×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

No Glasses Needed For TI's New 3D Display

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-may-still-need-them-for-driving dept.

Displays 165

adeelarshad82 writes "At the MWC, TI showed off a tablet-sized device with a 3D display that doesn't require glasses, running on an existing TI OMAP3 chipset. The 3D demo showed images and video in 3D by using a standard 120-Hz LCD with a special overlay film from 3M that can direct images either towards your left or right eye. By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image. The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Forgive me (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176354)

This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.

Re:Forgive me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176450)

For those that didn't RTFA, it uses that technique where you have to move your head from left to right at 60-Hz

Re:Forgive me (1)

Stele (9443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176978)

Can we assume a free coffee travel mug is included then?

Re:Forgive me (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177774)

I don't get it. How does my left know if it's meant for my right eye and vice-versa? Hence the 60-Hz movement? Woah!

I'm going to be really impressed when I'll be able to turn my 2D girlfriend to 3D!

Re:Forgive me (3, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179142)

>>I'm going to be really impressed when I'll be able to turn my 2D girlfriend to 3D!

If you keep doing that, you'll need glasses anyway! :)

Re:Forgive me (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178274)

For those that didn't RTFA, it uses that technique where you have to move your head from left to right at 60-Hz

My head has Tru-Motion 120Hz technology.

Re:Forgive me (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176558)

This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.

It looks great in the picture, it really captures the 3dy'ness.

Re:Forgive me (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178310)

it really captures the 3dy'ness.

How do you pronounce that?

Re:Forgive me (1)

Cleveland Steamer (625191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178366)

This reminds me of the time I was talking to a co-worker about how a particular piece of software didn't take advantage of the "SMP-ness" of our 4-processor system. Whoops!

Re:Forgive me (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178434)

three-DEE-ee-ness

Re:Forgive me (1)

vikstar (615372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178716)

I've seen tens of posts with devices and TVs promising true 3D without the glasses, and they're all bullshit vaporware. If you want true 3D you need glasses, period. There is no other way to effectively direct a different picture to each of your two retinas at the same time. If someone invents such a way you'll first hear about it in scientific publications, not on some bs device that no ones ever heard of. If a device claims to give true 3D without glasses, then it is either bs, or requires you to position your eyes in a very specific location at which point it would be better/easier to just use glasses anyway.

I've long ago stopped getting excited by such bs marketing stunts. Until they actually post something like "Directional pixels deliver photons to your eyes through eye-tracking camera" rather than the current "3D without glasses!!!!1111eleventyone".

Viewing angle?? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176360)

Does this technology have a reasonable viewing angle?

Viewing Distance?? (2, Interesting)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176390)

Not only viewing angle but how is the viewing distance? Does it work at any distance or just a narrow range?

It's a handheld (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176442)

It's a handheld device, not a TV-sized device. You don't need nearly as a big of a viewing angle for a handheld.

Re:Viewing angle?? (4, Insightful)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176920)

It can't - unless that "film" is capable of more than 2 angles and a webcam is tracking the position of your head. You'd have to position your head such that the cutoff point between images is between your eyes. (There's some indication in the article that it might just be crummy 3D which opens up possibilities for slightly wider viewing angles.)

Anybody with greater insight (or "in the know")?

Re:Viewing angle?? (2, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178752)

Two angles only, but maybe if you got cuddly and placed your head on someone else's you might have some luck. There is a diagram of the film here [mydigitallife.info] It seems to suggest that with larger screens, the edges of the screen will fade out due to light not reflecting cleanly off the ridges of the film. Maybe this can be fixed by using variable sized ridges, but that would require a special LCD with variable sized pixels, which introduces new problems, and you still only have one viewing spot.

The operation works as follows. Taken from here: [nikkeibp.co.jp] "Sumitomo 3M utilized the directionality so that the light from the left LED light source comes to the right eye and the light from the right LED light source comes to the left eye. And the company enabled to view 3D images with the naked eye by synchronizing the lighting of the left LED light source and the display of the image seen by the right eye (and the lighting of the right LED light source and the display of the image seen by the left eye).

