It seems not so long ago that people were interested not only in stereo graphics, but also in research into interactive gloves etc. for maximal virtual reality in manipulating protein structures, "feeling" forces, etc.
To simulate depth by rendering solvent accessible surfaces with shadows and reflections is fine for understanding those surfaces, and rotations of stick representations of bonds is OK if the zoom is large. But best understanding of structures, comparisons, dynamics, must come with maximal use of the brain's natural abilities, including stereo vision. I am sure that the computer gaming world will make virtual reality widely affordable for protein structure research in a few years. Rick --------------------- The Norwegian Structural Biology Centre Department of Chemistry University of Tromsø 9037 Tromsø, Norway --------------------- > Hi, > > Thanks for the e-mail. The current results of the survey would certainly put > you in the minority! Stereo graphics are not dead after all. > > I have used systems with and without stereo graphics. I personally prefer > them, and think they are great for helping newbies refine, and for > non-structural biologists and students to look at molecular architecture. It > seems a lot of other people, for whatever reason, like them too. > > Paul > > > >From: Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Kevin Cowtan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Survey on computer usage in crystallography > >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:27:04 +0100 > > > >More likely the issue is that some of us do not find stereo to be necessary > >of beneficial for crystallographic model building. > > > >In which case, given the power of modern PCs and graphics cards, a basic > >off-the-shelf PC costing $1000/500 is completely adaquate for typical > >structure solution and model building problems. > > > >I use coot a lot and I haven't even bothered installing the graphics > >drivers for my graphics card. All the 3D stuff gets gone in software, and > >most of the graphics hardware sits around doing nothing. If I needed the > >performance, it would be a 5 minute job to install the drivers, but I > >haven't needed it. > > > >Kevin > > > >P Hubbard wrote: > >>I am sorry you are unhappy with the questions, David. > >> > >>As I am sure you know, I half-decent system with stereo graphics doesn't > >>come cheap, and if you price things together to make something that > >>performs well I doubt you'll get much change out of $2000. > >> > >>I am aware of other 3D systems (such as those listed on www.stereo3d.com). > >>However, the price of peripherals like a 3D LCD monitor are prohibitively > >>expensive (and the quality of the images is supposed to be poor). Do you > >>know of a relatively inexpensive way of displaying 3D images on PCs? > >> > >>Any other comments would be greatly appreciated. > >> > >>Paul > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN > http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm --
