My Categorization  Free-Viewing Displays  SIRDS  Stereo Pairs  Barrier-Strip  Lenticular  Aided-Viewing Displays  Anaglyph  Polarized  Field-Sequential  Free-Viewing Displays  SIRDS  Stereo Pairs  Barrier-Strip  Lenticular  Aided-Viewing Displays  Anaglyph  Polarized  Field-Sequential

Tradeoffs Considered  How easy/cheap is it to construct?  How easy is it to view?  How pronounced is the effect?  How many people can view the display with stereopsis at the same time?  How easy is it to make an animated version of the display?  How easy/cheap is it to construct?  How easy is it to view?  How pronounced is the effect?  How many people can view the display with stereopsis at the same time?  How easy is it to make an animated version of the display? Cost Usability Effectiveness Multi-viewer Animation

Displays for the naked eye  Multi-viewer is easy because people come naturally equipped  Cost, usability, effectivness, and animation vary greatly  SIRDS  Stereo Pairs  Barrier-Strip  Lenticular  Multi-viewer is easy because people come naturally equipped  Cost, usability, effectivness, and animation vary greatly  SIRDS  Stereo Pairs  Barrier-Strip  Lenticular

Single Image Random Dot Stereograms (SIRDS)  Commonly known as “Magic Eye”  Appear to be noise -- they are! (with constrains)  Guide dots (if provided) indicate propert convergence depth  Only depth cue is stereo-disparity so the stereo-blind (10% of population) never see anything but noise!  Commonly known as “Magic Eye”  Appear to be noise -- they are! (with constrains)  Guide dots (if provided) indicate propert convergence depth  Only depth cue is stereo-disparity so the stereo-blind (10% of population) never see anything but noise!

Remarks  Notoriously difficult to view  Encode little visual information  Depth data is quantized (integral pixel offsets)  Extremely cheap to produce (with a computer)  Animation is possible (makes them easier to view as well)  Notoriously difficult to view  Encode little visual information  Depth data is quantized (integral pixel offsets)  Extremely cheap to produce (with a computer)  Animation is possible (makes them easier to view as well)

Stereo Image Pairs  Simplest form of autostereograms  Landmarks in image act a guides to aid in finding proper convergence  More angular adjustment of eyes is required than in SIRDS  Higher image quality at the cost of more difficult viewing  Simplest form of autostereograms  Landmarks in image act a guides to aid in finding proper convergence  More angular adjustment of eyes is required than in SIRDS  Higher image quality at the cost of more difficult viewing

Remarks  Simplest to produce (darkroom, hand, software,etc.)  Compelling depth effect  Viewable by many people at once  High-strain with extended viewing  Strain limits animation  Simplest to produce (darkroom, hand, software,etc.)  Compelling depth effect  Viewable by many people at once  High-strain with extended viewing  Strain limits animation

Barrier Strip Displays  Making viewers consciously adjust their ocular convergence is uncomfortable for some, impossible for others.  Barrier strip displays use a grill of occluding elements to block view of images from either eye  Viewers must be in certain locations to see effect (angle and distance are tuned)  Making viewers consciously adjust their ocular convergence is uncomfortable for some, impossible for others.  Barrier strip displays use a grill of occluding elements to block view of images from either eye  Viewers must be in certain locations to see effect (angle and distance are tuned)

Note that barrier spacing is different than image slit spacing

Remarks  Encode clean stereo disparity information  Comfortable for extended viewing (natural convergence point)  Barriers block 50% of light going in and out, usually requres backlighting  Harder to construct (ugly trig)  Rigid and expensive (structure requred to maintain barrier spacing)  Animation is no harder than still  Commercial equipment available for medical imaging  Encode clean stereo disparity information  Comfortable for extended viewing (natural convergence point)  Barriers block 50% of light going in and out, usually requres backlighting  Harder to construct (ugly trig)  Rigid and expensive (structure requred to maintain barrier spacing)  Animation is no harder than still  Commercial equipment available for medical imaging

Lenticular Displays  Defeat brightness problem of BS by controlling ray path with lenses instead of barriers  Array of long cylindrical lenses (per pixel column) refract light to places with same distance constraint as BS, continuous angle  100% of light passes in and out, no backlighting necessary  Wider field of view (limited by TIR and self- occlusion)  Defeat brightness problem of BS by controlling ray path with lenses instead of barriers  Array of long cylindrical lenses (per pixel column) refract light to places with same distance constraint as BS, continuous angle  100% of light passes in and out, no backlighting necessary  Wider field of view (limited by TIR and self- occlusion)

