Text, including the two scores - Columbia University Department of ...

portions of a shape are hidden behind other shapes, and doesn’t render them; since we need to see all of both objects piled on top of one another, this must not happen, or else one of the shapes will be incomplete. The preceding description (of rendering two instances of each desired what
was my method for a long time, but at that phase of development it had two major drawbacks. One was the impossibility of negative separation. Given the constant x-coordinate separation, the two shapes will always be positively separated, and only as they approach an infinite distance would they be shapes
as a unison shape at zero separation. I tried several techniques to introduce the possibility of negative separation: one included doing a vertex- perceived
distance computation, another involved skewing shapes to more accurately represent the different viewpoints of two eyes. Both of these were too computationally intensive to be useful, but the latter strategy led to the eventual solution. The second drawback was the problem of border violations; by-vertex
keep the content matched between red and blue versions, clipping planes would have to be used (to truncate the vertices that fall beyond the edge of that plane). With different clipping planes for red and blue, this meant that clipping planes would have had to be repeatedly enabled and disabled within each to
which is both algorithmically cumbersome and computationally inefficient. A solution was needed that would somehow remove the necessity of frame,
sets of clipping planes for red and blue content. The solution to both the above problems turned out to be vastly more elegant and simpler to implement and compute; it also yields a more realistic and believable 3D result. Instead of creating two copies of a shape side by side,
separate
18