Yep, but that's what I wanted to see, if it could be worked around the
shutter glasses type thing.  I mean, gee, why doesn't the mind filter it
across in a way where if it looks left-sided or right-sided shouldn't you
think it actually is?  Of course I only tried a few frame rates for this and
the slower rates were just plain ugly, faster and it looked like one merged
image.  It just wasn't meant to be.

Bob

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:baw5OHqzGN5I5a6aYCh9wcgVUwiz@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:18:21 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >I attempted the field rendering of left and right eye images when I first
> >tried out 3D stereopairs in the hopes ones brain would take over and do
the
> >work of shifting sides.  Well my brain sure can't anyhow, not counting on
> >intelligence or anything like that, only fundamental senses to figure the
> >view correctly.  (if so, whew! since it would mean I'm not especially
stupid
> >then).
> >
> >Bob
>
> That's different. What Lance and myself are talking about works like
> this: you put on a pair of glasses with a single LCD plate in front of
> each eye. These are not displays, they only block light when needed.
> So the computer displays left eye and right eye images full-screen,
> and blocks the appropriate eye's view simultaneously. So your left eye
> only sees the left eye picture and the right eye, accordingly. No eye
> crossing or whatever. The result is a full-screed 3D image or
> animation (like in Descent) without eye strain nor headache. Sure
> looks cool!
>
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message