Furthermore, it is possible to show 2D images by using the right and left LED light sources at the same time and displaying the same image for both the right and left eyes. Therefore, it is easy to switch between 2D and 3D images.

And does it work for black people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178754)

After HP's "racist" notebook webcam incident, let's hope TI's one tracks everyone's eyes. OK that may have been a calibration thing, but it should have tracked that guy's face properly nonetheless. Seriously.

No glasses? (4, Funny)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176400)

Great, now if only they could find a way to require no glasses on the person watching it.

Re:No glasses? Use contact lenses or .... (1)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177000)

Use contact lenses or have eye surgery to correct your vision. An easy fix!

Re:No glasses? Use contact lenses or .... (1)

vikstar (615372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178762)

Dude, good idea, I see a market developing for circular polarized contact lenses... I'll even be their first customer (after the rabbit trials of course).

Effective viewing angle? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176414)

The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate... Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.

Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?

Re:Effective viewing angle? (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176564)

Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?

You can't see 3D in the real world, what makes you think you'll see 3D in an image? That's as unrealistic as expecting technology that enabled my dad to be able to tell red from green.

Your only recourse is surgery, and in many cases not even that will help.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (2, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176778)

Think big. Sooner or later, we will have neural implants that can feed visual information directly into the brain. All I am saying, is that it would be cool if it came along *sooner*.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176884)

And another thing. When are they going to finally perfect the first two dimensions? For those of us with Amblyopia that would be good enough. All they need is a display with a gamut equal to or better than typical vision, along with a resolution beyond the Nyquist limit of the eye at the practical viewing distance.

Oh, and I guess a camera that is all of those things too. Not too much to ask, all things considered.

Seriously, why is everyone obsessed with the third dimension? We have barely scratched the surface of the first two!

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177376)

All they need is a display with a gamut equal to or better than typical vision, along with a resolution beyond the Nyquist limit of the eye at the practical viewing distance.

Already done, more or less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density [wikipedia.org]

Theres still some issues with dynamic range, which in a way is good. You know how cruddy teen romantic comedies always have the audio mixed with the "music" 30 dB louder than the talking? I dread the day extreme dynamic range is available to our video "artistes".

Why is pop music compressed to 1 dB of dynamic range, but pop movies have the music 30 dB louder than the talking? I hate both.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (3, Interesting)

Rathum (1406047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178286)

Almost every movie I've watched in the last few years has had a terrible range. Why must all dialogue be whispered nowadays?

whisperwhisperwhispeBOOMEXPLOSIONwhisperwhisperOPEwhisperRAMUSIwhisperC

Watching movies with any sort of sound going in the room with me gives me the choice between ramping up the volume and making my ears bleed, missing half the dialogue, or having to constantly adjust the volume.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178454)

Subtitles dude

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

Rathum (1406047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178564)

Unfortunately, I'm illiterate.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177464)

Seriously, why is everyone obsessed with the third dimension? We have barely scratched the surface of the first two!

Scratching the surface requires a third dimension, duh!

Re:Effective viewing angle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178326)

Maybe if you could see the third dimension you would understand.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177746)

Who's going to be the early adopter of that? You want to be the person stuck with the low-res neural implant when the new ones come out in 6-months?

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176982)

This isn't true. Amblyopic individuals can see in 3d, they just use different cues to depth. Parallax, for instance, is basically equivalent information to stereo (using memory, rather than a displaced eye, but it's the same geometry). In fact, for stereo blind individuals a plain old head tracker controlling the position of the camera in Open GL is all you'd need. Well, obviously that isn't entirely true. The lens of your eyes will still send conflicting depth information, and I don't know how far along they've come representing things like chromatic differences in light scatter with depth. For the most part, however, it should be good enough.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177394)

Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?

You can't see 3D in the real world, what makes you think you'll see 3D in an image?

