Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Review of a 3D LCD 64

MBCook writes "I just saw on Tom's Hardware a review of a 3D LCD screen: The DTI 2015XLS. Apparently it does work and doesn't need special glasses or other such anoyances. And remember: when you build your next awesome gameing PC, leave $1699 in your budget for one of these babies!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review of a 3D LCD

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe Rumsey ( 2194 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @02:36PM (#211168)
    Reading the article, it appears as though they can present completely independent images to each eye. The depth of the physical device doesn't matter at all if you can do that. They should be able to get every bit as much depth as a pair of goggles, just not the peripheral vision. The other drawback is that you have to keep your head fairly still, moving out of the correct viewing position will ruin the 3D effect.
  • by DrScott ( 4365 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @01:04PM (#211169)
    One aspect of 3-D displays that people tend to overlook is the increased demand for accurate binocular alignment and accommodative-convergence interplay (that is, the relationship between binocular eye alignment and the focusing of the eyes). Nearpoint tasks such as reading can cause considerable eyestrain if a reader has problems with binocular alignment or focusing, and 3-D displays will only add to the possibility of having such problems. So while some people will be able to use 3-D displays easily, others will do so only with considerable effort or discomfort, while yet others will be unable to do so at all.
  • Could they make a simple detector system that worked out the position of your head, so that it could move the illumination plate to compensate? Then you'd be able to move your head around a little.

    It could even feed the head angle information through the serial port into software, so that programs could 'move' the image. So if you moved your head to the left, you actually reveal more of the left side of the object!

    Just thinking...

    Simon Wright
    http://whirlpool.net.au [whirlpool.net.au] - Australian Broadband News

  • by Deus Ex Machina ( 13901 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @12:26PM (#211171)
    I realize that my concern may be unnecessary (I haven't tried these out, of course) but I do find it rather distressing to think that this sort of 3D display might be the wave of the future. My concern about this comes from the fact that I am blind in one eye, and do not perceive 3D the way that other people do - things like the red and blue glasses or other visual tricks of that sort do not work for me, they only give me a massive headache. Inversely, there have been other 3D techniques which did work for me, and so I am not without hope - but I do hold a small bit of fear for the day that I find I cannot use a normal computer monitor because they have evolved beyond my ability to perceive them correctly. Does anyone have greater knowledge about this sort of perception, who might have some advice or ideas concerning my predicament? I'd appreciate it.

  • by ntd ( 26997 )
    $1699 is not at all expensive for an LCD, we used to have a 22" LCD at work that cost $5000, and that was only a year ago...$1000 is definately not uncommon for a 17" LCD especially at retail stores, but I wonder what kind of refresh rate and general 2d performance goes (visual artifacts etc)...interesting to see where this type of technology will be in a few years when the cost gets way down.
  • Hear, hear! When 3D display technology is discussed, I don't think I've ever heard people consider those who don't have true binocular vision. I personally am ~75% blind in my right eye, which has very little effect on my life at the moment - the only thing I can't "do" is see those $!%^ing "Magic Eye" pictures, or 3d pictures with those stupid red and green glasses. But if all future display technology uses similar techniques to achieve a 3d effect, this could seriously impair my ability to work with computers. The fact that you can downgrade a 3d LCD to work in 2d isn't much help, as it means that you are missing out on some of its capabilities, and someday those capabilities may be required to do your job.

    One interesting fact is that (as other posters have mentioned), I tend to get 3d information from the parallax effect. When I look at a holographic picture, it doesn't immediately appear to be 3d, but if I move my head even slightly, it seems to jump out and my brain can perceive the depth effects. So I would guess that the same thing would occur with these LCD displays.

    On the bright side, there is so much fascinating research being performed into curing blindness in a variety of ways (such as retinal transplants, brain implants, etc.) that blindness and sight impairment might even be a thing of the past in 30 years' time. For the rich in developed countries, anyway.


  • The price has gone down quite a bit, this from january:

    If You've Been Waiting For Real 3D Displays To Become Affordable, Your Wait Is Over!

