<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_218247</id>
	<title>No Glasses Needed For TI's New 3D Display</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266398820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"At the MWC, TI showed off a <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2359931,00.asp">tablet-sized device with a 3D display that doesn't require glasses</a>, running on an existing TI OMAP3 chipset. The 3D demo showed images and video in 3D by using a standard 120-Hz LCD with a special overlay film from 3M that can direct images either towards your left or right eye. By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image. The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " At the MWC , TI showed off a tablet-sized device with a 3D display that does n't require glasses , running on an existing TI OMAP3 chipset .
The 3D demo showed images and video in 3D by using a standard 120-Hz LCD with a special overlay film from 3M that can direct images either towards your left or right eye .
By flickering two images very quickly , running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30 , the display transmits a different picture to each eye , creating a simulated 3D image .
The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "At the MWC, TI showed off a tablet-sized device with a 3D display that doesn't require glasses, running on an existing TI OMAP3 chipset.
The 3D demo showed images and video in 3D by using a standard 120-Hz LCD with a special overlay film from 3M that can direct images either towards your left or right eye.
By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image.
The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179706</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?</p></div><p>Here ya go... I call it a 'monocle'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , how about something for the 5 \ % of us with Amblyopia ? Here ya go... I call it a 'monocle' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?Here ya go... I call it a 'monocle'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</id>
	<title>A: Crap.  Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The viewing angle isn't 5 degrees, though.. it's a good bit larger than that.</p><p>The major problem is that the overlay (lenticular lenses) don't direct individual images -to your eyes- - such systems would be vastly more expensive and have whole other issues - they simply direct underlying pixels into different directions.  If your left eye happens to be in the area where the left image is being directed, and your right eye in the area where the right image is being directed.. congratulations!<br>Now move your head an inch to the left/right.  Now your right eye is seeing the left image and your left eye is seeing the right image.  ouch.<br>Try half an inch.. each eye gets a portion of both images.  ungh.<br>In other words.. there's sweet spots to sit in, and if you don't sit in one of those sweet spots, you're going to get conflicting sensory input.</p><p>So 1 user at a time isn't strictly true - if the person next to you sits in one of the other sweet spots, they'll be fine as well.</p><p>Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080).  The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.</p><p>There's far more disadvantages, including 2D quality (another display handles that partially by activating a liquid much like an LCD liquid in order to somewhat destroy the lenticular effect), but basically... Lenticular 3D is still crap.</p><p>Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems; it's their best bet for viewing stereographic 3D without glasses *right now* until we can perfect the whole realtime holographic plate thing and get some decent color reproduction off of those as well... -and- have it be affordable.<br>( barring any even more zany systems such as helical 3D displays which are more intended for volumetric displays than stereographic 3D etc. etc. )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The viewing angle is n't 5 degrees , though.. it 's a good bit larger than that.The major problem is that the overlay ( lenticular lenses ) do n't direct individual images -to your eyes- - such systems would be vastly more expensive and have whole other issues - they simply direct underlying pixels into different directions .
If your left eye happens to be in the area where the left image is being directed , and your right eye in the area where the right image is being directed.. congratulations ! Now move your head an inch to the left/right .
Now your right eye is seeing the left image and your left eye is seeing the right image .
ouch.Try half an inch.. each eye gets a portion of both images .
ungh.In other words.. there 's sweet spots to sit in , and if you do n't sit in one of those sweet spots , you 're going to get conflicting sensory input.So 1 user at a time is n't strictly true - if the person next to you sits in one of the other sweet spots , they 'll be fine as well.Half your resolution lost , however ( they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080 ) .
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye 's perception , but that 's just literally plugging holes.There 's far more disadvantages , including 2D quality ( another display handles that partially by activating a liquid much like an LCD liquid in order to somewhat destroy the lenticular effect ) , but basically... Lenticular 3D is still crap.Those who do n't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses ' on , though , should get Lenticular systems ; it 's their best bet for viewing stereographic 3D without glasses * right now * until we can perfect the whole realtime holographic plate thing and get some decent color reproduction off of those as well... -and- have it be affordable .
( barring any even more zany systems such as helical 3D displays which are more intended for volumetric displays than stereographic 3D etc .
etc. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The viewing angle isn't 5 degrees, though.. it's a good bit larger than that.The major problem is that the overlay (lenticular lenses) don't direct individual images -to your eyes- - such systems would be vastly more expensive and have whole other issues - they simply direct underlying pixels into different directions.
If your left eye happens to be in the area where the left image is being directed, and your right eye in the area where the right image is being directed.. congratulations!Now move your head an inch to the left/right.
Now your right eye is seeing the left image and your left eye is seeing the right image.
ouch.Try half an inch.. each eye gets a portion of both images.
ungh.In other words.. there's sweet spots to sit in, and if you don't sit in one of those sweet spots, you're going to get conflicting sensory input.So 1 user at a time isn't strictly true - if the person next to you sits in one of the other sweet spots, they'll be fine as well.Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080).
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.There's far more disadvantages, including 2D quality (another display handles that partially by activating a liquid much like an LCD liquid in order to somewhat destroy the lenticular effect), but basically... Lenticular 3D is still crap.Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems; it's their best bet for viewing stereographic 3D without glasses *right now* until we can perfect the whole realtime holographic plate thing and get some decent color reproduction off of those as well... -and- have it be affordable.
( barring any even more zany systems such as helical 3D displays which are more intended for volumetric displays than stereographic 3D etc.
etc. )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1265031240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses, and they're all bullshit vaporware. If you want true 3D you need glasses, period. There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time. If someone invents such a way you'll first hear about it in scientific publications, not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of. If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses, then it is either bs, or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.</p><p>I've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts. Until they actually post something like "Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera" rather than the current "3D without glasses!!!!1111eleventyone".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses , and they 're all bullshit vaporware .