Now, how about something for the 1% of us with blindness? Will it allow us to see [wikipedia.org] (and in 3D, no less)?

Re:Effective viewing angle? (4, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177782)

Isn't Braille already 3d? Isn't that enough?

A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (5, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176602)

The viewing angle isn't 5 degrees, though.. it's a good bit larger than that.

The major problem is that the overlay (lenticular lenses) don't direct individual images -to your eyes- - such systems would be vastly more expensive and have whole other issues - they simply direct underlying pixels into different directions. If your left eye happens to be in the area where the left image is being directed, and your right eye in the area where the right image is being directed.. congratulations!
Now move your head an inch to the left/right. Now your right eye is seeing the left image and your left eye is seeing the right image. ouch.
Try half an inch.. each eye gets a portion of both images. ungh.
In other words.. there's sweet spots to sit in, and if you don't sit in one of those sweet spots, you're going to get conflicting sensory input.

So 1 user at a time isn't strictly true - if the person next to you sits in one of the other sweet spots, they'll be fine as well.

Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080). The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.

There's far more disadvantages, including 2D quality (another display handles that partially by activating a liquid much like an LCD liquid in order to somewhat destroy the lenticular effect), but basically... Lenticular 3D is still crap.

Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems; it's their best bet for viewing stereographic 3D without glasses *right now* until we can perfect the whole realtime holographic plate thing and get some decent color reproduction off of those as well... -and- have it be affordable.
( barring any even more zany systems such as helical 3D displays which are more intended for volumetric displays than stereographic 3D etc. etc. )

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176956)

Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems

I'll take option C; Don't buy into this 3D junk at all. As long as the experience is "reduced picture quality and convenience in exchange for a vague sense of depth", I don't see how it can be reasonably called an upgrade.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

ricotest (807136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177014)

The nVidia 3D vision's only real weakness is that it darkens the screen because of the LCD shutters. Otherwise, it's exactly the same picture quality at native resolution, and I've found it to be fully worth the money.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177826)

Until NVIDIA randomly stops supporting the drivers. I remember a while back when their stereo drivers and GPU drivers were separate downloads and had to be kept in sync, and they just stopped releasing stereo drivers when newer GPU drivers came out. Is this still the case?

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

ricotest (807136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178552)

They are separate downloads, but I don't think they have to be kept in sync. In any case, new 3D drivers continue to be released to patch games like Left 4 Dead 2.

I think nVidia are going to push this, it sells their overpriced shutter glasses and 120hz TVs from their partners, and it even encourages people to upgrade their GPU (3D naturally requires double the framerate). They've put a lot of effort into backwards compatibility and working with developers to get native 3D support in newer games.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178678)

I just had a quick look at the NVIDIA website and it does say they need to be kept in sync:

Note: You can only install this driver if you have the installed the latest GeForce Graphics drivers v196.21.

I guess they started focusing on releasing new drivers since the 3D craze started up again. It also only seems to be supported on 8 series and above graphics cards, whereas they had support for the LCD shutter glasses (including brands other than NVIDIA) with older video cards a while ago.

See this thread [nvidia.com] as an example of NVIDIA dropping support for the older hardware.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177044)

There are systems, designed around cameras that track eye movement, designed to correct for this. But it's expensive, complicated, and can only be done for one user. There are several patents dating back to the nineties about this, the concept there but the engineering nowhere near advanced enough to implement them.

Taking human vision into consideration it will actually be easier to present a traditional 3 dimensional object, wherein you can view it like a real world object, as opposed to a 3 dimensional "window" with specific images meant for each eye. We'll be seeing Star Trek like holograms before we reliably see Avatar in 3d without glasses.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177050)

I doubt that's the solution their using (unless you know for sure). The problem is, the distance between the eyes varies by person. It's impossible to calibrate when manufactured to work for everyone.

Besides, the article says that they half the refresh rate here, not the resolution. Sounds different, but might be related.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177058)

Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080). The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.

