Comming to think of it, a plain old 2D display has the same issues.
The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees. On top of that the camera FOV creates permanently blurry areas that can't be fixed by the viewer changing focus. Blue tint on the picture of supposedly far mointains lies about the real distance and the focal point of the viewer is, again, in conflict colour shift preceived by retina. Moving viewers head doesn't show the scene from a slightly different perspective, as it should. A film watched from an angle looks really awkward. Camera movement isn't backed up by the inner ear receptors and that may lead to motion sicknes. Depth usually isn't essential for the story telling, but colour isn't either, and picture (radio anyone?) and sound for that matter (books existed long before movies).
The panic on the Lumiere Brothers train film shows clearly that cinema is in opposition to the natural human capabilities and a mere century certainly didn't change much in that respect - evolution doesn't work that fast.
Think how weird a person wearing early stereophonic headphones looked to people not too long ago. Almost as weird as a person wearing stereoscopic googles looks to many of us today. Think of all the issues with stereophonc audio, compared to the real world experience - stereo audio is not even close to real, just like stereoscopic video. To make it slightly closet, the 3D covers of BluRay discs use shots from 8 angles to mimic 3D picture, just like 7+1 audio systems do to mimic 3D sound.
The stereoscopic 3D is no that different from other techmologies. It's not perfect, but what is?
Patent law demands the people to defy the laws of physics.
It's obvious from the court cases that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. On the other hand USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to even read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. Even if that was possible the language used in paten applications make impossible to judge the validity and extend of the patent protection.
Can an inventor or small company be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? I'm not talking about the negligence. It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Would that be a sufficient defence line?
Slashdot Mirror
...so that Chinese company can make the next version of the banking software
Comming to think of it, a plain old 2D display has the same issues.
The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees. On top of that the camera FOV creates permanently blurry areas that can't be fixed by the viewer changing focus. Blue tint on the picture of supposedly far mointains lies about the real distance and the focal point of the viewer is, again, in conflict colour shift preceived by retina. Moving viewers head doesn't show the scene from a slightly different perspective, as it should. A film watched from an angle looks really awkward. Camera movement isn't backed up by the inner ear receptors and that may lead to motion sicknes. Depth usually isn't essential for the story telling, but colour isn't either, and picture (radio anyone?) and sound for that matter (books existed long before movies).
The panic on the Lumiere Brothers train film shows clearly that cinema is in opposition to the natural human capabilities and a mere century certainly didn't change much in that respect - evolution doesn't work that fast.
Think how weird a person wearing early stereophonic headphones looked to people not too long ago. Almost as weird as a person wearing stereoscopic googles looks to many of us today. Think of all the issues with stereophonc audio, compared to the real world experience - stereo audio is not even close to real, just like stereoscopic video. To make it slightly closet, the 3D covers of BluRay discs use shots from 8 angles to mimic 3D picture, just like 7+1 audio systems do to mimic 3D sound.
The stereoscopic 3D is no that different from other techmologies. It's not perfect, but what is?
For example: http://bggc.org.uk/ vs. http://bggc.co.uk/ - is the new http://bggc.uk/ going to glof club or gliding club and why?
Patent law demands the people to defy the laws of physics. It's obvious from the court cases that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. On the other hand USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to even read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. Even if that was possible the language used in paten applications make impossible to judge the validity and extend of the patent protection. Can an inventor or small company be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? I'm not talking about the negligence. It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Would that be a sufficient defence line?