be better off never having been born.
From: Bret Cahill on 10 Jun 2010 21:53 > > > > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > > > > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > > . . . > > > > Take a pair of movie 3-D glasses, walk into the bathroom, look into a > > > mirror, and close one eye. Look into the transparent lens > > > It was assumed that newsgroups responders would be intelligent enough > > to figger out that _both_ lens would be polarized. > > > Bret Cahill > > DO THe EXPERIMENT, If you drink you can join the "Man Will Never Fly" Society in Kitty Hawk, NC. Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 10 Jun 2010 21:54 > yeah, that was a good idea, BC. It would be a better idea if everyone already had one. Bret Cahill
From: Jasen Betts on 11 Jun 2010 04:29
On 2010-06-10, Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. to do that you'd need to print the top polarizer directly over the LCD cells (instead of putting in on the outside of the display) and then overprint polariser in a checker-board or striped fashion with optically active substances to get the 90 or (+45 and -45) degree shifts I don't think polarisers can be printed. > 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 can be done by overlaying a bare liquid-crystal cell over the top polariser, and wearing cross-polarised glasses > It should also be easy to make stereo compatible with mono vision, if > only by just giving them one image. > The patents of inventions on 3D monitors seem to be making it more > complicated than what it needs to be. If you want to get rich find a way to cheaply fabricate a thin polarizer. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |