Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3D Nausea Solved By Eye-Tracking

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the vomiting-cures-it-sometimes dept.

Displays 116

An anonymous reader writes "If you are like me, then the slightest disparity in those 3D movies causes nausea — and I know it does with thousands of others too. LG claims to have solved the problem with a new technology that uses eye-tracking, similar to those red-eye detectors in digital cameras, adjusting the 3D display so that you don't get sick. Due to be available in LG's glasses-free 3D computer monitor it also displays normal 2D stuff, so even if you don't use the 3D much it might be worth a try. I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.) If it works as advertised great; if not, at least I can still use it as a regular monitor."

cancel ×

116 comments

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

Or... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36912972)

Or you can just stop trying to push this gimmicky, useless 3d garbage on everyone.
What a concept.

Re:Or... (0)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36912998)

Exactly. Besides, until that eye tracker tracks where the eye is focusing and adjusts the image focus to compensate (this is actually technically possible - they use a similar system to check your vision at some eye doctors now) you're still going to get eyestrain and headaches as you sit there unconsciously trying to bring an out of focus element of the image into focus, which of course you can't do because it was shot out of focus.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913048)

any ideas how to actually implement this? hint: it's non-trivial...

Re:Or... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913444)

Plenoptic camera [wikimedia.org]

Re:Or... (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913528)

mod this AC up. These cameras could do exactly what ggp was asking, though there's a lot of hard-/software that would need to go into it.

Re:Or... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914042)

That solves the image refocusing part. However how would you detect the distance at which the eyes focus?

Re:Or... (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914698)

with the eye tracker, I suppose.

Re:Or... (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915756)

I wasn't even thinking of that system. But with it, you don't need to change the focus. Everything is in focus.

Note that this would still suck (though from an aesthetic standpoint rather than a "shit my eyes hurt!" standpoint, which I think would be an improvement) because a big cue for distance is that when we're focusing on something 2 feet away, things 15 feet away are blurry. Take that away and things would look weird.

Really, 3d won't be viable as a "totally realistic" medium until we have holographic projectors that actually project the image in 3 dimensional space.

Re:Or... (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914624)

Mod the parent down.

In order to give your eyes something to focus on in the first place you'd need to CREATE the plenoptic field that matches the scene. Read: holography of a sort.

Plenoptic functions as I understand them in brief:

The electromagnetic field requires 5 degrees of freedom for each photon. 3 of space and 2 for direction.
-A plenoptic camera can cheerfully ignore one of the degrees of freedom (depth) since all of the light is hitting a plane. This is what allows it to re-focus. It does not, in fact, capture depth like it is often said. It captures the angle of the incoming light.
-Lenses bend light. The focus of a lens is chosen to make the light coming in at certain angles (the depth of focus) bend and converge on to a plane: the sensor.
-Knowing the angle of the light that came into the camera you can then choose to "focus" on a particular plane by, in short, figuring out where the light would have hit had the focus been different.

In order to give a display the ability to send out light which out eyes can focus on naturally the display would need to be able to send photons out in a pattern that matched the simulated environment at the cross-section of the screen. In short it would have to be able to send arbitrarily colored light in arbitrary directions from every pixel on the screen (4 degrees of freedom. 2 for space and 2 for direction, just like the camera but sending not capturing). Each pixel would have to be able to send not just one color in one direction but many colors in many (related) directions. All of those directions are directly at various parts of the lens of your eye. This is tantamount to holography, but achieved in a different way.
Nice thing to have, though: this could be viewed glasses free for almost everyone because it could send out light in such a way that it "corrected" your vision. No glasses, even prescription, required!

I hope that it is now obvious that it would not simply be enough to know where your eye was focused.
Don't expect this very soon. If the stagnation of holography is an indicator this is a tough problem to crack from any direction.

Re:Or... (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913102)

That sounds great, but would only be possible with realtime rendered 3D environments. Movies are done with only one focal point, so it wouldn't be possible there.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913218)

That sounds great, but would only be possible with realtime rendered 3D environments. Movies are done with only one focal point, so it wouldn't be possible there.

This isn't neccissarily true with light field based cameras such as http://www.lytro.com/cameras

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913260)

Hmmmm, for now. Take a look at Lytro.