If you want true 3D you need glasses , period .
There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time .
If someone invents such a way you 'll first hear about it in scientific publications , not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of .
If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses , then it is either bs , or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.I 've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts .
Until they actually post something like " Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera " rather than the current " 3D without glasses ! ! !
! 1111eleventyone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses, and they're all bullshit vaporware.
If you want true 3D you need glasses, period.
There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time.
If someone invents such a way you'll first hear about it in scientific publications, not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of.
If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses, then it is either bs, or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.I've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts.
Until they actually post something like "Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera" rather than the current "3D without glasses!!!
!1111eleventyone".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179812</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>slashtivus</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably the only thing that would work for you would be a form of "Wiggle Stereoscopy" <br>  <br>  <a href="http://www.isnichwahr.de/r16975-beeindruckende-stereo-bilder.html/" title="isnichwahr.de">http://www.isnichwahr.de/r16975-beeindruckende-stereo-bilder.html/</a> [isnichwahr.de] Is an example.  <br> Probably not too helpful, but really the only thing I am aware of that might work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the only thing that would work for you would be a form of " Wiggle Stereoscopy " http : //www.isnichwahr.de/r16975-beeindruckende-stereo-bilder.html/ [ isnichwahr.de ] Is an example .
Probably not too helpful , but really the only thing I am aware of that might work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the only thing that would work for you would be a form of "Wiggle Stereoscopy"     http://www.isnichwahr.de/r16975-beeindruckende-stereo-bilder.html/ [isnichwahr.de] Is an example.
Probably not too helpful, but really the only thing I am aware of that might work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178676</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1265030880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354</id>
	<title>Forgive me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might just blow my mind , I have to RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179048</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plenty, but I know what you meant, 95\% is even better!  Sort of how Honda and Ferrari are both profitable, but I'd much rather own Honda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty , but I know what you meant , 95 \ % is even better !
Sort of how Honda and Ferrari are both profitable , but I 'd much rather own Honda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty, but I know what you meant, 95\% is even better!
Sort of how Honda and Ferrari are both profitable, but I'd much rather own Honda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177030</id>
	<title>Re:Might be interested in it without glasses</title>
	<author>ricotest</author>
	<datestamp>1265022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since so many of us geeks wear glasses, it's no surprise that most 3D glasses technologies are designed to comfortably slot over existing specs. It's not really a big deal in practice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since so many of us geeks wear glasses , it 's no surprise that most 3D glasses technologies are designed to comfortably slot over existing specs .
It 's not really a big deal in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since so many of us geeks wear glasses, it's no surprise that most 3D glasses technologies are designed to comfortably slot over existing specs.
It's not really a big deal in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177044</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are systems, designed around cameras that track eye movement, designed to correct for this. But it's expensive, complicated, and can only be done for one user. There are several patents dating back to the nineties about this, the concept there but the engineering nowhere near advanced enough to implement them.</p><p>Taking human vision into consideration it will actually be easier to present a traditional 3 dimensional object, wherein you can view it like a real world object, as opposed to a 3 dimensional "window" with specific images meant for each eye. We'll be seeing Star Trek like holograms before we reliably see Avatar in 3d without glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are systems , designed around cameras that track eye movement , designed to correct for this .
But it 's expensive , complicated , and can only be done for one user .
There are several patents dating back to the nineties about this , the concept there but the engineering nowhere near advanced enough to implement them.Taking human vision into consideration it will actually be easier to present a traditional 3 dimensional object , wherein you can view it like a real world object , as opposed to a 3 dimensional " window " with specific images meant for each eye .
We 'll be seeing Star Trek like holograms before we reliably see Avatar in 3d without glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are systems, designed around cameras that track eye movement, designed to correct for this.
But it's expensive, complicated, and can only be done for one user.
There are several patents dating back to the nineties about this, the concept there but the engineering nowhere near advanced enough to implement them.Taking human vision into consideration it will actually be easier to present a traditional 3 dimensional object, wherein you can view it like a real world object, as opposed to a 3 dimensional "window" with specific images meant for each eye.
We'll be seeing Star Trek like holograms before we reliably see Avatar in 3d without glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178126</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy.  You just price it high enough to be profitable, and hope the market (however small) will bear it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy .
You just price it high enough to be profitable , and hope the market ( however small ) will bear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.
You just price it high enough to be profitable, and hope the market (however small) will bear it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180286</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell me more about helical 3d displays.  I tried googling for it, and ironically this very slashdot post was the second hit.  A lot of links to CT scanner stuff, but nothing about how an display actually works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me more about helical 3d displays .
I tried googling for it , and ironically this very slashdot post was the second hit .
A lot of links to CT scanner stuff , but nothing about how an display actually works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me more about helical 3d displays.
I tried googling for it, and ironically this very slashdot post was the second hit.
A lot of links to CT scanner stuff, but nothing about how an display actually works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179496</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1265037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?</p></div><p>Actually, you can still gain benefit from these 3D displays, much more easily than with systems using glasses.<br>You move your one good eye left and right between the two images, thus seeing Motion parallax.<br>I saw a demo with a camera at a sports game, where they bob the camera up and down. This dramatically improved the depth perception.</p><p>Of course, especially with a moving picture, you probably have a ton of depth cues already, just like the rest of us.<br>I don't see this latest 3D fad lasting any longer than the one on the 50s did.<br>Stereoscopic still photos are much more useful, as photos lack motion cues. Yet even they had only brief popularity,<br>and are now seen as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master" title="wikipedia.org"> merely a children's toy.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I predict that in 10 years, the only new 3D movies will be in the Children's section.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , how about something for the 5 \ % of us with Amblyopia ? Actually , you can still gain benefit from these 3D displays , much more easily than with systems using glasses.You move your one good eye left and right between the two images , thus seeing Motion parallax.I saw a demo with a camera at a sports game , where they bob the camera up and down .
