I do, and what you propose is simply impossible.  There is no way to
produce a hologram that is "out of focus".  If you see an real object at
arms length as fuzzy, you will see a hologram of that same object as
fuzzy also.

You normally don't shoot a hologram through a lens, and if you did, you
end up with a hologram of a lens.  The hologram of the lens would work
just like the original, for other objects captured by the hologram.

So, you could make a hologram of your eyeglasses in front of a book, and
be able to read the book through the eyeglasses.  However, someone with
better vision would simply see the image as distorted by the lens, but
not out of focus.  And, it being a holgram, they could simply change
their viewing angle and read the book over the eyeglasses.

--Gene

<Snipola>

<Snipola>

I have no experience making holograms, and as such, I don't see
why making a hologram "out of focus" in such a way that requires
a lens to view that is equal to one's prescription wouldn't work.

Actually, I think if you shot the image through your glasses
would work.

But as I said, I've never made a holo.

Brian

On May 5, 9:05 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

 Correct. I was sorely confused at C. Watters' phrasing: "People who
need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance".

 I'm not entirely sure of that re: holography. As far as other so-
called 3D display technologies (polarization, blink, etc.) are
concerned I agree with you completely. However I know of no a priori
reason a hologram cannot produce an image that my unaided eyes could
see clearly (at a distance beyond my unaided maximum sharp focus
distance) but "normal" eyes would see as blurred at the same distance.

 Not that I know that much about holograms (IOW I'm speaking from
ignorance above). So, any holography experts available? A quick Google
yields nothing relevant.

 Mark L. Fergerson

In sci.physics Zetsu <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote:

Vision problems are a result of the eye's lens being unable to focus
an image on the retina.

There is nothing that can be done about that other than to put a
corrective lens (called glasses) in the system.

Arm waving about "apparent distance" is babble unless there is a
separate lens involved.

On 5 May, 04:10, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Near-sighted" refers to the ocular defect  where there is trouble in
distance viewing, however I think what the earlier poster was pointing
out is that having a 3D model would be no different than the normal
flat screen, "2D screen" that we have of today. For example, using a
3D model to mitigate the effect of distance bluriness would be no more
effective than simply bringing one's face closer to the conventional
type screen in order to see objects clearly. The thing I am curious
about here though is precisely what kind of 3D technology the original
poster was hypothesizing should be utilized for this idea?

On May 3, 9:59 am, "CWatters"
<colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote:

 Beg pardon? I am "nearsighted". Guess what the term means.

 Mark L. Fergerson

I don't think so... People who need glasses don't have a problem seeing
things at the wrong distance - so correcting the apparent distance using a
3D effect doesn't help.

Imagine using a laptop without having to wear corrective
eyeglasses.

I know that 3D displays exist that don't require special glasses.

So maybe this is possible as well?

Amir