3D Display a Little Bit Closer to Reality 207
arielsebbag writes "According to CNET, Several high-tech companies including Sony and Sanyo have officially unveiled a consortium to create technical and safety standards for bringing three-dimensional displays to desktops, laptops and cell phones. They are probably focusing their efforts on the technology developed by Sharp. It looks like they are actually good to go and hopefully the 3D display will hit the market by 2004."
Slashdotting (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotting (Score:3, Funny)
3D cellphones? Please NO... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:3D cellphones? Please NO... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:3D cellphones? Please NO... (Score:2, Funny)
The friend I'm thinking of is quite straight, though.
Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:1)
science = advance the human race.
What else in life is there? All business revolves around science or entertainment.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
And oh yeah, warehousing.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:4, Interesting)
And best of all, this might finally give Slashdot some real depth.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2, Insightful)
Physically moving to look behind something on your monitor is incredibly inefficient, we'd have a whole new class for RSIs. On eBay... we can simulate 3D just like we do now, why aren't people doing it? There probably isn't a demand for it, 3d videoconferencing?? Why? What would that gain you?
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you say this? Is manipulating a keyboard and/or mouse to change your viewpoint more efficient? Head movement is intuitive, natural, and exactly how we change perspective in the real world.
Imagine a surgeon performing surgery through the use of a 3D display... both of his hands could be occupied with "virtual tools" or whatever, so it would be much easier for him to just look around the model.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
I'm just talking about the physical mechanics of moving your fingers or lower arm in comparison to moving your torso, neck, head, etc.
Imagine a surgeon performing surgery through the use of a 3D display... both of his hands could be occupied with "virtual tools" or whatever, so it would be much easier for him to just look around the model.
If both his hands are occupied he's really not going to be able to *move* to get a better view as the hands would be anchoring points. This could be relevant in situations where one surgeon is working on a patient... but does that ever happen?
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have to imagine, I've seen it. About 10 years ago at a TV exhibition in Tokyo, NHK (IIRC) had a demo of 3D HDTV - using glasses, 1920 line projection display in a pretty good quality viewing theatre. They had two films. The first was standard chocolate-box pretty pictures - brightly clad children playing, flowers, pretty girls dancing etc. Then, with very little warning, they switched to an experimental project on brain surgery, designed to let many surgeons see inside a minimal sugical incision. We we suddenly looking at a hole in someone's head, projected 6 feet wide in 3D. It was not fun - but it did show a serious advantage to 3D displays.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
3D Modelers, such as myself, would find it cool. However, I get the hint you're looking for a mass market appeal which 3D Modelling doesn't realy cover.
However, the time could be right when 3D printers become consumer level. There'll be fewer surprises when the object's actually printed...
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Whoop - De - Do
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Well, I think the technology's going to come before the application here. Chances are your question wouldn't be answered until this stuff's done and released.
However, I can think of an interesting application: The desktop interface to your computer. I like the idea of my individual windows having depth. If they were transparent to boot, that could potentially mean that I can have a great deal more data on the screen at once.
The question is, will this particular 3D technology lend itself to that. To be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen it. I do think, though, that depth perception could really revolutionize interfaces in general.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
About 5 years ago when alternate shells for Windows first started gaining momentum there were a couple that played with this idea, I don't think any of them reached a point of being useful/stable, but why couldn't this just be done with software that exists today?
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Insightful)
I could go for a GUI where windows with the focus are brought forward, while windows without focus are dropped back a bit but still not obscured by the focus window. Moving my head to see around the focus window is often easier/better than alt-tabbing or trying to tile them.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2, Interesting)
This type of thinking also strikes me as very "640kb is enough-ish". Just because there isn't an immediate valid use for somthing doesn't mean it's a toy for a privelaged few.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
when i read that i actually said "aaaah" out loud!
that's damn scary...
already have uses (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually that might be two words.
Anyways, in Japan they ALREADY are taking advantage of this technology - you can take 3D pictures on your photo-capable cellphones, print them out, etc etc. I don't know how well it works because I havn't seen it in action yet, but it has sure been in commercials a lot lately.
Don't think of 3D as a real 3D like "volumetric" but more like those magic-eye things - where it's an illusion of 3D, in the other words, you don't get more data (i.e. you never see more of the sides of the 3D thing by changing your perspective, trying to look at the display from the sides), but the object appears 3D, fooling your eyes.