This dramatically improved the depth perception.Of course , especially with a moving picture , you probably have a ton of depth cues already , just like the rest of us.I do n't see this latest 3D fad lasting any longer than the one on the 50s did.Stereoscopic still photos are much more useful , as photos lack motion cues .
Yet even they had only brief popularity,and are now seen as merely a children 's toy .
[ wikipedia.org ] I predict that in 10 years , the only new 3D movies will be in the Children 's section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?Actually, you can still gain benefit from these 3D displays, much more easily than with systems using glasses.You move your one good eye left and right between the two images, thus seeing Motion parallax.I saw a demo with a camera at a sports game, where they bob the camera up and down.
This dramatically improved the depth perception.Of course, especially with a moving picture, you probably have a ton of depth cues already, just like the rest of us.I don't see this latest 3D fad lasting any longer than the one on the 50s did.Stereoscopic still photos are much more useful, as photos lack motion cues.
Yet even they had only brief popularity,and are now seen as  merely a children's toy.
[wikipedia.org]I predict that in 10 years, the only new 3D movies will be in the Children's section.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31184852</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me</title>
	<author>JimFive</author>
	<datestamp>1266510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mostly agree with you.  However, 2-D with glasses isn't 3-D either.  It's 2-D with glasses.<br> <br>
A holographic projection box that truly displays a 3-d environment (e.g. you can walk around it to see the back of the scene) would be 3D.  Anything less is 2-D with gimmicks to fool the brain.<br>--<br>JimFive</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mostly agree with you .
However , 2-D with glasses is n't 3-D either .
It 's 2-D with glasses .
A holographic projection box that truly displays a 3-d environment ( e.g .
you can walk around it to see the back of the scene ) would be 3D .
Anything less is 2-D with gimmicks to fool the brain.--JimFive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mostly agree with you.
However, 2-D with glasses isn't 3-D either.
It's 2-D with glasses.
A holographic projection box that truly displays a 3-d environment (e.g.
you can walk around it to see the back of the scene) would be 3D.
Anything less is 2-D with gimmicks to fool the brain.--JimFive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176924</id>
	<title>Re:So nice of them...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me, or does the stuff on the screen look more 3D than the physical device itself?  I think they need a bit better lighting in their photos.  If you've got enough other depth cues, your brain will make the image 3D without needing stereoscopy.  If you haven't, adding stereoscopy just gives me a headache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does the stuff on the screen look more 3D than the physical device itself ?
I think they need a bit better lighting in their photos .
If you 've got enough other depth cues , your brain will make the image 3D without needing stereoscopy .
If you have n't , adding stereoscopy just gives me a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does the stuff on the screen look more 3D than the physical device itself?
I think they need a bit better lighting in their photos.
If you've got enough other depth cues, your brain will make the image 3D without needing stereoscopy.
If you haven't, adding stereoscopy just gives me a headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31182064</id>
	<title>Re:Viewing angle??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266491280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a demonstration of a Philips TV with 9 3D-viewpoints. If you moved around enough, the image would 'jump', and you'd get a 3D image from a slightly different angle.<br>Pretty cool stuff, but it made my head hurt after a few minutes.</p><p>Oh, and think about the bandwidth. 3D needs 2 images sent, and with 9 viewpoints... Time to up the bandwidth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a demonstration of a Philips TV with 9 3D-viewpoints .
If you moved around enough , the image would 'jump ' , and you 'd get a 3D image from a slightly different angle.Pretty cool stuff , but it made my head hurt after a few minutes.Oh , and think about the bandwidth .
3D needs 2 images sent , and with 9 viewpoints... Time to up the bandwidth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a demonstration of a Philips TV with 9 3D-viewpoints.
If you moved around enough, the image would 'jump', and you'd get a 3D image from a slightly different angle.Pretty cool stuff, but it made my head hurt after a few minutes.Oh, and think about the bandwidth.
3D needs 2 images sent, and with 9 viewpoints... Time to up the bandwidth!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177066</id>
	<title>don't move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The price for no-glasses is holding yourself very very still. Hopefully these devices will dispel the hatred of 3-D glasses, when complainers realize the alternatives are worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The price for no-glasses is holding yourself very very still .
Hopefully these devices will dispel the hatred of 3-D glasses , when complainers realize the alternatives are worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price for no-glasses is holding yourself very very still.
Hopefully these devices will dispel the hatred of 3-D glasses, when complainers realize the alternatives are worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31185034</id>
	<title>Re:Tablet 3D &amp; 3D in general</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1266511080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why anyone would care if what they were doing on a tablet was in 3D.  I just can't imagine who is going to buy this.
</p><p>Despite being loved by movie studios, I doubt 3D is going to catch on anyway.
</p><p>I watched a few cartoons in 3D: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,  The new Christmas Carol one, and the GForce 3D, and I was all gung ho about 3D, but when I saw Avatar, I realized why 3D just will never catch on:
</p><p>The first ten minutes or so of Avatar made me sick, so much so, that if it had continued for the whole movie, I would have left the theatre.  The rest of the movie was fine, and did not make me sick, and I realised why:  In the beginning they are using the camera focus to focus in on close up objects.   They do this all the time in 2D movies, like when the main character walks into the room, and the camera focuses in on the gun on the floor.  It lets the audience know what the character is thinking to know what the character thought was important about the visual they were presented with and which we are seeing through their eyes.