    Good news! We've just introduced a new 15" 3D LCD display at only $1699! As a comparison, our previous 15" display was $8649. Our new 2015XLS 3D LCD Display is perfect for computer gamers, home computer users, internet 3D fans, electronic retailing and many other applications. Finally, here's real 3D - images literally jump off the screen and hang in space - without requiring glasses or cumbersome headgear. And not only do you get real 3D. The 2015XLS is a full-featured 2D flat panel display as well. It's like getting two displays in one! Add the $300 video option and you have three displays in one!

    And we've also introduced a new 18" display at just $6999! That's nearly $5000 less than our previous 18" 3D Display. Our new 2018XLQ is the ideal display for scientific visualization, R&D, design and engineering work - anywhere you need a big, high resolution 3D Display that doesn't require you to wear glasses or headgear. Need video? NTSC and PAL input capability is built-in on this model.

    Want real 3D? It's finally available at an affordable price. Only from Dimension Technologies Inc., the world leader in autostereoscopic 3D LCD Displays. Visit our web site now (www.dti3d.com) and get all the details.

    Real 3D: it's what you've been waiting for.
  • Well it probably would look like crap when you photographed it. Just like 3d images look like crap when you don't have goggles on. You definatly wouldn't be able to see the 3d aspect of it though. Just a thought.
  • I am curious as to what technology actually worked for you? Most 3D display technology I am aware of works by sending a different image to each eye. In fact, isn't viewing the actual world through one eye only really in 2D? You may be able to determine distance through certain depth cues, but you can not really see anything in 3D.

  • Yes, I believe that pr0n + these 3d screens will save the Palm industry as indicated in the Palm in Trouble article. [slashdot.org]

    This may be "3D w/o Goggles", but I guarentee that these screens + pr0n will guarentee lots of "3D w/ Oggles".

  • by BierGuzzl ( 92635 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @12:40PM (#211178)
    A screenshot (for lack of a better term) would be nice, to at least show some examples of this technology in action. So far we've got the diagrams, and some pictores of the lcd screen -- but they left the damn thing turned OFF! What are they hiding?
  • Remember that some people said the same thing about word processing in colour. Jason.
  • OSM, are you going to do a new story for EP2?


  • If display technology goes the in the direction of this particular LCD, you are probably in luck. Other than paying the cost for features you don't need (but we all do this to some extent or another when we buy almost any product), this LCD will give you a fairly normal viewing experience. It only splits the image between the eyes, no distortion or shuttering or other annoyances.

    Also, this LCD has the option of switching to 2D mode which gives better resolution and brightness. As long as that tradeoff exists I suspect you'll see even 3D LCDs offer this option for a long time to come, so rest easy.

  • I have a similar problem - I'm very short-sighted in one eye, but the other's fine. Since I've got one good eye, I don't need to bother with glasses - my brain's adapted just fine to having one eye. My weak eye does contribute to the image, but not that much.

    Anyway, I seem to get my main depth information from my eyes' focus. I think everyone uses it to some extent, but for me it's the main source of Z-axis info. I've yet to have any 3-D effect work for me, apart from those Escher-type drawings which just work by providing depth cues. I very much doubt that anyone will ever get a 3-D system which works properly for me.

  • From the article:

    The 3D works better when there isn't a lot going on in the background, or there is an obvious contrast between the foreground and background object. So, if you have an object in front of a plain background, the 3D experience is going to be much more noticeable than if you have a foreground object against a very busy background of textures, and explosions and activity. Which means that you lose the impact of seeing 3D in a practical gaming situation.

    Unfortunately, this makes it sound like gamers are going to have to continue waiting for a true 3D experience without glasses. I think I'd have to have the chance to try it before actually buying one, since gaming is about all I'd want it for.

  • I pulled your profile and read your post for the past few weeks. You should do so. You haven't posted a single useful opinion. Just troll crap.
  • The drivers are for Windows only. Count me out. Great technology, but I'm done with the dual-booting.
  • This sure seems really cool, especially for all those 3Dgames. I wonder though, if this product is intended for use with games or more business orientated use. They mention in the review things as autocad. It must be a great improvement when constructing 3D models and you can actually see them in 3D :)

    Although.. they are quite small, and i wonder if they can have any serious uses with 15" screens... but it's always a good start.

  • The 3d aspect is in a common size screen in a depth of several inches. It is not in substantial depth and it is not a cube. It is also not wrap around. It is likely bett for Sales presentations than games

    A far better rig would be wrap around high rez goggles with a fast enough refresh rate that it doesn't fry your eyeballs. Or else the classic three panel wrap around monitor that gets mentioned here every once in a while.