Re:Or... (2)

Archimagus (978734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913316)

Re:Or... (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913384)

That is really cool. I wasn't aware of that technique. It is fun to be wrong.

Re:Or... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914490)

That is really cool. I wasn't aware of that technique. It is fun to be wrong.

Unless it's in the context of things like "There's no way I'm about to be eaten by a slavering xenomorph!"

Re:Or... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917336)

Unless it's in the context of things like "There's no way I'm about to be eaten by a slavering xenomorph!"

Okay... shouldn't your name be Carter Burke? ;)

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913204)

I want a HUMAN pilot in planes, too! Not some bucket of bolts bleep blooping it up in the cockpit. Get off my lawn!

Re:Or... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913786)

Eye tracking is about as accurate as imagination. I hope people realize that. Head tracking, moderately accurate.

Eye tracking requires that you sit in a specific location in order to be accurate. Moving your head around and this shit won't keep track of anything. Nor will it accurately track your eyes if it's tracking your head in any fashion.

This isn't a solution, it's a farce. I'm so tired of the 3d hype.

Re:Or... (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913896)

eye tracking, it's easy. sit right here. look right there. bam! my system knows exactly where you are looking!

Re:Or... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914482)

This looks to be embedded in the glasses - so as long as they're relatively secure on your head, moving your head shouldn't move your eyes relative to the sensors much at all. Also, it would have no reason to track your head.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916604)

Glasses in a "glasses-free 3D display"? What a concept!

Re:Or... (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917622)

The article is about a glasses-free technology.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915010)

you mean like when you sit infront of desktop monitor in maya, 3dmax, zbrush, mudbox, or playing any game? Riiiiiight

Re:Or... (1)

jensen404 (717086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916050)

It only needs to tracking the location of the eyes, not their gaze.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOy-Dnr3xyU&feature=player_detailpage#t=87s

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914502)

I'm with you...my left eye doesn't do much focusing/viewing unless I close my right eye. As such the 3d movies are just fuzzy and disjointed looking to me. It's not completely unwatchable but it's annoying enough that I skip them if they're in 3d.

Re:Or... (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914562)

Yeah and please stop all this nonsense about movies that talk and horseless carriages. They were crap to begin with also. Seriously - there is no way the industry is not going to find a way to improve this technology. They have invested too heavily. It will get better.

Re:Or... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917632)

Yeah I mean 3D type crap. It's not like we weren't there 120 years ago either, and people said "fuck this" or words to that effect. In a cycle that repeats every oh 10-20 years or so.

Re:Or... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915242)

Speaking of useless garbage, this is from the article:

R. Colin Johnson has been writing non-stop daily stories about next-generation electronics and related technologies for 20+ years. His unique perspective has prompted coverage of his articles by a diverse range of major media outlets--from the ultra-liberal National Public Radio to the ultra-conservative Rush Limbaugh Show.

If you try to frame NPR as "ultra-liberal" and try to create some sort of false equivalence to Rush Limbaugh, you are disqualified from having anything you say or write taken seriously, forever.

I believe that's in the bible, under "Though Shall Not Bullshit".

What ever (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913064)

Wake me up when they create the holodeck and holochicks that think I'm funny. Otherwise I'm fine with the piece of $hit Samsung tv that I'm not watching right now.

Re:What ever (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913168)

you're implying holochicks would be using their mouths to laugh or communicate? not in my specs for a holodeck.....

Re:What ever (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913484)

LMAO yeah I though of that too. Oh and Obama may have turned out to be another (smarter) Bush but Bush had better weed (H&K go to Guantanamo).

Re:What ever (1)

kryliss (72493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913832)

Bush didn't need a tele-prompter... or is that a 3D tele-prompter?

Re:What ever (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914740)

Oh he needed one, he just didn't use one.

Re:What ever (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913802)

might be a while [smbc-comics.com] .

But if you're not alone... (1, Interesting)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913106)

And how well does this work when you have more than one pair of eyes to track...? Some of us have friends...

Re:But if you're not alone... (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913172)

Gouge out their eyes. If they are true friends, they won't mind. Honest.