</p><p>But this just doesn't work in 3D because when your eyes are presented with a 3D image they assume that they can focus in on anything because it's *really there*. When the camera focuses in on a screw floating up close, and my eyes are trying to focus on the actor's face behind the screw, but it won't focus no matter what my eyes do, it makes me ill, and oddly pissed off.  When I finally submit to the cameraman's tyranny ( and it feels like that in 3D, but not in 2D ) about what I should focus on, the focus has changed again, and I'm about to puke.  Now I'm supposed to be focusing in on... What the hell AM I supposed to focus on? ok, lemme deliberately scan this image for something that's not blurry, DAMMIT I'm taking these glasses off.  Shit now it's all blurry!  Oh, now the scene is changing!   Sigh..
</p><p>The rest of Avatar did not have this problem, perhaps because the camera's focus was set to infinity, or perhaps because when the focus was something other than infinity, there was some unambiguously 'most interesting' thing in the scene which I naturally focused on anyway and which happened to be in focus because the cameraperson thought it was the most interesting thing too, like a face etc.
</p><p>I have a theory that the beginning of Avatar was there to make people who would have criticised it for having uninteresting cinematography shut the f--- up by making them viscerally HATE camera trickery right up front.  Then people are grateful for infinite focus.
</p><p>Still, I think 3D is limited in ways 2D is not.  I suppose each medium has it's strengths and weaknesses.  It just seems to me that 3D is going to be perfect for the worst of what is being made now, and that it means we'll be seeing more of it until people get completely sick of it and quit going to the movies at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why anyone would care if what they were doing on a tablet was in 3D .
I just ca n't imagine who is going to buy this .
Despite being loved by movie studios , I doubt 3D is going to catch on anyway .
I watched a few cartoons in 3D : Ice Age : Dawn of the Dinosaurs , The new Christmas Carol one , and the GForce 3D , and I was all gung ho about 3D , but when I saw Avatar , I realized why 3D just will never catch on : The first ten minutes or so of Avatar made me sick , so much so , that if it had continued for the whole movie , I would have left the theatre .
The rest of the movie was fine , and did not make me sick , and I realised why : In the beginning they are using the camera focus to focus in on close up objects .
They do this all the time in 2D movies , like when the main character walks into the room , and the camera focuses in on the gun on the floor .
It lets the audience know what the character is thinking to know what the character thought was important about the visual they were presented with and which we are seeing through their eyes .
But this just does n't work in 3D because when your eyes are presented with a 3D image they assume that they can focus in on anything because it 's * really there * .
When the camera focuses in on a screw floating up close , and my eyes are trying to focus on the actor 's face behind the screw , but it wo n't focus no matter what my eyes do , it makes me ill , and oddly pissed off .
When I finally submit to the cameraman 's tyranny ( and it feels like that in 3D , but not in 2D ) about what I should focus on , the focus has changed again , and I 'm about to puke .
Now I 'm supposed to be focusing in on... What the hell AM I supposed to focus on ?
ok , lem me deliberately scan this image for something that 's not blurry , DAMMIT I 'm taking these glasses off .
Shit now it 's all blurry !
Oh , now the scene is changing !
Sigh. . The rest of Avatar did not have this problem , perhaps because the camera 's focus was set to infinity , or perhaps because when the focus was something other than infinity , there was some unambiguously 'most interesting ' thing in the scene which I naturally focused on anyway and which happened to be in focus because the cameraperson thought it was the most interesting thing too , like a face etc .
I have a theory that the beginning of Avatar was there to make people who would have criticised it for having uninteresting cinematography shut the f--- up by making them viscerally HATE camera trickery right up front .
Then people are grateful for infinite focus .
Still , I think 3D is limited in ways 2D is not .
I suppose each medium has it 's strengths and weaknesses .
It just seems to me that 3D is going to be perfect for the worst of what is being made now , and that it means we 'll be seeing more of it until people get completely sick of it and quit going to the movies at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why anyone would care if what they were doing on a tablet was in 3D.
I just can't imagine who is going to buy this.
Despite being loved by movie studios, I doubt 3D is going to catch on anyway.
I watched a few cartoons in 3D: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs,  The new Christmas Carol one, and the GForce 3D, and I was all gung ho about 3D, but when I saw Avatar, I realized why 3D just will never catch on:
The first ten minutes or so of Avatar made me sick, so much so, that if it had continued for the whole movie, I would have left the theatre.
The rest of the movie was fine, and did not make me sick, and I realised why:  In the beginning they are using the camera focus to focus in on close up objects.
They do this all the time in 2D movies, like when the main character walks into the room, and the camera focuses in on the gun on the floor.
It lets the audience know what the character is thinking to know what the character thought was important about the visual they were presented with and which we are seeing through their eyes.
But this just doesn't work in 3D because when your eyes are presented with a 3D image they assume that they can focus in on anything because it's *really there*.
When the camera focuses in on a screw floating up close, and my eyes are trying to focus on the actor's face behind the screw, but it won't focus no matter what my eyes do, it makes me ill, and oddly pissed off.
When I finally submit to the cameraman's tyranny ( and it feels like that in 3D, but not in 2D ) about what I should focus on, the focus has changed again, and I'm about to puke.
Now I'm supposed to be focusing in on... What the hell AM I supposed to focus on?
ok, lemme deliberately scan this image for something that's not blurry, DAMMIT I'm taking these glasses off.
Shit now it's all blurry!
Oh, now the scene is changing!