Editors might want to get this straight too
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
4's and 5's in the foreground
2's & 3's in the 'near' background
1's just behind 2's & 3's
0's & -1's on the surface of the moon
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
Why, cause the other 99/100 of the computer using populace is doing "high end science usage"? Wow, what country are you in? Lemme guess: if high-end science can find no use for it then nobody could want it--right? Cause these guys like cornered the market. Sorry, I'm just enjoying this, trying to picture a world that really would work like that... you know, mobs of geeky people in labcoats breaking down the door of CompUSA when the newest device useful for "high end science applications" arrives in the store. Tom's hardware would rave about how many "high end science calculations per second" the latest, greatest hardware can do, and everywhere, "high end scientists" drool on their keyboards. Then, when they finally get their new science hardware, they show up groggy for work every day, because they're up all night doing "high end science" on their wonderful new scientific device.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
In the abstract, the highest bandwith channel into the human brain is the eyes. Delivering different information to the two eyes must be capable of delivering more information that to just one eye. (Not twice as much - the vision system isn't built that way). And enabling extre information to be obtained by just moving the head would help those of us with working neck muscles (though I don't know if the proposed systems do this).
Even in software development, we already use three or more dimensions (X, Y, colour, typeface) to represent what is inherently a one-dimensional object - program source is naturally just a very long row of characters.
It will take some time to work out the possibilities, but I cannot think of any computer activity which you can definitively say will *not* benefit from a 3D display. It'll just take a while before people work out how to use it.
Possible page layout for print, which is inherently 2d. But ordinary "correspondence" word processors are being used to prepare documents which are never intended to printed, so can have linke etc. in them.
3D graphing for the accountants - better visualisation and planning.
Would a 3D organisation chart have a better chance of representing reality than a 2D one?
3D display of thread trees for newsreaders (and
3D display of conversations on IRC/chatrooms? Not quite sure how it would work, but there is room for ideas here.
3D family snaps. The only reason we don't have 3d snaps now is that the viewing equipment is too clunky - there have been stereo film cameras since the 1920s at least. If your website can show 3D snaps, it will only be milliseconds before manufacturers come out with stereo digital cameras. The technology is simple, and the cost is certainly not going to be prohubitive.
Yes - and porn. Porn probably makes more money directly than any other net activity. Whilst of course abhorring the worst kinds of porn, I don't see why people shouldn't enjoy, and sell profitably, "ordinary" porn. And if 3D makes people's porn experience better, who is hurt? It is not as if the porn isn't there in 2D already.
Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2)
You'll shoot your eye out!
Heh. Sorry I just pictured Ralphie delivering that comment.
What does this mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
The answer's not as simple as that. I think by 3D he means "X, Y, and D". In other words, 2D animated image.
Technically a 3D monitor (4d?) would be X, Y, Z, and D. So there'd be depth. Or would there? I mean, you couldn't really have 2 pixels at the same X, Y, and D co-ordinates unless you had either a volumetric display or a multi layered display. It'd be more like 2.5D (3.5D if you count time...) since your depth channel would be pretty limited.
To answer his question, it'll be two images simultaneously that give your brain enough information to extract the depth information. It's not a true extra dimension, though.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
I don't get what you mean by 'D'. Z is depth, so I don't get what a monitor displaying x,y,z, and d would be showing.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Had a bit of a brain fart there.
Your 2-D monitor works in 3 dimensions because it's animated.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Ya know how images can appear to 'jump off the screen' of a 3D movie when you are wearing those funky glasses? Well, these new 3D displays do that, but without the funky glasses.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
On a regular moniter, things may be rendered in 3-d, but they are displayed in a flat method. This can be approximated in the real world by closing one eye. With these screens, you get the asme 3-d illusion that you get in a "magic eye", where your brain interprets slight differences in pictures between you two eyes as depth.
The problems mentioned, such as the fact that it does not know where your eyes are to send the right images to the right places, are being worked on, but eye tracking makes the system much more complicated.
There are other, more fundemental problems with screens. Among them are that the focus plain is still on the screen, eevn while the sterio says that the image is somewhere else. This can give people headaches.
<SHAMELESS PLUG>
I work at that MIT media lab Spacial Imaging Group, who were mentioned previously on slashdot [slashdot.org] They have a holographic video which in theory works, It has many other problems, including that the person who built it has graduated and moved on. But in theory, that would be the ideal solution.