Re:But if you're not alone... (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913242)

It doesn't...only suitable for a single viewer....ghey

Re:But if you're not alone... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913314)

Some of us have friends...

I don't think your real doll or fleshlight is going to mind if it can't watch the 3d with you.

Re:But if you're not alone... (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913340)

This is slashdot. We all live alone in our parent's basement. A 'friend' is someone you know on Facebook, who has their own TV set.

I thought something like Solarian living (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914232)

was a stretch (Issac Asimov's Foundation Earth series) but - holy crap - living alone in our basements with online friends .... we're almost there.

Re:But if you're not alone... (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914628)

Kids today. I used to dream of living in a basement ....

Re:But if you're not alone... (3)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913378)

(And of course, the answer is in TFA, as this technology doesn't work for more than one person. Fancy stuff that...)

I don't care about this "3D" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913138)

I would much prefer a virtual realty of sorts. Staring at a 2D screen trying to project in 3D is nowhere near as satisfying.

Why not try it at the store first? (3, Insightful)

rjune (123157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913160)

I'm sure those monitors will be very expensive when they first come out. Why not try it in a store first? If it doesn't work, you won't have spent your money on a product that is only partially functional for you. Or you can purchase a regular monitor and have some money left over for something else.

Re:Why not try it at the store first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913252)

Yes, but then it wouldn't be a slashvertisement!!!

Re:Why not try it at the store first? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913600)

In a store it is you and your spouse sitting in the perfectly aligned roomed they have already prepared.
At home with 2 kids, and 2 of their friends over, sitting on the floor, in a room that is to shallow, narrow, angled funny, it is a different story.

Current 3D tv's have an optimum viewing angle that can barely fit a 3 person couch. you put a recliner off to the side and the person in the recliner will always have problems. If you don't have a theater size watching room, then you might as well not bother. If you like watching movies in positions other than ramrod straight sitting vertical then you might as well not bother.y girl while not wearing stupid

as for me I am going to lay down and cuddle with a pretty girl to watch movies.

Re:Why not try it at the store first? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914720)

as for me I am going to lay down and fondle a pretty girl to watch movies.

There, I made you sound like less of a vagina.

Russian TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913164)

In Soviet Russia, your TV watches YOU!

Re:Russian TV? (0)

kryliss (72493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913866)

In Soviet Russia, your TV watches YOU...... In 3D!!!!

Cool story, bro. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913220)

Cool story, bro. Have any more boring personal stories you want to share with us?

Re:Cool story, bro. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913368)

Met a jerk on the internet...

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913408)

This solution was implemented in a 3D headset to solve the same issue.

3D Nausea solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913436)

..with 2D viewing. /eof

3D nausea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913442)

3D nausea is solved by NOT USING 3D.

Ok, I'll bite... (1, Insightful)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913446)

So if this adjusts the picture based on your eyes, what does it do if multiple people are watching? Especially when they go to the "Glass-less" version?

Re:Ok, I'll bite... (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913502)

It doesn't work for multiple people hence why they mention that in TFA.

The only major limitation is that it can only track the location of a single user's eyes. Thus the technology is not appropriate for TVs where multiple users may be watching from different angles.

Re:Ok, I'll bite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913576)

"The only major limitation is that it can only track the location of a single user's eyes. Thus the technology is not appropriate for TVs where multiple users may be watching from different angles."

Re:Ok, I'll bite... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913810)

Heck "Glass-less" 3D doesn't work with multiple viewers (unless they are stacked vertically) so the point is rather mute.

Re:Ok, I'll bite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914534)

That is why it's better suited to mobile devices like HTC Evo 3d. Little screen, one viewer.

Re:Ok, I'll bite... (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917626)

The article says it is only good for a single viewer.

I think it is better to simply increase the number of points where the 3D illusion is visible.

Implication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36913448)

BS, this entire 3d push is just an excuse to have eye tracking technology in the television for psychological research information.

Nausea would be an upgrade. (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913456)

...compared to the crushing headaches many people get from so-called "3D".

Re:Nausea would be an upgrade. (1)

kryliss (72493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913892)

So that's why Tylenol is investing so much into 3D TV's.