Sigh..
The rest of Avatar did not have this problem, perhaps because the camera's focus was set to infinity, or perhaps because when the focus was something other than infinity, there was some unambiguously 'most interesting' thing in the scene which I naturally focused on anyway and which happened to be in focus because the cameraperson thought it was the most interesting thing too, like a face etc.
I have a theory that the beginning of Avatar was there to make people who would have criticised it for having uninteresting cinematography shut the f--- up by making them viscerally HATE camera trickery right up front.
Then people are grateful for infinite focus.
Still, I think 3D is limited in ways 2D is not.
I suppose each medium has it's strengths and weaknesses.
It just seems to me that 3D is going to be perfect for the worst of what is being made now, and that it means we'll be seeing more of it until people get completely sick of it and quit going to the movies at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178508</id>
	<title>Re:3D still requires stereoscopic vision</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1265029680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as color TV shows no interest in catering to the colorblind, you must accept that there will be popular technologies that do not cater to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as color TV shows no interest in catering to the colorblind , you must accept that there will be popular technologies that do not cater to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as color TV shows no interest in catering to the colorblind, you must accept that there will be popular technologies that do not cater to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176590</id>
	<title>So nice of them...</title>
	<author>Snarf You</author>
	<datestamp>1265021040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so glad they included a 2D <a href="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util\_get\_image/22/0,1425,sz=1&amp;i=221040,00.jpg" title="ziffdavisinternet.com" rel="nofollow">picture</a> [ziffdavisinternet.com] of the 3D-ness in action.</p><p>The greasy fingerprints were a nice touch too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so glad they included a 2D picture [ ziffdavisinternet.com ] of the 3D-ness in action.The greasy fingerprints were a nice touch too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so glad they included a 2D picture [ziffdavisinternet.com] of the 3D-ness in action.The greasy fingerprints were a nice touch too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176558</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265020920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.</p></div></blockquote><p>It looks great in the picture, it really captures the 3dy'ness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might just blow my mind , I have to RTFA.It looks great in the picture , it really captures the 3dy'ness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.It looks great in the picture, it really captures the 3dy'ness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176436</id>
	<title>Sounds good....</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But on a device that small, not so great. It sounds like the overlay TFA mentions is like the static 3-D images that have been around forever. If so, it wouldn't work on a large screen across the room, or if you weren't right in front of it.</p><p>As to "no glasses needed", most folks over 40 are going to need glasses to see anything that small whether 3D or 2D.</p><p>I want the polaroid technology, the glasses are light and cheap, require no batteries or electronics, with realistic colors. It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD, but I think it could be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But on a device that small , not so great .
It sounds like the overlay TFA mentions is like the static 3-D images that have been around forever .
If so , it would n't work on a large screen across the room , or if you were n't right in front of it.As to " no glasses needed " , most folks over 40 are going to need glasses to see anything that small whether 3D or 2D.I want the polaroid technology , the glasses are light and cheap , require no batteries or electronics , with realistic colors .
It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD , but I think it could be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But on a device that small, not so great.
It sounds like the overlay TFA mentions is like the static 3-D images that have been around forever.
If so, it wouldn't work on a large screen across the room, or if you weren't right in front of it.As to "no glasses needed", most folks over 40 are going to need glasses to see anything that small whether 3D or 2D.I want the polaroid technology, the glasses are light and cheap, require no batteries or electronics, with realistic colors.
It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD, but I think it could be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176672</id>
	<title>Multiple viewers?</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1265021400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to have to be exactly in line with the device, so I guess there can be only one watching it at a time? (acrobatics doesn't count)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have to be exactly in line with the device , so I guess there can be only one watching it at a time ?
( acrobatics does n't count )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have to be exactly in line with the device, so I guess there can be only one watching it at a time?
(acrobatics doesn't count)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177456</id>
	<title>Re:Might be interested in it without glasses</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, you are alone with having to bitch about something you apparently have never experienced, because nowadays the majority of glasses for 3D systems are either designed to fit comfortably over your existing spectacles and/or clip on to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , you are alone with having to bitch about something you apparently have never experienced , because nowadays the majority of glasses for 3D systems are either designed to fit comfortably over your existing spectacles and/or clip on to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, you are alone with having to bitch about something you apparently have never experienced, because nowadays the majority of glasses for 3D systems are either designed to fit comfortably over your existing spectacles and/or clip on to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180542</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're 5\% of the population.</p></div></blockquote><p>Come on people! These fat jokes have to stop!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're 5 \ % of the population.Come on people !
These fat jokes have to stop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're 5\% of the population.Come on people!
These fat jokes have to stop!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360</id>
	<title>Viewing angle??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this technology have a reasonable viewing angle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this technology have a reasonable viewing angle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this technology have a reasonable viewing angle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176514</id>
	<title>TI-9000+</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their next graphing calculator is going to make some awesome graphs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their next graphing calculator is going to make some awesome graphs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their next graphing calculator is going to make some awesome graphs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177050</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that's the solution their using (unless you know for sure).  The problem is, the distance between the eyes varies by person.  It's impossible to calibrate when manufactured to work for everyone.</p><p>Besides, the article says that they half the refresh rate here, not the resolution.  Sounds different, but might be related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that 's the solution their using ( unless you know for sure ) .
The problem is , the distance between the eyes varies by person .
It 's impossible to calibrate when manufactured to work for everyone.Besides , the article says that they half the refresh rate here , not the resolution .
Sounds different , but might be related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that's the solution their using (unless you know for sure).
The problem is, the distance between the eyes varies by person.
It's impossible to calibrate when manufactured to work for everyone.Besides, the article says that they half the refresh rate here, not the resolution.
