3-D Monitors From Actual Depth

Klenex writes "True 3-D Visual Effects w/o the use of annoying '3-d' glasses or stereograms. Actual Depth "The Actual Depth monitor is actually two LCD displays stacked on top of each other. The LCD on top displays white transparently, so you can see through to the display beneath it, which is opaque." You need a dual head card or a 2nd video card to drive each display but this seems incredibly cool and it will work with any OS which supports dual monitors w/o any other hardware. Here's TechTV's scoop on the new technology. They even have a link to contact them about a demo in your area. I'd love to see one of these in action even though chances are I would never be able to afford one. Prices start around 6 grand, quite steep."

CRT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it wouldn't look as sexy, but it would probably work just as well with one LCD in front of a CRT. That would knock the price down.

Re:Two layers?

[pubjames]

Two layers doesn't seem very deep. Wouldn't it take a few more to create something resembling 3 dimensions?

It is amazing how effective parallax (a simple animation technique where planes further away move more slowly than closer planes) is at creating a 3D feeling. It would be even more effective on this type of monitor.

I think this could be extremely effective for fast games, although I agree that two planes probably isn't enough. Three might do it though.

Hmmm...

[Evan927]

Please note: QuickTime and Real formats are no longer supported

The monitor may not require a special OS, but TechTV's review sure does.

Are two different depths really enough?

[Florian Weimer]

I doubt that you can achieve the same amount of 3-dimensional impression using such a simple approach as, say, a CAVE with motion tracking. For example, how do they display objects with surfaces orthogonal to the two LCD screens?

Software transparency...

[Bnonn]

...anyone? As far as I can tell from the article, this is an uber-expensive hardware version of existing transparency methods, with two differences: 1, there are effectively two desktops you can see at once, so you can switch between them to draw applications into focus; and 2, the second desktop is located physically behind the first, so there is a better 3D effect due to parallax. It would be an interesting idea to try point 1 using software--it might make transparencies more easily manageable--but the only real benefit I can see over software transparencies is point 2.

Which is likely what you'd expect, except it's only 3D in that there are two flat planes for objects to be "projected" onto instead of one. Sure, having apps that would support this with depth-based widgets could be pretty cool, but I wouldn't get too excited. I'd be surprised to see this becoming a mainsteam hit.

Also, if someone could explain how this would benefit gamers (as stated in the article), I'd be keen for a response, coz I'm coming up blank. I can't see Quake being anything but confusing with this...maybe RTSes or RPGs that have sidebars with widgets?

LCDs, polarization, 3d

[isaac]

There are a few different 3D LCD systems - the one in this article is just 2 lcd panels stacked on each other for a multiplane effect. Others have referred to a system that uses lenticular lenses and a special pattern of illumination to deliver stereoscopic images without glasses, but this only works if you're in one of the "sweet spots" that aren't very large. The polarization idea, though, I think is the one that will really catch on.

Yes, I know how LCDs work, so bear with me - instead of using filters that polarize every pixel the same way, one could use filters that polarized every other line at 90 degrees to the previous. Now, manufacturing such filters and fitting them to LCDs is more expensive than current LCDs, but the advantage is that a simple pair of polarizing glasses (with one lens polarizing at 90 degrees to the other) would enable stereoscopic viewing of the LCD from any distance within the field of view of the LCD. I believe there is a company out there already claiming to have developed such displays, but I don't recall the name - they were touting their micropolarizer filter technology, anyhow, which is the hard part of making such a display.

-Isaac

eh... this is a cheap trick

[jonniesmokes]

For 3D vision - or stereo vision doesn't the left eye have to see a different image than the right? Since the eyes only differ by a small position, the LCD can only differ the image by the angle of the viewing eye. So this doesn't seem like it would work if.

you turned your head sideways

you moved your head to far to the right or left

you were to far or too near the display

Man, ergonomically nasty. But atleast these people are using the annoying tendency of LCD display to get real dim at a moderate to steep angle to their advantage. You know... Like those evil LCD movie screens on airplanes.

You missed the point..

[NanoGator]

"I've seen the monitor before. The effect isn't impressive. It basically looks like what you'd expect - one lcd layer on top of another, will little illusion of depth."

The two layers isn't to produce a stereoscopic effect, they're an interface feature. The demo I saw was a guy using Windows with this device. The screen was touch sensitive and he could drag windows around with his finger and then push it into the background layer. You could get a lot more things on the screen with this device because the added layer gave you something to focus on.

They weren't marketing it as a 'watch tv in 3D!' gadget like everybody else, they were marketing it as a practical interface to Windows. (I think I remember the rep saying it'd work on any os, the demo was Windows though.)

Unfortunately, the article that Slashdot posted was misleading by calling it '3D'. It would be better to describe it as 'dual monitors with the form factor of only one monitor.'

Just to make a point, don't pass judgement on this device until you actually see it in practice. I was skeptical of it too until I saw the demonstration. Compared to the '3D Tvs' they had around the show, this thing was by far the clearest. The 'stereoscopic' monitors they had around the show floor were headache inducing. The slightest movement and everything would warble a bit. At least this particular monitor stayed clear.