When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, “NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D” states: “This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion.” The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion.

The same question applies to most reporter’s erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I’ll tell you that story.

Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: “In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension.” This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that’s what most poor people have anyway.

Speaking of people. In today’s world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun’s glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn’t viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough?

Christopher R. Mohr Sr.