Untrue, FTFS: "By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image."

So you loose half your framerate instead of resolution.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177412)

...and to make up for losing half of your framerate, they double the original framerate to 60hz.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177322)

Half your resolution lost, however. The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.

Wow, I didn't know I could literally plug holes just by partially blocking one eye's vision. I'll have to remember that next time I have some hold plugging to do; could save a lot of time.

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177468)

You’re mixing up terms there.

stereographic 3D

This would mean: two volumes (you know a volume has 3 dimensions).
“3D display” is correct for the helical and some holographic systems.

Everything else is still just a 2D plane acting as a screen, in 3D space (which is why you can’t focus on blurry areas, or rotate them at will, while watching). So it’s still essentially 2D. Just stereo instead of mono. (It’s an unfortunate thing, that “stereo” is mostly reserved for audio.)

Re:A: Crap. Lenticular 3D. (1)

Thagg (9904) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177558)

It's not a typical lenticular display, exactly.

The real innovation here is the 3M material, not the TI chips driving the display. The material requires that the image be illuminated alternately fro the right and left edges of the screen, the material deflects that light into the right and left eyes respectively. Unlike lenticular displays, there is only one viewing direction that works, but it won't diminish the spatial resolution of the display (only the temporal one.) It will work great for something like a game-boy or an iPhone. Even something as small as an iPad, though, might have problems because the difference in eye-to-screen angle from one side of the display to the other.

This slide [nikkeibp.co.jp] tells you everything you need to know about the 3M film.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (4, Insightful)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177118)

Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?

You're 5% of the population. Where's the profit in catering to you?

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

ianezz (31449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177760)

You're 5% of the population. Where's the profit in catering to you?

The inhabitants of EU are less than the 5% of the population. Where's the profit? Even that 1% of that 5% having the means and the desire to buy a product is still a respectable number.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178238)

The inhabitants of EU are less than the 5% of the population. Where's the profit? Even that 1% of that 5% having the means and the desire to buy a product is still a respectable number.

That's a good point, but maybe not an apt comparison. And perhaps in the interests in brevity, I didn't fully elucidate my point. We're talking about an emerging technology requiring significant R&D. 5% of the population may be targeted later, but not initially. That 5% of the population isn't going to be where you will recoup your investment initially. Maybe I should have appended the words "right now" to my initial statement, but that is neither here nor there.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178126)

Easy. You just price it high enough to be profitable, and hope the market (however small) will bear it.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178198)

Easy. You just price it high enough to be profitable, and hope the market (however small) will bear it.

Point taken.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178230)

You realize that's 300 million people right, out of 6 billion.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (3, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178676)

Apple.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179048)

Plenty, but I know what you meant, 95% is even better! Sort of how Honda and Ferrari are both profitable, but I'd much rather own Honda.

Re:Effective viewing angle? (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179496)

Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?

Actually, you can still gain benefit from these 3D displays, much more easily than with systems using glasses.
You move your one good eye left and right between the two images, thus seeing Motion parallax.
I saw a demo with a camera at a sports game, where they bob the camera up and down. This dramatically improved the depth perception.

Of course, especially with a moving picture, you probably have a ton of depth cues already, just like the rest of us.
I don't see this latest 3D fad lasting any longer than the one on the 50s did.
Stereoscopic still photos are much more useful, as photos lack motion cues. Yet even they had only brief popularity,
and are now seen as merely a children's toy. [wikipedia.org]

I predict that in 10 years, the only new 3D movies will be in the Children's section.

Might be interested in it without glasses (2, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176420)

Since I already wear glasses, I don't really care about those 3D viewers since its a pain to have to remove my glasses, put on contacts just to turn around and put on another pair of glasses. Removing the middleman here would be a step in the right direction since I'm not alone with having to already wear glasses and not everyone can/has contacts.

Re:Might be interested in it without glasses (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176892)

Generally you can wear the glasses under the 3d glasses, but I suppose that might not be comfortable for some people.