Sounds different, but might be related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178230</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that's 300 million people right, out of 6 billion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that 's 300 million people right , out of 6 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that's 300 million people right, out of 6 billion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31181630</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me</title>
	<author>paganizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266486720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want true 3D, you don't need glasses, you need holographic projection.</p><p>I've seen working examples as simple as a aquarium filled with very fine glycerin mist with (if memory serves, this was 5-6 years ago) 6 sets of RGB lasers lighting up the droplets at the point where 2 or more similar frequency lasers intersect; the demo I saw had a pretty terrible "framerate", something like 10fps. But that should be an easily solvable hardware problem with enough money thrown at it; you could, I would think, even do away with the enclosure (and possible even the lasers) by doing something with an electromagnetic field and the proper teeny tiny particles.</p><p>I think even the aforementioned primitive demo could have gotten a usable frame-rate with the proper software controlling things.</p><p>as to "The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset", I imagine that's just an attempt to hype a ancillary product; I'm betting you could do just as well with 2 camera phones duct taped together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want true 3D , you do n't need glasses , you need holographic projection.I 've seen working examples as simple as a aquarium filled with very fine glycerin mist with ( if memory serves , this was 5-6 years ago ) 6 sets of RGB lasers lighting up the droplets at the point where 2 or more similar frequency lasers intersect ; the demo I saw had a pretty terrible " framerate " , something like 10fps .
But that should be an easily solvable hardware problem with enough money thrown at it ; you could , I would think , even do away with the enclosure ( and possible even the lasers ) by doing something with an electromagnetic field and the proper teeny tiny particles.I think even the aforementioned primitive demo could have gotten a usable frame-rate with the proper software controlling things.as to " The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset " , I imagine that 's just an attempt to hype a ancillary product ; I 'm betting you could do just as well with 2 camera phones duct taped together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want true 3D, you don't need glasses, you need holographic projection.I've seen working examples as simple as a aquarium filled with very fine glycerin mist with (if memory serves, this was 5-6 years ago) 6 sets of RGB lasers lighting up the droplets at the point where 2 or more similar frequency lasers intersect; the demo I saw had a pretty terrible "framerate", something like 10fps.
But that should be an easily solvable hardware problem with enough money thrown at it; you could, I would think, even do away with the enclosure (and possible even the lasers) by doing something with an electromagnetic field and the proper teeny tiny particles.I think even the aforementioned primitive demo could have gotten a usable frame-rate with the proper software controlling things.as to "The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset", I imagine that's just an attempt to hype a ancillary product; I'm betting you could do just as well with 2 camera phones duct taped together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179648</id>
	<title>Re:Forgive me</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, 'directional pixels' is exactly what they need, albeit not with eye tracking or whatever. The only way to get "real" 3D is for each pixel to transmit different colours in different directions. If you think about it, our current lenticular sheet 3D screens are a very primitive version of this, with only two directions (and hence only a very small viewable 'sweet spot' where it works). I predict that as tech improves, we'll have a new metric for 3D screens, describing the number of different colours a single pixel can be at the same time depending on viewing angle. Currently we're at 2. In a few decades, we'll be able to do, say, 128 of them, and things will look pretty good wherever you sit. Of course, we'll need 2060s technology to store the massive video files that will result from effectively storing 128 images per frame of the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , 'directional pixels ' is exactly what they need , albeit not with eye tracking or whatever .
The only way to get " real " 3D is for each pixel to transmit different colours in different directions .
If you think about it , our current lenticular sheet 3D screens are a very primitive version of this , with only two directions ( and hence only a very small viewable 'sweet spot ' where it works ) .
I predict that as tech improves , we 'll have a new metric for 3D screens , describing the number of different colours a single pixel can be at the same time depending on viewing angle .
Currently we 're at 2 .
In a few decades , we 'll be able to do , say , 128 of them , and things will look pretty good wherever you sit .
Of course , we 'll need 2060s technology to store the massive video files that will result from effectively storing 128 images per frame of the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, 'directional pixels' is exactly what they need, albeit not with eye tracking or whatever.
The only way to get "real" 3D is for each pixel to transmit different colours in different directions.
If you think about it, our current lenticular sheet 3D screens are a very primitive version of this, with only two directions (and hence only a very small viewable 'sweet spot' where it works).
I predict that as tech improves, we'll have a new metric for 3D screens, describing the number of different colours a single pixel can be at the same time depending on viewing angle.
Currently we're at 2.
In a few decades, we'll be able to do, say, 128 of them, and things will look pretty good wherever you sit.
Of course, we'll need 2060s technology to store the massive video files that will result from effectively storing 128 images per frame of the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420</id>
	<title>Might be interested in it without glasses</title>
	<author>Kitkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since I already wear glasses, I don't really care about those 3D viewers since its a pain to have to remove my glasses, put on contacts just to turn around and put on another pair of glasses. Removing the middleman here would be a step in the right direction since I'm not alone with having to already wear glasses and not everyone can/has contacts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I already wear glasses , I do n't really care about those 3D viewers since its a pain to have to remove my glasses , put on contacts just to turn around and put on another pair of glasses .
Removing the middleman here would be a step in the right direction since I 'm not alone with having to already wear glasses and not everyone can/has contacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I already wear glasses, I don't really care about those 3D viewers since its a pain to have to remove my glasses, put on contacts just to turn around and put on another pair of glasses.
Removing the middleman here would be a step in the right direction since I'm not alone with having to already wear glasses and not everyone can/has contacts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176888</id>
	<title>brightness</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with all of these is that of brightness. If you're sending data to one eye at a time, the other eye sees darkness. It's like wearing 50\% tint sunglasses.</p><p>If you are looking for a display to do flicker 3D, make sure you get one with a really really bright backlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with all of these is that of brightness .
