Re: [ARSCLIST] Slides and inconvenient media (was spin it again)

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Breneman" <david_breneman@xxxxxxxxx>
> --- "Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > As I recall, the make was
> > Stereo Realist...and the format simply paired two standard 35mm
> > slide images using a "dual slide" mount.
> 
> But the Realist format is five perforations per frame, not
> the eight of standard 35mm photography.  This frame size
> yields 28 stereo pairs on a 36 exposure roll of film.
> 
Well, I never knew the details...all this went on when I was yet
to become a teenager! No idea if any of the slides survived, or
who has them if they did...

> > They could be projected, but NOT in
> > 3-D...and NOT by standard slide projectors.
> 
> No, but a stereo projector, with opposing Polaroid
> filters projecting on a silvered lenticular screen
> produces a striking effect viewed with the kind of
> Polaroid glasses used for 3D movies.  My projector
> is made by the long-defunct TDC company.
> 
This is one of those things which, to me, sounds like
"It should work, in theory..." but, IIRC, my dad never
sprung for the 3D projector. Was there ever a ViewMaster
equivalent made?
> > We're still waiting for an image/viewer format that will allow the
> > display of true 3D images on existing computer monitors...!
> 
> Not on standard monitors, but there are monitors with
> a lenticular screen as used on 3D postcards and "tilt
> to see moving image" postcards (one vertical, the other
> horizontal that can display stereo images without
> glasses.  There are also other technologies, such as
> spinning LED displays, that can dispay what appear to
> be solid images in three dimensions.
> 
Every time I've seen "3D" used in reference to computer images,
it has referred to "video games"...and then to more-detailed
images which could provide "fake 3D" through the use of more
accurate shadow images. These images, of course, require larger
files, as well as more effort on the part of the creators...

So, what we need is something which can tell our left eye,
"Okeh, this is what YOU see"...and the same for our right eye.

Next step will be a way to code "touch" data and feed it into
our brains...of course, right after that there will appear a way
to digitize real objects by providing all the data on the type
and exact locations of the atoms involved (as large as it may be,
that is still a finite number...)

Steven C. Barr