Table.

[anathema]

I am working on this email newsletter.

http://webnonsense.org/email/

Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.

My concern is the right column.
It is green just to see what is going on.

This is the original.
http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/

You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
isn't working.

 

[dorayme]

I am working on this email newsletter.

http://webnonsense.org/email/

Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.

My concern is the right column.
It is green just to see what is going on.

This is the original.
http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/

You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
isn't working.

This is a most interesting example of a tremendous slap in the face of
everything this usenet group stands for by a huge week old dead and
unrefrigerated cod fish!

But nevertheless, what a fabulous exercise. First thing to realise, if
you felt less unwell, you would have picked this up: you cannot simply
transfer the image to the right because it has been very carefully
prepared in an image program to be on the left. To fix this up, open it
up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.

That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I am
now feeling unwell... excuse me...

 

[rf]

Hmmm. Bad idea.

Did you actually look at what was *in* that content before you fiddled with
it?

To fix this up, open
it up in an image program and reverse it horizontally, reflect it.

Photoshop. Image slice. Build a web site / email out of the slices.

The usual.

That would be the first job. Now as for the next task... oops... I am
now feeling unwell... excuse me...

I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
three to five years!

 

[richard]

I am working on this email newsletter.

http://webnonsense.org/email/

Admittedly I am not thinking clearly because I am sick.

My concern is the right column.
It is green just to see what is going on.

This is the original.
http://webnonsense.org/email-orig/

You can see that all I am doing is switching the columns around.
But I can get it to overlap the edge like in the original.

I think the math is correct and the correct td's aligned right but it
isn't working.

Why are you using tables for this?
Learn a little about the proper use of divisions.
As well as CSS.

I like the original page.

When I click on "samples" I expect to see samples of art work, not a
page that requires me to fill in a lot of stuff.

 

[richard]

Hmmm. Bad idea.


Did you actually look at what was *in* that content before you fiddled with
it?


Photoshop. Image slice. Build a web site / email out of the slices.

The usual.


I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
three to five years!

Television magic tricks.
There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.
I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
credit card and expandable at the touch.

I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
take hold of anything presented to you.

 

[rf]

Television magic tricks.

Ah, it's RtS misinterpreting things yet again.

There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.

Let me spell it out fully for you:

"A girl *appears* *to* *be* *reaching* out of the screen" Read between the
fucking lines, dipstick.

I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
credit card and expandable at the touch.

WTF are you talking about? Don't you even know what 3D projection is?

I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
take hold of anything presented to you.

Obviously bloody not!

 

[rf]

Why are you using tables for this?
Learn a little about the proper use of divisions.
As well as CSS.

Which will work in an HTML email even less than a table. Or did you miss
that part too?

 

[dorayme]

I'm a little tired myself. Been exhibiting at a television trade show all
day long surrounded by display systems that would blow your mind. One of
them even in three D. A girl reaches out of the screen to hand you something
and my associate actually put his hand out to recieve it. We had to go for a
quiet beer to recover. And the word is that these things will be domestic in
three to five years!

That threatens a theory someone has been putting to me for a while:
movies will keep ahead of TV and home theatre by going 3-D.

 

[dorayme]

Television magic tricks.
There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.
I've seen demos of "organic" tvs where the thing is no thicker than a
credit card and expandable at the touch.

I don't doubt that there is projected 3d, but you can't physically
take hold of anything presented to you.

You mean the TV this salesmen just got me to sign up for can't really
pull beers and hand them over and make like a home pub? I wish you had
spoken up earlier.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Television magic tricks.
There is no way, yet, you can send an object through the tv.

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! I saw it done in Willy Wonka! Not
only did they transfer material over the airways, they also managed to
shrink the mater so it would fit in the smaller tv.

 

[rf]

If you watch normal TV without moving your head and with one eye shut,
and tell yourself it's 3D, it looks 3D, and better than any
stereographic 3D demos I've seen (although I wasn't at rf's show). Try
it, it really works.

For stereographic displays to work you also have to not move your head
by the way.

Not so. I was one of a group of probably ten people watching the demo. We
were all walking around chatting and having a good look and admiring how the
effect was so excellent and cross-examining the presenter. This is a demo of
equipment that is on the very leading edge of technology, on the Sony stand.

However, as a humerous example, when the credits rolled they appeared to be
about half a metre in front of the screen. I had the urge to walk around to
the side to look behind them. Didn't work of course, the credits remained
exactly where they were, half a metre from the screen, exactly between the
screen and me.

BTW it *is* real 3D. A different image is presented to each eye, shot by two
different cameras seperated by some distance I don't know. Just like at the
theatre.

Looking at the screen without the special circularly polarized glasses one
can actually see two superimposed images, with the details seperated by
anything up to a couple centimetres, like bad ghosting from the old analogue
days.

 

[rf]

That is stereography. Real 3D is holograms (or real life), where you
get a different view of the scene from _all_ angles, not just from
two.

No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.

Stereography does in principle require that you don't move your head
relative to the display, although the illusion does persist if you
move it a bit.

A bit? No, I moved a metre or three, back, forward, sideways. The illusion
did rearrange itself slilghtly but the visual effect was still there.

Are you saying the credits moved around with you as you walked around?