If you 're sending data to one eye at a time , the other eye sees darkness .
It 's like wearing 50 \ % tint sunglasses.If you are looking for a display to do flicker 3D , make sure you get one with a really really bright backlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with all of these is that of brightness.
If you're sending data to one eye at a time, the other eye sees darkness.
It's like wearing 50\% tint sunglasses.If you are looking for a display to do flicker 3D, make sure you get one with a really really bright backlight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177128</id>
	<title>3D still requires stereoscopic vision</title>
	<author>lefiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not trying to whine here, but 3D viewing, no matter how it is accomplished, still requires that you view the imagine with two eyes.  I only see with one eye, and cannot view 3D content in 3D with glasses or in a "sweet spot."  I've never felt \_that\_ deprived before, but I am starting to get a little worried at the recent cultural interest in 3D.  Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you don't view it using both eyes.  I hope that (good) content still remains available in 2D for those of us that cannot appreciate 3D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not trying to whine here , but 3D viewing , no matter how it is accomplished , still requires that you view the imagine with two eyes .
I only see with one eye , and can not view 3D content in 3D with glasses or in a " sweet spot .
" I 've never felt \ _that \ _ deprived before , but I am starting to get a little worried at the recent cultural interest in 3D .
Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you do n't view it using both eyes .
I hope that ( good ) content still remains available in 2D for those of us that can not appreciate 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not trying to whine here, but 3D viewing, no matter how it is accomplished, still requires that you view the imagine with two eyes.
I only see with one eye, and cannot view 3D content in 3D with glasses or in a "sweet spot.
"  I've never felt \_that\_ deprived before, but I am starting to get a little worried at the recent cultural interest in 3D.
Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you don't view it using both eyes.
I hope that (good) content still remains available in 2D for those of us that cannot appreciate 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177468</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You&rsquo;re mixing up terms there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>stereographic 3D</p></div><p>This would mean: <em>two volumes</em> (you know a volume has 3 dimensions).<br>&ldquo;3D display&rdquo; is correct for the helical and some holographic systems.</p><p>Everything else is still just a 2D plane acting as a screen, in 3D space (which is why you can&rsquo;t focus on blurry areas, or rotate them at will, while watching). So it&rsquo;s still essentially 2D. Just stereo instead of mono. (It&rsquo;s an unfortunate thing, that &ldquo;stereo&rdquo; is mostly reserved for audio.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You    re mixing up terms there.stereographic 3DThis would mean : two volumes ( you know a volume has 3 dimensions ) .    3D display    is correct for the helical and some holographic systems.Everything else is still just a 2D plane acting as a screen , in 3D space ( which is why you can    t focus on blurry areas , or rotate them at will , while watching ) .
So it    s still essentially 2D .
Just stereo instead of mono .
( It    s an unfortunate thing , that    stereo    is mostly reserved for audio .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You’re mixing up terms there.stereographic 3DThis would mean: two volumes (you know a volume has 3 dimensions).“3D display” is correct for the helical and some holographic systems.Everything else is still just a 2D plane acting as a screen, in 3D space (which is why you can’t focus on blurry areas, or rotate them at will, while watching).
So it’s still essentially 2D.
Just stereo instead of mono.
(It’s an unfortunate thing, that “stereo” is mostly reserved for audio.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176400</id>
	<title>No glasses?</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1265020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, now if only they could find a way to require no glasses on the person watching it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now if only they could find a way to require no glasses on the person watching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now if only they could find a way to require no glasses on the person watching it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177558</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>Thagg</author>
	<datestamp>1265024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a typical lenticular display, exactly.</p><p>The real innovation here is the 3M material, not the TI chips driving the display.  The material requires that the image be illuminated alternately fro the right and left edges of the screen, the material deflects that light into the right and left eyes respectively.  Unlike lenticular displays, there is only one viewing direction that works, but it won't diminish the spatial resolution of the display (only the temporal one.)  It will work great for something like a game-boy or an iPhone.  Even something as small as an iPad, though, might have problems because the difference in eye-to-screen angle from one side of the display to the other.</p><p><a href="http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS\_EN/20091102/177201/?SS=imgview\_e&amp;FD=48575398&amp;ad\_q" title="nikkeibp.co.jp">This slide</a> [nikkeibp.co.jp] tells you everything you need to know about the 3M film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a typical lenticular display , exactly.The real innovation here is the 3M material , not the TI chips driving the display .
The material requires that the image be illuminated alternately fro the right and left edges of the screen , the material deflects that light into the right and left eyes respectively .
Unlike lenticular displays , there is only one viewing direction that works , but it wo n't diminish the spatial resolution of the display ( only the temporal one .
) It will work great for something like a game-boy or an iPhone .
Even something as small as an iPad , though , might have problems because the difference in eye-to-screen angle from one side of the display to the other.This slide [ nikkeibp.co.jp ] tells you everything you need to know about the 3M film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a typical lenticular display, exactly.The real innovation here is the 3M material, not the TI chips driving the display.
The material requires that the image be illuminated alternately fro the right and left edges of the screen, the material deflects that light into the right and left eyes respectively.
Unlike lenticular displays, there is only one viewing direction that works, but it won't diminish the spatial resolution of the display (only the temporal one.
)  It will work great for something like a game-boy or an iPhone.