    It sounds cool until you try to figure out just how you would use it.

    FPS would suck, but the stragegy games, such as a galactic empire, etc, would like be okay

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

  • The opening of the article states this:

    In reality, we see the world by combining the images formed by our left and right eye and get our perception of depth by viewing objects from two points separated by a few inches. Our brain takes care of the rest.

    Two nitpicks: first, if my eyes were a "few inches" apart, I'd look quite a bit different -- the distances between eyes (on humans at least) is only a couple of inches, max.

    Second nitpick: studies in cognitive psychology have shown that the perception of depth does not benefit all that much from stereo vision. Yes, humans get depth from stereo. However, humans also get depth from occlusion, optic flow, expectation (how large you think something should be impacts your perception of how far away it is), and other visual clues like shadowing, perspective, context (how big things around an object are), and depth of focus (i.e. your eyes provide feedback about focal depth). There is also depth from convergence (your eyes don't look in parallel; you become more cross-eyed as you study things directly in front of your nose). Studies have shown that of these, depth from stereo contributes very little to the overall sensation of depth.

    Not to say that a 3D display isn't cool. But much of the illusion of depth is already illustrated in 2D images, from motion, occlusion, and lighting cues.

    The only other thing to do would be to get real-time random-dot stereograms working on your computer monitor.

  • Unfortunatly I, along with every male member of my family, have a genetic defect of one eye being nearsighted and the other farsighted (and an alergy to sunlight, but that's a different subject). I've tried glasses, headgear, even the old optic based video coin-ops. Any 2D surface that tries to trick my eyes into 3D leaves me with a splitting headache in 10 seconds flat. When we get to the technology of projecting a 3D image into a smoke screen cube or something more along those lines I'll be able to cheer. Until then I'm left wondering what it must be like to play quake with these things

    Kant speel, don't kare.
  • by cogpp ( 195632 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @03:01PM (#211190)
    The way the do this isn't new. Despite the quite poor explaination of how it works in the review and on their home page I think this is a minor variation on the parral barrier method, explained with diagrams here [swin.edu.au] (N.B. the first method on the page). All they have done is move the barrier from in front to between the liquid crystal and the backlight. It was invented by Frederick Ives in 1903, so it's not that new. If you want to make your own you should try printing a lot of fine lines on some acatate, and experimenting with that, certainly cheaper than their monitor.
  • Genetic Defect? I have the same problem. But I am not aware of any genetic issue.

    When I was a kid,it gave me an embarassing reputation for being incredibly clumbsy, but as I got older, some of the other 22 (+?) methods for depth perception developed and I wound up with better than average depth perception, just no binocular vision.

    But genetic defect? What it is the genetic 'defect'? and why is it a 'defect'? I wound up with better vision because of it.

  • Trouble is, everyone will wind up with hairy Palms.
  • The advantage with LCD is that it takes up 2D space on your desktop. 3D-LCD must be a step in the wrong direction.
  • I realize that my concern may be unnecessary (I haven't tried these out, of course) but I do find it rather distressing to think that this sort of 3D display might be the wave of the future. My concern about this comes from the fact that I am blind in one eye, and do not perceive 3D the way that other people do - things like the red and blue glasses or other visual tricks of that sort do not work for me, they only give me a massive headache. Inversely, there have been other 3D techniques which did work for me, and so I am not without hope - but I do hold a small bit of fear for the day that I find I cannot use a normal computer monitor because they have evolved beyond my ability to perceive them correctly. Does anyone have greater knowledge about this sort of perception, who might have some advice or ideas concerning my predicament? I'd appreciate it.

    So basically you're worried because you're the only computer user with one good eye?
  • by Preposterous Coward ( 211739 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @05:38PM (#211195)
    Your concern is interesting to me. I had a similar problem as a child -- legally blind in one eye -- but some fairly aggressive action (including a full-time eye patch over the good eye) at an early age corrected me to a point where both eyes are functional, although my bad one still needs a fairly high prescription in order to approach normalcy.

