5 ms·

This is a "3D display" in the same sense that a curved monitor is a "3D display" because it exists in three-dimensional space. The actual image being displayed

• hughes 9y ago
  In that sense and given the 3D nature of space, a true 2D display would be quite an achievement.
• throwaway2048 9y ago
  you dont technically see in 3d either, you see 2 2d projections, so this is pretty silly pedantry.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    And you don't even see those projections in full; each eye samples small areas of those projections very fast. Bottomline, yes, it's irrelevant. 3D is what feels 3D.
  • TheRealPomax 9y ago
    Not really. We don't "see" with our eyes, we see with our brain, based on input received from the eyes. The brain itself is perfectly capable of constructing a 3D representation based on the two planar projections that are registered by the eyes. What makes something 3D, rather than 2D or 2.5D, is that it can be observed from different angles by multiple observers at the same time. It's a fairly trivial test, and this fails it. That doesn't mean its not cool, but it does mean it's not 3D and calling it 3D is plain wrong. Especially when it's something you're publishing a paper about in a scientific publication. This is instead exactly as was commented on: a curved "monitor" that happens to be calibrated to only seem 3D exactly at a single viewing angle, for a single observer, similar to Pepper's Ghost (which only works properly when viewers are positioned at a specific angle to the glass pane).