Yes, The credits were always half a metre in front of the screen. Well, not
quite. As I moved further to the left of the screen they moved in towards
the screen as the angle subtended by the differing images to each eye was
reduced but yes, in effect, the subtitles stayed exactly between the screen
and me. But they were always in front of my view of the screen.

I'll take a picture or the offending screen on tomorrow and post it
somewher. Now, to find a 3D camera

 

[dorayme]

Ben C wrote:

No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.


A bit? No, I moved a metre or three, back, forward, sideways. The illusion
did rearrange itself slilghtly but the visual effect was still there.

Interesting. Any place in Sydney this can be seen now?

So, you wear polarising glasses, right? (There have been various
attempts to get by without, this would be *really* great).

About the angle at which you can move, the analogy or more than an
analogy (depending on the technology) to this is the difference between
screens in good angle of view.

 

[Neredbojias]

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! I saw it done in Willy Wonka! Not
only did they transfer material over the airways, they also managed
to shrink the mater so it would fit in the smaller tv.

And don't forget The Fly! Er, the insect, not the zipper.

 

[dorayme]

No it is not a hologram. It is just a flat screen display, presenting a
different image to each eye, giving the illusion of 3D. In your words,
sterography. But moving the head is not an issue.

Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour, a friend runs a stall
there too... The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,
spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the 3-D
effect was great.

I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?

I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but could
not find it quickly and ran out of time...

The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of view.

 

[rf]

Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour,

That's the show I was at. SMPTE. We were the ones flogging teleprompters
about fifteen metres due east of the blue helicopter, across the aisle from
those government people touting, at our expense, how analogue TV is being
phased out, as if an exhibition full of television engineers wouldn't
already know that. You most probably walked past our stand, the one with the
jelly bean dispenser. Did you partake of one?

How bizarre though. I was sitting there during a quiet time today thinking
that I should have answered your question about where one could see one of
these by suggesting you come down to the show. We could have met and
observed and then done lunch or something

a friend runs a
stall there too...

There's a chance I know him. Which stall?

The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,

That was the one.

spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the
3-D effect was great.

Over near the helicopter? That is the technology I think Ben C is talking
about. Things go bizarre as you move your head from side to side.

I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?

These things run at 50Hz. When there is a seperate image presented to each
eye, each eye sees only a 25Hz refresh, quite within the range where flicker
is quite noticible, especially with fast moving stuff. A bloke across the
other isle from us suggests that real 3D TV should be at 140 Hz so each eye
gets 70Hz. This is what the theatres do. They up-sample the standard MPEG
stream by shooting the same image twice to each eye at 70Hz per eye.

I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but
could not find it quickly and ran out of time...

Didn't see that one. I did see a concert of some description on the JVC
stand and an animated movie near the Panasonic stand.

The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of
view.

Stunning, isn't it

 

[William Gill]

Yes, I went down to see a show at Darling Harbour, a friend runs a stall
there too... The Sony one was the one that seemed best to me,
spectacular! There were other 3-D offerings, some without glasses that
were not as good. The one with no glasses was not sharp, though the 3-D
effect was great.

I noticed they were all showing very slow moving things, the fastest
thing was snowflakes. Perhaps there is a problem with fast?

I was told there was a 3-D there with a football game showing but could
not find it quickly and ran out of time...

The one I suspect you saw and the one I liked was worth the trip...
thanks for mentioning it. I was rather amazed at the wide angle of view.

Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage) I
once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance apart of
the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were viewed on a
frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.

 

[dorayme]

Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage) I
once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance apart of
the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were viewed on a
frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.

A mate of mine built a frame to mount two Nikkomat bodies, I forget
whether we just used to press the two shutters by hand with fingers on
the camera bodies or whether there was the sophistication of a dual
cable set up? All good fun. We wore glasses to look at the resulting
print.

Looking at the film technology exhibition in Sydney, I came back to my
office and smashed everything up with a big mallet in a jealous rage,
furious that my own equipment could be so ...well... so 20th Century, so
dowdy, so nothing...

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Technology has come a long way from the 35mm 3-D camera (WWII vintage)
I once had. It had two shutters/lenses spaced about the distance
apart of the human eyes, and the resulting dual print images were
viewed on a frame contraption held precisely in front or your eyes.

You're talking about the Kodak Stereo camera, I suppose. I have two of
those, inherited from my father. Both have the cases as shown in the
ebay ad. I don't know why he had two. Notice the bubble level in the
center viewfinder.

<http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/cam-kod.html>
<http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Kodak-S...emZ380140143721QQcategoryZ98923QQcmdZViewItem>

We used to take slides rather than prints, and the two slides are
mounted in about a 4-inch wide mount. Then there is the stereo slide
viewer with the light in it...

 

[dorayme]

That's the show I was at. SMPTE. We were the ones flogging teleprompters
about fifteen metres due east of the blue helicopter,

Yes, I saw that stand and stopped there, I tried to read one of those
machines and thought gee, when I get to address this great nation of
ours on telly, I hope they give me a bigger one and slow it down and
then I shrugged and thought, nah, f that, I will just ad lib and take

How bizarre though. I was sitting there during a quiet time today thinking
that I should have answered your question about where one could see one of
these by suggesting you come down to the show. We could have met and
observed and then done lunch or something

Nice thought. Maybe next time... You did not hear a reverent hush when I
entered the exhibition halls with my armed bodyguards?