    Anyway, I studied a lot of perception and cognition stuff while in college, including some examination of 3-D imaging. The thing is, to get true binocular vision you *must* have two functional eyes, plus the correct circuitry in your brain to integrate the views from both. If you have only one working eye you will never achieve true binocular vision.

    Still, it's estimated that something like 5 percent of the population (if I remember correctly) has some degree of problems with binocular vision; nevertheless many of these people are able to compensate, and maintain some depth perception even with a single functioning eye. The reason this is possible is that binocular vision (literally, seeing with two eyes) is not the only cue that can convey depth information: So can parallax with a single eye as you shift your head, for example. Things like relative motion help, too. It's not that people like this live in a completely flat, 2-D world -- but some of the depth information that folks with true binocular vision have is definitely absent.

    In particular, lots of the 3-D tricks that rely on binocular vision won't work, because those techniques rely on simulating depth by sending differential (but actually 2-D) images to each eye. (Projecting a true holograph does get around this problem, because it creates a reproduction that is actually three-dimensional, rather than using two differential 2-D objects to fake 3-D.)

    As an analogy, think of stereo sound through headphones: If you only have one ear, playback of a stereo recording is not going to have the desired effect. That doesn't mean you're completely incapable of doing some localization of normal sounds with that single ear -- there's a lot that the peculiar shape of the external ear does to reflect signals in a way that sets up phase differences and so on that your brain uses to help perform localization. (This is similar to how you can still get some depth perception with one eye.) However, someone with a single ear is not going to be able to perceive a sound stage artifically created with stereo inputs the way people with two functional ears can -- because what stereo does is essentially cheat and take two differential one-dimensional sequences and let your brain do the two-dimensional integration. If you only hear one of those one-dimensional sequences (which don't individually contain any of the original spatial information because they're effectively point sources on playback) you're out of luck.

    On a personal level, I wouldn't worry too much about this. Nobody is suggesting these displays are going to completely displace 2-D monitors anytime soon. (Cost aside, think how much actual business work -- not games -- is done in 2-D vs. 3-D.) In any case, it seems likely that 3-D displays would have a 2-D fallback mode, as this one does. And OSes and business apps (to say nothing of dev tools) that actually require true 3-D imaging are a long, long way off (thank god).

  • And remember: when you build your next awesome gameing PC, leave $1699 in your budget for one of these babies!"

    I'll stick with my "BSOD-blue" LEDs for my power and HDD LEDs.

  • From the article:
    The serial connection is required to activate the stereoscopic view, syncing and activating the illumination plane. Without the serial connection, or communications on your COM port with the DTI software, you won't get 3D.
    However, the most important expectation that the 2015XLS places on the user is that it requires you to keep an eye on a small red light positioned on the bottom right hand corner of the display. This light cues you whether you are sitting in the right position for 3D viewing or not. If you can see the light then you are not, and the most frustrating thing about the display is constantly having to be aware of this.
    Don't do it! Think about it people!!!
    They're practically saying:
    "Don't worry, you can continue using the monitor just fine. In exchange for the 3D effect, though, you'll need to agree to sit in the exact center in front of your monitor -- yes, that's right -- and a red dot will become visible if you move out of the way, just as a "friendly reminder". The monitor also needs to be able to interface with our software through the serial port. You might notice a slight drop in bandwidth, but don't mind the mpg files being uploaded to carnivore.fbi.com...it's just syncing with our central servers to accomodate for the, uh, curvature of the Earth or whatever. Anyway, look at this cool sample picture! Isn't it 3D-y?"

    Big Brother is watching.

  • The applications for pr0n above else boggle the mind...

  • Well, I have seen a very smart 3d projection device, that could work for you. Its main part is a very fast rotating semitransparent 3D helix and then some 3 lasers paint a color 3D image on it.
    Very nice, you could see the thing from all sides, the bad thing is that it is transparent.
  • The approach used here is much more sensible than these "multilayer" LCDs that are popping up here and there. This display has just two layers of LCDs, one for the left eye and one for the right. That is all that is needed for a 3d effect: one signal for each eye. Trying to create real 3D with many layers of pixels is doomed to always be much too expensive in the depth dimension.

    $7000 for the 18" display isn't actually as expensive as one might expect for first generation technology like this, and from an engineering perspective there are very few obstacles that could stop the price approaching that of normal LCDs if they catch on.

