Now that you mention stereo...

I have seen reference recently to a new LCD panel design allowing for
viewing stereo directly by what seems to be an analog of the stereo
photos that use a grid of cylindrical lenses in front of a still photo,
where the left and right pictures are successive vertical stripes, and
the grid of lenses directs the appropriate stripe's data to the 'right'
eye.

I forget where I saw it or who was working on it; maybe Samsung.

The bottom line is that maybe this kind of display would have milder
refresh requirements for stereo viewing.

The bad thing is I have no idea if this is already happening or still
being developed.

Gino

PS. The LCD I mention doesn't use lenses, but physical barriers that
prevent one eye from seeing the pixels intended for the other eye.

PPS. I was one of those who mentioned possible limits on the video
card's capabilities. I admit that it was speculation on my pert - sort
of trying to be a messenger of doom and gloom, I guess :-)

On 4/21/2006, Ken Moiarty posted this:
SNIP

While there is no CRT interference experienced at the 60 Hz setting, 60
Hz refresh rate is not acceptable for my main purpose here, in which, I'm
aiming be able to view high-quality, high-resolution, stereo 3-D video --i.e.
employing LCD shutter-glasses, etc. (My other purpose is to use this CRT
along side my LCD as a second monitor providing for an extended Windows
desktop.) High-quality, high-resolution, Stereo 3-D video will actually
require refresh rates of something above 120 Hz (e.g. 130 to 144 Hz) at
resolutions ranging from 1024 x 768 up to 1280 x 1024. However, the highest
refresh rate I can achieve at a resolution that is the bare minimum
acceptable for my purposes here (i.e. 1024 x 768) is only 100 Hz. (BTW,
further to the above paragraph, 100 Hz provides some, although inadequate,
improvement in noticeable interference compared to the 85 Hz setting.) Of
course 100 Hz is far short of the 120 Hz refresh rates I'm going to need
here.
SNIP
PS: Someone, I forget who, suggested that my monitor "resolution to
refresh rate" options were limited perhaps not by the monitor itself, but by,
either, my adapter card or its default settings (which supposedly, I guess,
might not occur to some people to change). This is not the case. I have
explored all the valid settings that my adapter provides. And while it's
hardly a very expensive adapter, according to its specs it is capable of
displaying, for example 1024 x 768 @ 150 Hz. If the monitor could only keep
up, such a setting would basically suffice.
SNIP
Ken

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")