Hey Hollywood.... (1)

Gauthic (964948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913474)

Hey Hollywood, It's not the technology of 3d. It's the content that's ON the 3d.

Re:Hey Hollywood.... (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913824)

It's a combination of both. The technology fails because good or bad movies still hurt many people's eyes, the content fails because 1. Too many movies are trying too hard to overdo 3D, Reminds me a bit of that comercial for the phone that can do video in 3-d, where the dad is forcing the kids to hit harder for the sake of making better use of the 3-D while they play ping pong, completely taking all the fun away from the kids. But even with both of those problems solved, the idea of 3-D is just flawed beyond belief. There are 2 possible theories of how it ends, 1. it is in the same phase that stereo was for music, IE every song is just messing around with it to the point that it is distracting and annoying, but soon it will be less used and fade to barely noticeable. Either way I consider anyone investing in it to be wasting their money. Assuming this technology comes out, and it works, we are looking at spending hundreds of dollars for 3D in a form that you can chose between, 3D that causes 1/4th the viewers headaches, or 3D that only one person can watch at a time. Great for social events of all kinds.

Re:Hey Hollywood.... (1)

Lord_Naikon (1837226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915304)

Well stereo is now widely used and it definitely adds to the quality of music. If 3D's going the way of stereo I foresee a bright future for it.

Re:Hey Hollywood.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916084)

The 70s were full of obnoxious pingpong sounds in only the L or R channel. Nowadays you'll rarely find anything that isnt blended evenly into both channels and compressed to a homogonized audio level, because that's what works on radio. What sounds good to the ear has little to do with it, it's about training the brain into thinking "YES THIS IS A COMMERCIAL MUSIC SONG AND IS WORTH MONEY I MUST BUY THIS LADDA GOOGOO RECORD "

I've noticed the more radio play pop music a friend listens to, the less they seem to be able to enjoy something like a little local band jamming at the bar. All the alternately loud and soft and subtle sounds comes off jarring and distracting when you've been trained to listen to a sort of enhanced pink noise.

There have been studies showing younger audiences prefer the muddy highs and distortion caused by mp3s, they've been trained to it and it sounds "right" to them. Clean, crisp high hats in a blink 182 song sound like the "wrong" or inferior version.

If you are like me (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913518)

If you are like me, you wouldn't post this article.

You wouldn't wear a rubber chicken suit either.

Too early to buy (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913804)

No wonder 3D TVs are not selling well, people know all too well it's too early and that their new set will be an obsolete design next month.

Keep it to yourself (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913850)

I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.)

Um, good for you? Who cares? Anything else you would like tell us? Keep the inane commentary out of the summaries please.

Re:Keep it to yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914860)

is good
www.comidayvinos.com

Re:Keep it to yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915578)

Heh. The noobs are getting uppity again, I see.

If you can't glaze over things in summaries I feel bad for you, son. Your life is destined to be an strenuous one.

Are you sure the content isn't making you ill? (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36913938)

n/t

and mouth tracking (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914068)

and it will be using mouth tracking to determine when it has failed and vomiting ensues.

Re:and mouth tracking (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914598)

Anal tracking should be similarly useful.

Focal depth must match stereo depth. (4, Interesting)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914138)

As I wrote on Gizmag:

As an armchair scientist, I have been experimenting with screens for quite a while. Trying to plot out what factors are involved for 3D display and depth perception.

I have been following this whole 3D craze with dismay because TV builders have failed to address the fundamentals.

Stereo vision is only one aspect of 3D vision and in fact not even nearly as powerful as some other effects. Although there are many causing discomfort the light ray divergence is most relevant.

Your eye also tells you how far away something is by the amount of work it needs to do to bring it into focus. The lens in your eye bends incoming light rays so they focus on your retina similar to how a photo camera works. To get the best possible 3D effect in commercial flight simulators, they make use of collimated displays.

Consider the pixels on your LCD screen a light sources. Take a pixel and you can consider it to be a light point that radiates light in all directions. After all you want to see the screen at many viewing angles. So the light rays diverge and the lens in your eye needs to bring the rays that hit the eye together to focus on your retina.

A collimated display emits light rays that are more or less parallel. Your eyes can relax more in order to focus which is an very powerful depth suggestion.

Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.

The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch. Added benefit is that displays like this can be adjusted for your eyes so you can watch TV without your glasses. They would make really good computer monitors.

A pixel worth of imagery normally only contains R, G and B channels for Red, Green and Blue light that combine to any color. In addition each pixel needs a fourth channel indicating the depth of the pixel. You may find the focal depth powerful enough without the need for stereo vision. You can try this simply by closing one eye and look around and notice how your eye adjusts to things nearby and far away.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914646)

'The only way' ... well that's good to know.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914746)

Yeah, that as a bit presumptuous I agree. "One way to solve..." would have been a better choice of words.
Just tried to point out that you need to match focal depth with stereo depth. The way in which to do that is indeed open.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914886)

Yeah... as Obiwan once said ... "only a sith deals in absolutes".

FWIW, that's not actually irony... although I've heard criticism about the writing of the movie that quote is from suggesting that it is. However, the notion of dealing in absolutes, which represents a particular philosophical outlook, is wholly different from merely stating a proposition that happens to be definitive. In a nutshell "dealing in absolutes" means having an absolutist point of view ("my way or the highway", for example). It does not mean that one cannot make statements which are objectively true.

Now that said... Mace Windu crossed this line just before he was going to kill Palpatine... Yoda would not have been pleased.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915048)

Thanks for that deep insight. Slashdot worthy.
Lol 1000 years from now they will think the star-wars movie script was some kind of bible.

There's another one too (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914938)

Parallax. When you shift your head, objects in the front appear to move more than objects further away. This matters even in a more or less stationary position because you change your head position and the scene should change, but doesn't.

I'm not sure why this aspect has been so ignored because it is a big cue, and one you can do on existing screens, at least with video games. You just need something to track the head position and orientation of the viewer, then adjust the screen accordingly.

Now that has limits, of course, only works for one viewer being chief among them but then so does this technology. If someone released it, I'd get it because it would be fun to play with. It adds a non-trivial amount of "3Dness" to what you are doing, works on existing screens, and doesn't fatigue your eyes since nothing else is changed.

You don't have real 3D until you have separation, parallax, and focus. Only when you have a display that can properly show all those things does it really simulate 3D as we see it.

Re:There's another one too (2)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915026)

Yes, that is another important one. I have been doing some experiments on that as you can see in this video on my youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdtPz2V_vY [youtube.com]

Re:There's another one too (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915106)

Yep, seems to work great. I saw it done with a Wiimote (they have an IR camera in the end) and a couple of LEDs taped to glasses. Regardless, this is the kind of product I think would be good for 3D gaming. No it isn't "real 3D" but given how well it works, and that all you'd need is the tracking hardware, I think it would be great.

However it would seem the people who make gaming hardware don't agree, they are all in on the 3D shutter glasses stuff which I want not at all.

Re:There's another one too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916152)

This stuff has existed for years.
Just google 'TrackIR' and 6DOF.

Or, do it for free using a webcam and Freetrack.

Its nowhere near the 3d visuals you get with 3d stereoscopy, but its very nice to have still.

Re:There's another one too (0)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917122)

the thing that bugs me about that sort of thing is you havent properly implemented perspective. if you have the locations of both eyes, the location of the screen, and the location of the object behind the screen, you should be tracing a line from the vectors of the object to your eye location through the screen, and intersecting it with the plane of the screen to get your polygon coordinates, in a version of proper 'fisheye' perspective. as it is, your just using the traditional system used in games that just traces a line at 90 degrees to the screen, so you still get some distortion, especially at extreme angles

Re:There's another one too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915996)

Parallax is not as important as stereoscopy. In fact, stereoscopy is the most powerful cue.
I can say this having both a 3D stereo display, AND headtracking, so in the applications I use (mostly flight sims) I can compare both.

Its definitely more immersive physically being able to move your head around and see the cockpit from different angles, but visually, stereoscopy is more immersive, and if i had to choose one or the other, i'd choose stereoscopy. Parallax doesn't really add any 'depth' to the scene, it just adds immersion.