Even something as small as an iPad, though, might have problems because the difference in eye-to-screen angle from one side of the display to the other.This slide [nikkeibp.co.jp] tells you everything you need to know about the 3M film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</id>
	<title>Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate...  Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.</p><p>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees + /- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate... Either way it is limited to one user at a time , which is probably acceptable for most tablets.Now , how about something for the 5 \ % of us with Amblyopia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate...  Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118</id>
	<title>Re:Effective viewing angle?</title>
	<author>RESPAWN</author>
	<datestamp>1265023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?</i></p><p>You're 5\% of the population.  Where's the profit in catering to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , how about something for the 5 \ % of us with Amblyopia ? You 're 5 \ % of the population .
Where 's the profit in catering to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, how about something for the 5\% of us with Amblyopia?You're 5\% of the population.
Where's the profit in catering to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176920</id>
	<title>Re:Viewing angle??</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't - unless that "film" is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head.  You'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes.  (There's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles.)</p><p>Anybody with greater insight (or "in the know")?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't - unless that " film " is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head .
You 'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes .
( There 's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles .
) Anybody with greater insight ( or " in the know " ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't - unless that "film" is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head.
You'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes.
(There's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles.
)Anybody with greater insight (or "in the know")?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177322</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Half your resolution lost, however. The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just <b>literally</b> plugging holes.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Wow, I didn't know I could literally plug holes just by partially blocking one eye's vision. I'll have to remember that next time I have some hold plugging to do; could save a lot of time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Half your resolution lost , however .
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye 's perception , but that 's just literally plugging holes .
Wow , I did n't know I could literally plug holes just by partially blocking one eye 's vision .
I 'll have to remember that next time I have some hold plugging to do ; could save a lot of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half your resolution lost, however.
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.
Wow, I didn't know I could literally plug holes just by partially blocking one eye's vision.
I'll have to remember that next time I have some hold plugging to do; could save a lot of time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176442</id>
	<title>It's a handheld</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265020500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a handheld device, not a TV-sized device. You don't need nearly as a big of a viewing angle for a handheld.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a handheld device , not a TV-sized device .
You do n't need nearly as a big of a viewing angle for a handheld .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a handheld device, not a TV-sized device.
You don't need nearly as a big of a viewing angle for a handheld.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176432</id>
	<title>hand-held porn device</title>
	<author>vacarul</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very nice, for a hand-held device; not very practical for living-room. You have to sit directly in front of it to see in 3D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>very nice , for a hand-held device ; not very practical for living-room .
You have to sit directly in front of it to see in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very nice, for a hand-held device; not very practical for living-room.
You have to sit directly in front of it to see in 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177058</id>
	<title>Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080).  The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.</p></div><p>Untrue, FTFS: "By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image."</p><p>So you loose half your framerate instead of resolution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Half your resolution lost , however ( they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080 ) .
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye 's perception , but that 's just literally plugging holes.Untrue , FTFS : " By flickering two images very quickly , running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30 , the display transmits a different picture to each eye , creating a simulated 3D image .
" So you loose half your framerate instead of resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080).
The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.Untrue, FTFS: "By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image.
"So you loose half your framerate instead of resolution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31192720</id>
	<title>Re:Might be interested in it without glasses</title>
	<author>xiang shui</author>
	<datestamp>1266495120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can haz contax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can haz contax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can haz contax?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176780</id>
	<title>Been there..done that.</title>
	<author>EasyTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1265021820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were 5 reasonably large (22''?) screens using this tech, or similar, in the metro station in Amsterdam CS over the holiday period. Just showing adverts, but rather impressive despite that.<br>There were definite 'sweet spots' for the 3d effect, and the whole image jumped if you changed the viewing angle by more than a few degrees; but it cheered me up because I saw the future of the flat-panel monitor being demo'd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-), just add compiz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were 5 reasonably large ( 22' ' ?
) screens using this tech , or similar , in the metro station in Amsterdam CS over the holiday period .
Just showing adverts , but rather impressive despite that.There were definite 'sweet spots ' for the 3d effect , and the whole image jumped if you changed the viewing angle by more than a few degrees ; but it cheered me up because I saw the future of the flat-panel monitor being demo 'd ; - ) , just add compiz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were 5 reasonably large (22''?
) screens using this tech, or similar, in the metro station in Amsterdam CS over the holiday period.
Just showing adverts, but rather impressive despite that.There were definite 'sweet spots' for the 3d effect, and the whole image jumped if you changed the viewing angle by more than a few degrees; but it cheered me up because I saw the future of the flat-panel monitor being demo'd ;-), just add compiz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178754</id>
	<title>And does it work for black people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After HP's "racist" notebook webcam incident, let's hope TI's one tracks <i>everyone's</i> eyes. OK that may have been a calibration thing, but it should have tracked that guy's face properly nonetheless. Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After HP 's " racist " notebook webcam incident , let 's hope TI 's one tracks everyone 's eyes .
OK that may have been a calibration thing , but it should have tracked that guy 's face properly nonetheless .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After HP's "racist" notebook webcam incident, let's hope TI's one tracks everyone's eyes.
OK that may have been a calibration thing, but it should have tracked that guy's face properly nonetheless.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176828</id>
	<title>Can't Wait!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the next generation of 3D calculators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the next generation of 3D calculators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the next generation of 3D calculators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176482</id>
	<title>Lenticular or parallax?</title>
	<author>autostereoscopic</author>
	<datestamp>1265020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which technology is it? The only two "no-glasses" technologies so far are lenticular and parallax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which technology is it ?
The only two " no-glasses " technologies so far are lenticular and parallax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which technology is it?
The only two "no-glasses" technologies so far are lenticular and parallax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31181630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31192720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31184852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31182064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31185034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_218247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31182064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31192720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31181630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31184852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_218247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31178676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31179706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31185034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31176602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31180286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_218247.31177044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