Re:Might be interested in it without glasses (1)

TexVex (669445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177024)

I have horrible vision requiring heavy thick corrective lenses, but I'm able to wear the circularly polarized glasses for 3D movies over my corrective glasses with no issues.

Re:Might be interested in it without glasses (1)

ricotest (807136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177030)

Since so many of us geeks wear glasses, it's no surprise that most 3D glasses technologies are designed to comfortably slot over existing specs. It's not really a big deal in practice.

Re:Might be interested in it without glasses (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177456)

However, you are alone with having to bitch about something you apparently have never experienced, because nowadays the majority of glasses for 3D systems are either designed to fit comfortably over your existing spectacles and/or clip on to them.

hand-held porn device (1)

vacarul (1624873) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176432)

very nice, for a hand-held device; not very practical for living-room. You have to sit directly in front of it to see in 3D.

Sounds good.... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176436)

But on a device that small, not so great. It sounds like the overlay TFA mentions is like the static 3-D images that have been around forever. If so, it wouldn't work on a large screen across the room, or if you weren't right in front of it.

As to "no glasses needed", most folks over 40 are going to need glasses to see anything that small whether 3D or 2D.

I want the polaroid technology, the glasses are light and cheap, require no batteries or electronics, with realistic colors. It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD, but I think it could be done.

Re:Sounds good.... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176808)

"I want the polaroid technology, the glasses are light and cheap, require no batteries or electronics, with realistic colors. It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD, but I think it could be done."

Go ahead and build yourself one. Just get a couple of data projectors, a silver screen and some filters: http://www.geowall.org/ [geowall.org] .

It's not hard to do with an LCD or plasma display either. Effectively an LCD display is already half of a polarized 3D display. TV manufacturers are already trying to convince us we all need one. The question is, does anybody?

Lenticular or parallax? (1)

autostereoscopic (1747864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176482)

Which technology is it? The only two "no-glasses" technologies so far are lenticular and parallax.

TI-9000+ (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176514)

Their next graphing calculator is going to make some awesome graphs!

So nice of them... (1)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176590)

I'm so glad they included a 2D picture [ziffdavisinternet.com] of the 3D-ness in action.

The greasy fingerprints were a nice touch too.

Re:So nice of them... (1)

autostereoscopic (1747864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176624)

the least they could have done was a "wiggle" pic :)

Re:So nice of them... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176924)

Is it just me, or does the stuff on the screen look more 3D than the physical device itself? I think they need a bit better lighting in their photos. If you've got enough other depth cues, your brain will make the image 3D without needing stereoscopy. If you haven't, adding stereoscopy just gives me a headache.

Multiple viewers? (1)

BoppreH (1520463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176672)

You seem to have to be exactly in line with the device, so I guess there can be only one watching it at a time? (acrobatics doesn't count)

Re:Multiple viewers? (1)

Gandhi of War (1741426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176810)

...But do you normally sit around your hand-held device with a group of friends?
Maybe to watch a short clip, but not a movie. Which is practically the only media with 3D viewing.

Been there..done that. (4, Interesting)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176780)

There were 5 reasonably large (22''?) screens using this tech, or similar, in the metro station in Amsterdam CS over the holiday period. Just showing adverts, but rather impressive despite that.
There were definite 'sweet spots' for the 3d effect, and the whole image jumped if you changed the viewing angle by more than a few degrees; but it cheered me up because I saw the future of the flat-panel monitor being demo'd ;-), just add compiz.

Re:Been there..done that. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178758)

Which is the problem. Without glasses, there will always necessarily be a "sweet spot." Even if you could build advanced features like retina tracking, they would only work for a single individual at a time, unless you could speed up the framerate to a multiple of the number of viewers. The only way for multiple people to watch a single display in 3D is using glasses.

Can't Wait! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176828)

For the next generation of 3D calculators.

brightness (0)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176888)

The problem with all of these is that of brightness. If you're sending data to one eye at a time, the other eye sees darkness. It's like wearing 50% tint sunglasses.