Remarks  Animation is possible with still source images using motion of viewer  Able to ~reproduce lightfield  More expensive/complex than BS with higher quality and less contraints  Drop-in graphics libraries can turn any 3d program into a lenticular display source  Animation is possible with still source images using motion of viewer  Able to ~reproduce lightfield  More expensive/complex than BS with higher quality and less contraints  Drop-in graphics libraries can turn any 3d program into a lenticular display source

Displays with special viewing hardware  Hardware can enable better {usability, effectiveness, multi-viewer, animation} at the cost of cost -- the normal technology vs nature tradeoff.  Anaglyph  Polarized  Field-sequential  Dual display  Hardware can enable better {usability, effectiveness, multi-viewer, animation} at the cost of cost -- the normal technology vs nature tradeoff.  Anaglyph  Polarized  Field-sequential  Dual display

Anaglyph  Nerdy/Cool red-blue glasses  Cyan, not blue!  Two images overlap (like SIRDS) but are differentiated by color  Filters over each eye collect light from one image but not the other  Works based on intensity of light -- colorblind people see them fine!  Nerdy/Cool red-blue glasses  Cyan, not blue!  Two images overlap (like SIRDS) but are differentiated by color  Filters over each eye collect light from one image but not the other  Works based on intensity of light -- colorblind people see them fine!

Remarks  Convergence is natural  Crosstalk can be annoying  “Color bombardment” causes strain and after-effects  Strain limits long term viewing  Same depth resolution/quality as raw stereo pair  Small incremental cost  Easy to make with (software/hand)  Animation is easy  Convergence is natural  Crosstalk can be annoying  “Color bombardment” causes strain and after-effects  Strain limits long term viewing  Same depth resolution/quality as raw stereo pair  Small incremental cost  Easy to make with (software/hand)  Animation is easy

Polarized Displays  Approach is similar to anaglyph  Polarization differentiates L-R channels  Requires two polarized light projectors (instead of just a printed page)  Screen must be polarization-preserving  Light loss and crosstalk occur when uses tilt head  Approach is similar to anaglyph  Polarization differentiates L-R channels  Requires two polarized light projectors (instead of just a printed page)  Screen must be polarization-preserving  Light loss and crosstalk occur when uses tilt head

Remarks  The cost-wise step up from anaglyph  Completely natural viewing experience  No strain (unless glasses cramp your style)  Ideal for theaters (IMAX), because high up- front costs and low incremental costs  The cost-wise step up from anaglyph  Completely natural viewing experience  No strain (unless glasses cramp your style)  Ideal for theaters (IMAX), because high up- front costs and low incremental costs

Field Sequential Displays  Polarized projectors and screens do not make economic sense on a single-user scale  Move system complexity to the glasses from the display  LCD shutters over each eye control light flow from conventional display (monitor/projector)  Inexpensive control box triggers shutter  Several (expensive) glasses can be driven by one control box  Polarized projectors and screens do not make economic sense on a single-user scale  Move system complexity to the glasses from the display  LCD shutters over each eye control light flow from conventional display (monitor/projector)  Inexpensive control box triggers shutter  Several (expensive) glasses can be driven by one control box

LR End of each scan-line. Liquid Crystal Shutter Glasses

Remarks  Convergence is natural (still)  Some crosstalk can occur with lingering phosphors, slow shutters, synchronization issues  Cost is proportional to the number of viewers  Convergence is natural (still)  Some crosstalk can occur with lingering phosphors, slow shutters, synchronization issues  Cost is proportional to the number of viewers

Dual Displays  Enough monkey business, just stick a monitor in front of each eye.  Heavy (and expensive) headgear provides bright, immersive experience  Can be combined with headphones and head tracking to modify experience based on head movement  Enough monkey business, just stick a monitor in front of each eye.  Heavy (and expensive) headgear provides bright, immersive experience  Can be combined with headphones and head tracking to modify experience based on head movement

Nerd.

Remarks  Expensive  Completely natural focus (lenses embedded in headgear)  Very effective  Animation is standard  Only one user at a time  Prices are dropping  Expensive  Completely natural focus (lenses embedded in headgear)  Very effective  Animation is standard  Only one user at a time  Prices are dropping

Conclusions  Noooooo! My awesome comparison matrix is gone!  Usability  Lenticular and dual displays are best  Effectiveness  SIRDS and anaglyph are the worst  Multi-viewer  Barrier-strip and dual displays have the most constrains  Animation  Its always possible but strain limits application to videos  Noooooo! My awesome comparison matrix is gone!  Usability  Lenticular and dual displays are best  Effectiveness  SIRDS and anaglyph are the worst  Multi-viewer  Barrier-strip and dual displays have the most constrains  Animation  Its always possible but strain limits application to videos