</SHAMELESS PLUG>
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
The beam is never focused anywhere. It is brought back when the hologram is viewed. The loss of focus planes would come from projecting a focused image on a screen, the first place that happens is your eye. You can focus on the front of a hologram, and the back is out of focus, or visa versa. At my lab they have printed some holograms and messed up the focal planes so they just looked wrong.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2, Informative)
As for holographic displays, one of the problems with them, or any volumetric display, is that there is no occlusion in the scene. This really limits the quality and usefulness of this method.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Basically the difference with a real 3D display unit is that if you move your head, you will see different parts of the scene, like the sides of an object, just as if you were looking at a real physical object.
Ever played a video game and instinctively (and futilely) jerked your head to one side to try and get a better viewing angle of the action? Well this display would mean that could actually work.
Re:What does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Ever watch a 3d-movie. The kind you need special glasses to wear. Like a 3D IMAX or some such movie. Or even the red/blue lenses kind. That's what they are talking about.
Two different images are projected, one for each eye. This gives the illusion of parallax. You are tricked in to thinking the image is 3d because each eye receives a slightly different image.
And, just as with a 3d movie, changing your viewpoint doesn't let you see the side of anything. It will simply make the illusion start sucking as you need to be in the middle for it to work perfectly.
Justin Dubs
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Poor Mans Test (Score:2)
1. Pick out two objects, one close and one far.
2. Move your head side to side, if the stay the name, your at a 2D, if they move, your at a 3D.
Ever watched someone play 3D games and move there head around to see what's behind the corner?
That's totally awesome. (Score:1, Offtopic)
mm... (Score:2, Funny)
Just what I always wanted.
Re:mm... (Score:2)
Just wait until the might of the sex industry gets behind this, you'll soon be able to have 3-dimensional mammary glands in yer face... without actually having to take her out on a date, buy her lunch, CONVERSE WITH HER, that kind of thing.
Every geek's dream, basically...
VirtualBoy (Score:3, Interesting)
People don't want to watch TV/use a computer on a peripheral device. They want to do it sitting back in a comfy chair.
Re:VirtualBoy (Score:2)
Re:VirtualBoy (Score:2)
yrs,
Ephemeriis
Re:VirtualBoy (Score:2)
Any links for that? Otherwise I call BS, as not only does Google return absolutely zilch for 'virtuaboy glaucoma' but it just sounds like bunk.
There goes everyone elses eyesight... (Score:2, Interesting)
The main reason I wear glasses is by using a poor quality monitor for about 6 years, since the pixels jiggle my eyes would constantly refocus. Hopefully, they can fix this to some extent...
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
ooh...
ooohhhhhhh!!!
ummmm nevermind
Longhorn/Blackcomb (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Longhorn/Blackcomb (Score:2)
The idea is not a 3D desktop per se, but using the incredibly powerful 3D graphics processors to do some of the work of drawing and/or compositing the graphics.
Does it hurt to use? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying it might not be usefull in the same applications it's usefull in now, but untill I can use one for 6 hours with no eyestrain, I don't think I want one.
UT2003/3D would be pretty damn cool, though...
Re:Does it hurt to use? (Score:2)
Damn. I guess I'll have to sell my stock in Sony now because jericho4.0 is not going to purchase a 3D monitor. You're going to bring economic ruin to the world with that attitude. Won't you please think of the children?!?!?!
Re:Does it hurt to use? (Score:2)
What about poor MS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, 3D displays are extremely useful for a variety of applications, from architecture (actual 3D renderings that you can actually walk around and see) to medicine (detailed and accurate 3D MRI imaging).
Of course, this particular article deals with 3D for entertainment purposes, so of course I have to mention the most probable use for 3D displays, which is 3D pr0n (in case you didn't catch the 50 or so other posts making the same exact joke).
I'm such a hack.
Re:What about poor MS? (Score:5, Funny)
How is this better than a holo? (Score:4, Interesting)
The CNN and news.com.com articles were a little short on details, the each eye recieving a seperate image makes me think that the alignment of the two screens is horizontally side by side, rather than one behind the other with a slight offset.
I could've missed something however.
Anyway, I seem to remember a projection based holo game (was some kinda wierd space western) I played in the arcade in the early 90's, it used various projectors onto various pieces of glass to generate a 3D image (and looked pretty good if I recall). Isn't there better tech out there for true 3D rather than a flatscreen LCD?
Re:How is this better than a holo? (Score:2)
Re:How is this better than a holo? (Score:2)
so you still have one flat screen but it looks 3d -- as if you are peering into a window (tm) that contains a normal 3d world.
Re:How is this better than a holo? (Score:2)
Didn't you ever lean over and look inside when you were a kid?