If you are looking for a display to do flicker 3D, make sure you get one with a really really bright backlight.

Re:brightness (2, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177100)

Your eye responds to images logarithmically, so if you get a bright flash then a dead time, you still see that bright flash for a short period. (Not meaning burn-in.)

One of the techniques for overdriving an LED is to pulse it. A regular LED will die very quickly if you throw 300 mA through it, but if you drive it with a pulse train where the average doesn't exceed the max current for the device, it can sustain a brightness almost equal to the 300 mA level.

Re:brightness (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177350)

It is my personal experience that "flicker" glasses do, in fact, result in less brightness when viewing a display. I don't doubt what you are saying bout LED brightness, but I'm also not sure that it applies here.

Re:brightness (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177556)

Besides, newer LCDs are using pulsed LEDs to eliminate sample-and-hold blur [wikipedia.org] (as distinct from blur due to the LCD's slow response). You want flicker like CRTs used to do, at least if you want people like me to replace our CRT TVs with LCDs.

Re:brightness (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177624)

I have a Plasma TV because the PQ on LCD, even the 240Hz LCD TVs, is fucking shitty.

Re:brightness (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178022)

The 240 Hz uses some kind motion interpolation crap. What the need is an LCD that flashes the backlight for a very short time each 1/60 second, roughly equivalent to how a TV does. It's not the frame rate, it's the length of the flash. At some point, only older folks will even know what a good CRT looks like, and how little motion blur it has. You'll have to pry my CRT TV from my cold, dead hands. And that's not even getting into the crappy image you get from an analog video source due to digital upscaling, ugh.

Re:brightness (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178418)

Hey, my old TV is one of the Sony 32" WEGA models. I spent a looong time trying to find an HD model that didn't suck.

Take a look at Panasonic's plasma line. It's actually watchable. Of course, the signal providers compress it to the point where there's blur everywhere, but with a good feed it's a good TV.

Re:brightness (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178694)

Hey, my old TV is one of the Sony 32" WEGA models. I spent a looong time trying to find an HD model that didn't suck.

Funny you mention that. Someone was offering one of those for free recently. I was willing to put up with it being 150 lbs, but then I read that analog inputs get upscaled digitally, so they look like crap, so I decided against it. I don't have anything with digital output, and I also play game consoles which need to not look like crap.

What Sony models around 30" support progressive, but aren't digital? I've alreaedy got a 27" that supports component (but not progressive), also gotten for free. People are getting rid of them like crazy, and I'm partial to Sony for some reason.

Re:brightness (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178442)

At some point, only older folks will even know what a good CRT looks like, and how little motion blur it has.

You're confusing motion blur (which is in the source material, a function of the shutter speed and the motion of the subject with respect to the camera) with telecine/interlace artifacts. A 120Hz CRT given a progressive image (either 30fps or 24fps "progressive telecine") can reproduce the original material with no telecine artifacts and no judder (which exists on CRTs as well). Some of them can do good job doing inverse telecine as well, but there are limitations there.

Re:brightness (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178710)

I'm talking about blur due to motion. It's not due to interlace or the film-to-digital process. I'm saying that the focus on LCD response time is only half the problem; the other half is the sample-and-hold the backlight being on constantly causes. The blur this creates only exists if your eyes are moving to follow a moving object on screen. If you kept your gaze on a fixed point while the object moved, the sample-and-hold blur wouldn't occur.

don't move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177066)

The price for no-glasses is holding yourself very very still. Hopefully these devices will dispel the hatred of 3-D glasses, when complainers realize the alternatives are worse.

3D still requires stereoscopic vision (0)

lefiz (1475731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177128)

I'm not trying to whine here, but 3D viewing, no matter how it is accomplished, still requires that you view the imagine with two eyes. I only see with one eye, and cannot view 3D content in 3D with glasses or in a "sweet spot." I've never felt _that_ deprived before, but I am starting to get a little worried at the recent cultural interest in 3D. Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you don't view it using both eyes. I hope that (good) content still remains available in 2D for those of us that cannot appreciate 3D.

