Ken Moiarty wrote:

Yes, I've read about this technology. Apparently it has been developed
well enough (as of a while ago already) to produce LCD monitors capable of
displaying full stereo 3-D video without requiring the wearing of
shutter-glasses by the viewer(s). This is done with with the use of these
cylindrical lenses as you describe, which are called if I recall,
"lenticular lenses". Lenticular lenses, if I understand correctly, have
been used with still images for many years now, for example, producing 3-D
or "holographic" images as are common on credit cards, driver's licenses,
Microsoft software security logos, etc...etc...

Lenticular screens produce a kind of 3d effect but it is different from a
hologram. The images that are used as security features on credit cards
are usually holograms--I'm not sure what Microsoft is using but the
presence of shadows suggests lenticular.

Lenticular screens were around when I was a kid, before the laser had been
invented. Holograms came along later--I made some as a senior physics
project. In the art world the lines between them are not distinct, in the
physics world they are very clear.

You can actually buy
software that will enable you to print images in such a way that when you
accurately affix the associated special plastic lenticular lens sheet over
top of the printed image, it will then appear in 3-D.) In the case of the
3-D LCD panels, as you describe, lenticular lenses are placed over
corresponding alternating "left field" and "right field" LCD columns. If
I recall the only major hurdle left to overcome has been figuring out how
to market it to the masses so enough people will want to buy it in order
that it can be manufactured on an economy of scale large enough such that
it can be priced just right in order to generate the consumer demand for
it to make
it profitable... (A common catch-22 of marketing to consumers many a
novel invention/technology, I would think.)

Ken

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message
...
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")



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)