Idea for a 3d display (Score:2)
Re:Idea for a 3d display (Score:2)
So far, the best attempts at 3D I've seen have relied on tricks to make a 2D image seem to have depth rather than attempting to actually add a physical element of depth. I'd hesitate to claim that we'll never overcome this, but I think our best bets for 3D lie in projecting directly to the retina.
Re:Idea for a 3d display (Score:2)
I wonder if this basic technology could be further exploited...
Re:Idea for a 3d display (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a (apparently outdated) link:
http://www.vdivde-it.de/felix/english_solidfelix.
Sim City 4 (Score:3)
3D, but must be viewed from a fixed point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:3D, but must be viewed from a fixed point (Score:2)
LS
Re:3D, but must be viewed from a fixed point (Score:2)
For those of us who don't look at complex scientific images.... well, yeah, it's also cool
You can already buy them (Score:5, Informative)
3D displays could help me! (Score:5, Interesting)
We've been working with 3D video and 3D live web cams [robert.to] for the past few years, and the biggest obsticle is the need to wear "funny glasses".
Re:3D displays could help me! (Score:2)
The problem with anaglyphs is that the red/blue filtration leads to pretty compromised colour fidelity....
Re:3D displays could help me! (Score:2)
To get a "true color" anaglyph, I shift any color that's pure red or pure cyan slightly (to the blue end) to eliminate retinal rivalry. The result is a fairly accurate full-color 3D image.
3dwm (Score:4, Funny)
3D Display... (Score:2, Interesting)
Dimension Technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
Site is here [dti3d.com].
Re:Dimension Technologies (Score:2)
Game from the late 80's (Score:2)
Does anyone remember that? I thought the overall effect for that was pretty revolutionary. Really did look like the Millenium falcon chess game between Chewbacca and R2D2.
I wonder why actual games and that kind of technology wasn't developed further.
Re:Game from the late 80's (Score:2)
It's called "Holographic Time Traveller" - it was made by Sega in 1991 - previewed in arcades in 1990
http://www.geocities.com/wiredlounger/mpog/reviews /timetraveler/timetraveler.html
That is a link to full detail webite if anyone else is interested
A Premonition: Apple will popularize this (Score:2, Insightful)
One day, they'll simply announce that they'll only sell 3D displays from then on. There will be alot of customers buying 3rd party monitors for a while, just like there were when they switched to all LCDs, but plenty of customers will buy the displays just 'cause they come with their Macs.
Meanwhile Apple gets to drop selling plain old LCDs, which by then will be a low profit margin commodity, just as CRTs were when they dropped them, and move to selling only higher end/higher profit displays. And selling them in more volume than anyone else is likely to be at the time, because of their access to all Mac customers.
And Apple is well positioned for the move on the software side too. They have already re-implemented their entire windowing system in OpenGL. It would be relatively trivial to add 3D window positioning and widgets. (And damn cool in some ways too, there will certainly be some useless eye candy, but some simple obvious things like being able to look behind a window just by moving your head a bit, would by really cool imho).
Other large volume computer companies, like Dell, would undoubtedly follow in Apple's footsteps, looking for the same advantages, but none of them have the secure vertical niche that Apple has.
I'd Rather Have OLED (Score:2, Interesting)
Given a choice between "3D" LCD and 2D OLED, I'll take OLED, thank you very much.
3D will be assimilated (Score:2, Insightful)
3D Consortium member list:
Sony, Sanyo, Itochu, NTT Data, Sharp, Microsoft, Kodak,Olympus
Who's proprietary drivers will be the only thing it works with for the first few years?
3D webcams NOW (Score:2, Informative)
there are graphic @dult 3d videos and images availabe that display the possiblities.
Ouch (Score:2)
What they fail to mention... (Score:5, Funny)
SIG FAULT
This is great (Score:2, Funny)
Thank goodness they are outlining some safety standards for there displays. I sure wouldn't want to zoom in on a pixilated 3D model and have a nipple poke me in the eye.
I only have one eye you insensitive bastards (Score:2)
Yeah, I know, the punchline isn't very funny.
Focal depth (slightly OT) (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if I close one eye and look at the monitor, it is in focus. If I then hold my finger ~10cm from my eye, it will be out of focus unless I try to look at it, in which case the monitor will be out of focus. In what way does a SINGLE eye have to change to focus at these different lengths? And how does it "know" where to focus on without the input from the second eye? Would it possible to trick the eye into thinking that the light is coming from a particular distance, regardless of where it is really coming from? If so, then you'd be able have true 3D, wouldn't you?
Re:health and safety issues (Score:2, Funny)