Talk:Stereopsis

message: Where in Wiki is it appropriate to post information on 3D television, or 3D movies?  Now that digital camcorders are becoming very commonplace, it should not be long before cable companies opt in for broadcasting left- and right- digital feeds on channels located side by side.
If you browse through the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov), you will find numerous patents for 3D movies meant for use with multiple projectors, and even multiple screens, not to mention fresnel arrays kept in motion, as with lenses floating upon bodies of liquid made to oscillate periodically; the patentable 'trick' of the 'trade' appears to lie largely in keeping the images synchronized, this being often easier said than done, but most of those tricks from the earlier part of the 20th century are now in the public domain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.31 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if two images are slightly out of sync, that does not necessarily mean they lack the requisite illusion of depth sought by the public.  As was showcased in an article by John Goodrum "See Your 2-D Movies in 3-D" (published in Popular Science magazine in the 1970s), the images need merely be sufficiently displaced, and yet sufficiently paired together, that the viewer perceive the illusion of depth one ordinarily associates with 'stereopsis.'  According to that article, stationary individuals, objects, and backgrounds would appear flat, but a moving object - like a ball, for instance, thrown across the camera's field of view - will enjoy a dimension of depth if every other frame in the movie is delayed, polarized, and subsequently projected onto the screen where it is united with a preceding image of opposing polarity, that the whole will be viewed with polarized glasses.  For any multitude of fresnel lenses buoyed on sufficiently separate bodies of liquid (or gels) through which parallactic images are projected, the precision required will depend on the vibratory periodicity imparted on the liquid mounts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.13 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '3D Stereopic' Television 

message: The main article could be improved if some mention were made of the history of goggle-less 3D surveillance systems.  I thought these were used in places where mobile guards (such as those in stockyards, impound stations, and the like) could come to regular checkpoints where display screens were kept.  The main problem with older security systems was that guards would keep taking their goggles off.  Wearing goggles for hours can become very unpleasant, just as sitting at a chair can, and that tends to result in rapid turnover of employees..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.14 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  security and 3D surveillance 

message: I would disagree with the comment in the article's first paragraph that "individuals with only one functional eye still have full depth perception".  From personal experience, this is too strong a claim.  I certainly have a good degree of depth perception from other cues, but the lack of stereopsis causes significant issues with close by depth perception (e.g., when I am parking, I am never sure how close I am to the car next to me, and my kids always found it amusing to try to play catch with me). - 66.165.176.62 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Depth Perception

message: I must disagree with the statement that the 3D movies of the 50’s were made possible by red and blue (anaglyphic, I believe the term is) glasses, and that polarizing glasses came along in the 70’s allowing color 3D movies to be shown. Primarily I object for the simple reason that I remember seeing 3D color movies using polarized glasses in the 50’s; the red and blue ones were used only for comic books at that time. Many years later they were used to permit 3D movies to be seen on television while permitting the same movie to be viewed without the glasses (and 3D effect). 
~John Mayer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.44.125 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarized Glasses and 3D Color Movies in the 50’s 

message: Some sources on the net suggest that stereopsis is a much more ancient idea:
http://3dvision-blog.com/tag/stereo-3d-history/
http://telemedicine.orbis.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-8989-8994-9004
Can someone sort out the history?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.80.174 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of stereo vision