Combining them is pretty nice however.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915134)

Have you ever watched youtube 3d cross-eyed? Perceive something to be a great distance away, while focusing your lenses 18 inches away, while crossing your eyes as though looking at something 6 inches away. It's a fun trick to play on your brain.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915938)

actually the main problem seems to be the same as the problems caused by dlp projectors and general motion sickness in general. People who focus on details (most wearers of glasses) lose context for the movement and are more likely to focus on areas that aren't even in focus. Those who see the whole bigger picture at once actually track the area of film that is in focus, doing anything else in 3d displays is just murdering your eyes.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916962)

Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.

The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch.

If you want to completely mimic 3D vision, yes, that's necessary, though it's even more complex to get right than you make it sound.

But if you constrain content to deep focus (whether by the mostly-lost art of cinematography, or just CGI, which gets you deep focus for free), such that no part of the scene is inherently out of focus, and place the screen beyond the hyperfocal distance of the human eye (varies by pupil dilation from ~5m in a dark room, to conflicting signals from stereoscopy vs. focal distance cues. It's true you don't get the benefit from focal distance cues as with true variable-focus pixels, but due to the hyperfocal distance's dependence on lighting mentioned above, you get no real focal cues beyond 1m on a sunny day, so our vision is well adapted to this situation.

Re:Focal depth must match stereo depth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36917188)

why don't we get sick looking at a mirror?

3D nasea solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914472)

...release all content in 2D!

Gee, novel idea.

Only way is to render for every user (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915164)

To allow for correct depth focus and parralax from tracking eyes you need to render the image for each user. It is not enough to just tweak it.
This means you can't *film* a movie in 3D, you have to create it and have it rendered in real time.
It will happen, just not quite yet...

Re:Only way is to render for every user (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915260)

Bouncing light off a screen is ok to deliver a moving painting but very ill equipped to deliver a personalized realistic 3D visualization. A personal viewer makes much more sense. Here is hoping personal video googles will take off after all. Now people are "trained" to watch 3D TV with shutter goggles this might not be such a stretch.

Re:Only way is to render for every user (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915572)

First off, I never said they would be able to do this via screens.
Secondly, peopel are already moving away from shutterglasses. Polarized glasses give just as good a experience but at a fraction of the cost allowing larger audiences.
You are ofcource right though. Every user needs custom content and as such delivery will probably have to be a personal viewer.

Re:Only way is to render for every user (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916046)

Well, I believe that normal flat TV screens are a great and social way to share visual information. A moving painting. I think it is much easier to have personal Head Mounted Displays for the full 3D immersion.

After doing some searching today I could only find Sensics that makes high resolution HMD's the prices are just a little prohibitive. 20k and up.
But like with anything scaling technology can bring the price down well under $500 I imagine.

http://sensics.com/technology/breakthrough.php [sensics.com]

If accurate head-tracking was performed like they do in the Razer Hydra motion controller you would have a winner. Lag free hi-res head tracking combined with a panoramic HMD would be no good for movies (Although I wonder if they should use it to keep the screen steady so you can scan the screen) it would do wonders for fps games.

A bit late (1)

locater16 (2326718) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915360)

Yeah, I suppose most people haven't thought of this. But I came up with the same idea 2 years ago, researched to see if I could patent it, and saw two were already filed as far back as 1996. I wonder if they bought the patents or are going to get sued.

Did anyone read the article? (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915624)

If yes, please tell me where in the article does it say that whatever LG did had anything to do with getting sick while watching 3D movies. The article is a bit too technical for me and I don't really see the connections. Any geeks to my rescue?

Eye tracking? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915882)

Eye tracking built into a display so it can adjust the image? Sounds like a great way to keep the ads right in front of you.

No thanks!

I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36917012)

Will they track eyes to adapt image on screen ? What happens if there's multiple viewers ? ;-)

ok (0)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917250)

to all the people complaining about 3d, quit whining, you can still go see the 2d version of everything, and the majority of us, i think its fair to say, quite enjoy 3d and I think that when properly done, it adds to the experience. if the 3d in a movie is done badly, thats not 3ds fault, thats the dumbass directors fault. widespread adoption of 3d is a new thing, and itll take some time for the directors to settle down and learn to use 3d in a intelligent manner.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?