|
|
|
|
|
|
by doctoboggan
4538 days ago
|
|
|
If the goal of displays is to reproduce the real world (which may or may not be true, but I'd argue is true for some class of displays) then I would argue that 3D will eventually become standard, simply because the world is 3D. However I think the biggest current barrier for accurate representation of the world is contrast ratio, which we are orders of magnitude off of. I propose a sort of turning test for displays where the goal is to have a display that is indistinguishable from a window into the real world. Let me know when that happens and I will be the first to buy one. |
|
|
I don't disagree with you at all, but if you're using the term "3D" in the same way as the article, the first "3D" in that sentence is referring to stereoscopic displays that are driven by our specific animal biology of having two eyes, while the second "3D" in your sentence refers to the external world, which would still have three dimensions even if we only had one eye, in which case stereoscopic displays would not be necessary.
If instead you meant holographic-style displays, then nevermind :)