My take on things is that the helpfulness of stereo depends inversely on
the resolution (and/or quality) of the data. If I'm dealing with a 4-5
Angstrom map, stereo is more or less required. For high quality 2-3
Angstrom data, not so much.
For teaching purposes, it's probably a good idea to use relatively good
maps. So stereo might not be necessary; other than to introduce people
to it.
One thing I've noticed in training post-docs and grad students (in lab,
not in a classroom) is that people who've played video games have an
easier time adapting to graphics software than those who haven't. So
for new students it might be more helpful to tell them to go play a FPS,
or (driving|flight) simulator for a few hours than keep reminding them
to use the stereo glasses.
Pete
David Roberts wrote:
Hi again,
I'd like to ask a question about the pedagogy of stereo. That is, using
stereo with students in the classroom.
Do you all find that, after setting up these elaborate stereo devices,
students really use the stereo or do they tend not to?
I am a huge fan of stereo - and frankly here we have quite a few options
for doing stereo - from the active Nvidia systems that people have
recently been discussing to passive zalmans. I went from SGI systems
and crystaleyes to linux systems using nuvision glasses, and finally
have settled for Zalman stereo - as I think it is the best thing out
there. Zalman is passive - go to the movies and get a free pair of
glasses (realD glasses work fine), and you don't have to have any video
card requirements (I haven't tried using it with onboard stereo - I do
have graphics cards, but I have a feeling onboard stereo wouldn't be bad).
When in a classroom - we project using glasses that work on an emitter
based system (so it's active stereo - we are thinking of going passive
in the classroom as well). When we use stereo in a classroom, we find
you take just as much time telling students they need to look forward as
we do talking about active sites. In some cases, the stereo may be
distracting. Many can't get it to work - and when they do I don't know
how effective it is.
I teach a crystallography class, and for that I have a linux lab setup
with 6 computers equipped with Zalman stereo (recent, it was active
nuvision before). Students have to fit a map and build a MIR structure
(from scratch totally) using coot. It's a great experience, but I find
that I have to constantly get them to put on stereo glasses to get the
best fit of their model in the map. They tend to not do it, and so I'm
trying to see if it's the type of stereo used (as I said, I had a few
options, and this class actually has their range of devices) or if it's
just that they can do it good enough without stereo. They do prefer the
LCD monitor over a CRT display (and that is a brightness thing I think -
they are just crisper and newer). When on the CRT's, they will use
stereo (active), but when on the LCD displays stereo is not necessarily
used (they don't seem to need it as much).
As I mentioned, I like stereo a lot, but really projecting on a nice
bright lcd monitor also has it's advantages, and with the ease of moving
things using the mouse (or whatever device you use), the overall need
for stereo seems to be decreasing. I don't know - I just wonder what
peoples views are out there for the actual "need" for stereo. It's
incredibly cool - and I think is a very powerful way to show things -
but I'm wondering if we focus too much on it because it's cool and not
because it's pedagogically necessary.
Just wondering, no worries. Thanks
Dave