Re:3D still requires stereoscopic vision (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177516)

Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you don't view it using both eyes.

Anything that is designed for 3D is just crap with a gimmick, just like high def.

Same old boring formulaic garbage, now in HiDef and 3D! Same tired old cliche sitcom jokes, now in 5.1 surround!

Re:3D still requires stereoscopic vision (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178000)

Go back to sleep, Grandpa.

Re:3D still requires stereoscopic vision (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178508)

Just as color TV shows no interest in catering to the colorblind, you must accept that there will be popular technologies that do not cater to you.

What no pirate comments? (3, Funny)

carl0ski (838038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177174)

I'll say it. This is what the movie industry needs to deal with those pesky pirates. What wooden legged, one eyed pirate is going to steal a 3d film that requires two good eyes :)

Re:What no pirate comments? (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177976)

Ones that also have 120hz displays with special film from 3M.

Coming soon to an Amazon/Newegg/Tigerdirect/Dell/Apple near you.

Cause you bet your ass display manufacturers will be jumping all over this once it's mature, and 3M will happily take currency in exchange for this film.

Re:What no pirate comments? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178344)

I'll let you in on a secret. Most pirates only wear an eye patch for show. When they're at home with their friends, they'll take the eye patch off.

Tablet Sized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177426)

So, what, I can swallow it? Does it somehow project light onto my retinas? Oh, they mean like a computer tablet that you can draw on? Like those wacom ones that range from the size of a gerbil to that of a small house cat? Judging by the photo it looks roughly the size of a piece of string.

Could be the 3M film used with a switching LED (1)

doug20r (1436837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177450)

light source as reported here: http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/3m-announces-autostereoscopic-3d-gaming-for-mobiles-641343 [techradar.com] Perhaps the 3M Scotch Optical Lighting Film combined with a lenticular film? http://www.3m.com/product/information/Optical-Lighting-Film.html [3m.com] Unless the LED light source direction can be changed then the geometry is fixed and very sensitive to the viewing position and viewing distance.

Doomed (1)

Raconteur (1132577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177454)

No pun intended, but any shutter-style technique will fail. Too many people suffer ill effects -- headache, nausea, dizziness, etc. The same can happen with polarization techniques but to a far lesser degree.

watch Johnny Lee's simulated 3d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177636)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw [youtube.com]

http://johnnylee.net/ [johnnylee.net]

This is the perfect application for head tracking virtual 3d.

Been done...like years ago (3, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177690)

I used to play a PC game called Magic Carpet. It had a mode where all the game graphics were rendered in a 'magic eye' type mode. Once you got your eyes tweaked just right, it was all 3D and no glasses were required. Of course, it also looked like a box of crayons exploded.....

content delivery would be better tech (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177988)

I cannot see how 3D will be any more than a gimmick like it was in the 70s without some huge leap in technology, which has not occurred. There is a huge change in the way content is being delivered to people's homes with internet only programming and it would seem there would be a whole lot more opportunities in trying to make it easier for people to view it on their TV along with regular cable and broadcast programming.

auto-stereo CRTs at SIGGRAPH (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178922)

They use the tiny vertical lens prisms to deliver four different angle-views depending where your eyes are. This very similar to the 3-D or blinking image plastic pictures you get in novelty shop or crackerjack box. The lateral resolution is reduced by the number of lens angles in the system (typically four). If you move you head a lot you lose the effect temporarily. And it doesnt work when you are laying down.

This kind of table in a system might have issues delivering enough angles and screen-width together on a tablet screen. And if you rotate the screen just a little bit, you'd lose the effect.

mod5 down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31179230)

short of a miracle TROUBLED OS. NOW Hubbard and Mike continues in a blue, rubber For the pr0ject. the point more 800 w/512 Megs of lagged behind, don't feel that
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?