Those must be older ones... The current Nvidia shutter glasses we use
are about 50g.
http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_GeForce_3D_VisionKit_uk.html
Christoph
Jürgen Bosch wrote:
> I think the weight of the shutter glasses puts them off. Compared to the 30g or less of the Zalmans the shutter glasses feel like bricks. I would estimate them to at least 270g. After one hour wearing them you feel them on your nose.
> Jürgen
>
> ......................
> Jürgen Bosch
> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
> Department of Biochemistry& Molecular Biology
> Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
> 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
> Baltimore, MD 21205
> Phone: +1-410-614-4742
> Lab: +1-410-614-4894
> Fax: +1-410-955-3655
> http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/
>
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 9:40, Christoph Parthier<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> We recently equipped a pool of 25 computers with Nvidia 3D shutter
>> glasses, they're used in structural biology courses for undergraduate
>> students of biochemistry . We teach mainly PyMOL, but (in an advanced
>> course) also model building in COOT. Of course, we let the students
>> decide whether they want to use hardware stereo or not. They all try.
>> After several courses now I realized no more than 30% of the students
>> keep using them in visualization and model building, while the majority
>> of students put the glasses aside... Some of the 30% said, it helps, but
>> could also do without. Haven't assessed this properly yet... ;-)
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>>
>> David Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the comments, I do appreciate them. I guess we went off in
>>> a direction I wasn't thinking of - related to your personal like or
>>> dislike of stereo. What I am really looking for is an answer to a
>>> simple question in that is stereo a nice thing from a pedagogy
>>> standpoint for showing students complex biomolecules.
>>>
>>> I am in a chemistry department - undergraduate only. We focus on
>>> 3-dimensional shape and the importance of shape of chemical
>>> function/reactivity/etc... With small molecules (PF5, etc...), it's
>>> easy to see how shape works by simply rotating the molecule. The
>>> molecules are small enough, the concept of 3D can be visualized easily
>>> in these systems. Furthermore, they can make a simple model using
>>> your standard organic or inorganic model kit, no worries.
>>>
>>> Now, bring in a huge protein, or a protein-protein complex. The issue
>>> of 3Dness becomes fuzzier. It's not so easy to see which hydrogen
>>> will get plucked off during a chemical reaction, even with careful
>>> zooming and mouse manipulation. So my question still is, how many of
>>> you feel stereo is important from a pedagogy standpoint (not looking
>>> at maps, just structures that are huge and complex). Is it something
>>> that we need to try to bring to the classroom, or is it just a cool
>>> toy like the 3D TV that hopefully is going nowhere and will soon fade
>>> out like the viewmaster of old. I know a large percentage of people
>>> cannot see stereo (at least the way we present it), and so it isn't
>>> for everybody. But, does it help, and if so, does it help when done
>>> in a huge classroom or when put on an individual screen. Has anybody
>>> tried to assess this (there's a horrible word for you).
>>>
>>> That's what I was wondering about. Presenting the stereo is a
>>> different issue (how is that done), but I think there are lots of
>>> avenues for that depending on your particular situation.
>>>
>>> Thanks again
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
|