The future of the PC and especially processors and software.

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:859048bd-d04f-40e5-9e66-669e16eafe36@googlegroups.com:

The best way, and I am not AGAIN explaining how it works, requires
at least 16 slightly different pictures simultaneously, but it is
no glasses no nuthin.

The best way is a pair of goggles that are shaped like your retina in
reverse. You see a 3-D realm no matter which way you look.

That is a display. You may be talking about a 3-D "space" that gets
rendered with the viewer looking at it from outside or from within it.
Way too much needed there.

The goggles will rule the day for a while.

 

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 1:54:57 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:

jurb6mail.com wrote:

Oh yeah they forgot 3D TV which could have been done over 20 years
ago, at least 3 different ways (and be compatible).

The best way, and I am not AGAIN explaining how it works, requires at least 16 slightly different pictures simultaneously, but it is no glasses no nuthin.

Something like that might be able to take advantage of 6G or 7G, and it might make those new holograhphic disks useful.

But there is no material to feed them. This is not taking two cameras and making a disk for one of those little things for the kids, what did they call them ? (about a 4" disk with picture transparencies around the perimeter, left and right, could not come up with the name at gunpoint for whatever reason) This is SIXTEEN times the bandwidth of normal 4K and then special cameras have to be developed to even generate the material. We are talking Rothschild type money here. I mean Gates, Bloomberg and Bezos would have a hard time with it. Sure they could but they wouldn't want to. Think of a camera taking 16 images at a time form different angles - but all must be built together to keep in alignment, at least 60 times a second. Thought they were big before in the 1960s ? HA