    Unfortunately with the current version you are very constrained in that your head must be in exactly the right place for the effect to work (think small viewing angles). But future generations will surely track your head and adjust the physical properties of the liquid crystals accordingly.


  • by swagr ( 244747 )
    no 3d pics?
  • *joke*

    I know, it wasn't that funny.
  • Too expensive and low resolution. I'll just get some shutterglasses and wait around for the day when dual retinal scanning displays become affordable.
  • I saw a usage of this tech a couple of years ago on a Motorola Star Tac Prototype. The reasen they wernt used was due to the low product yeald of the tech..
  • by Migelikor1 ( 308578 ) on Saturday May 19, 2001 @12:53PM (#211206) Homepage
    Finally, there is effective research being done, to make computers, as Douglas Adams (RIP) would have put it, more than typewriters with televisions in front of them. By combining a 3D display with the 3D sensory technology in development by companies like Sensable [sensable.com] people can interact with a genuine multidimensional, immersive computer environment. Beyond the prOn possibilities of merging the technologies (fondle-able images anyone?) is a whole new world of design. Though I can't see the displays improving word processing or programming much, designing products on a 3D screen, touching them in virtual space, and printing them on 3D printers [planet.nl] offer a whole new world of simple product development. Converse is already using a 3D printing and fax system to design shoes in boston, and give their factories in Asia models to work from.
  • The sheer originality of your joke really boggles my mind.
  • That would be about as usefull as watching one of those TV-commercials for the latest Sony 100hZ trinitron tv on your small, ancient, b/w television...
  • I've also reviewed the DTI2015XLS [about.com] on my site. It's a good product, although there are some concerns regarding game performance you'll want to think about before plunking down $1700 on this unit.

    Tom also had a small mistake in his article. He suggests that you need to use the serial port on the monitor to get 3D stereo. Not true, the monitor can do stereo without the serial port, you just need to turn it on from the front panel buttons. So if you've got a favorite 3D application which supports side-by-side or alternate-frame stereo, just select that from the menu and view.

    Tom's conclusions and my conclusions about the monitor are almost the same.

    Rick R.

    http://peripherals.about.com/ [about.com]

  • Wake me up again when a decent polarized LCD display comes along. I don't like the idea of a display that is this sensitive to where you put your head relative to it.

    The other alternative which still seems more attractive to me is LCD shutter glasses - with CRT displays and video cards starting to push 120Hz refresh rates at reasonable resolution it becomes more and more feasable.

    The simple fact of non-head-mounted stereo displays which do not require glasses to separate out the left and right images is that if you move your head from the correct position so that your left eye moves to where your right eye was, your left eye will be seeing the wrong image...

    Roll on 60Hz 3D IMAX.
  • The company's website: http://www.dti3d.com/ [dti3d.com].

    Pretty shitty, doesn't tell you much. But I can appreciate companies that put more effort in their product than their website. ;)
  • wow, imagine what those Magic Eye pictures would look like on a 3D monitor!
  • All very true, and past about 20 or 30 feet you get zero 3d from parallex.

    BUT, you must go see CyberWorld in 3D at an IMAX theatre, excellent, clear, 3D. Uses polarized glasses, and is very effective. The movie is just a bunch of cool 3D CGI shorts strung together with a lame narrative, but its pretty neat watching 500 people all reach out and try to touch something that isn't there. Many of the segments are mind boggling, and a couple are very funny.

    When 3D is faked in movies, or computers, a much more intense 3D effect can be generated than you ever get in nature.

  • unfortunately when i get tired tend tow ork with only 1 eye open. This is of no use for me.
  • Well. If you gave me 24 hours (yes exactly one day), I could put that to shame. The point of this is not for me to brag, but the fact that they can't even find a single day to make a decent website must tell you something about them. AFter all if I could do it, why can't they?
  • I don't think he was being immature. Think about it, the games have to support a left and right image, so the drivers are VERY similar to what is needed to drive 3d-LCD shutter glasses, technology that is what, at least 8 years old? NVidia based cards, even in the old TNT days, were capable of using glasses, and they work well, probably better than this new LCD-Flatpanel. I'm sure you have to be a certain distance from the screen, and not too far to either side. 3d shutter glasses do not have this limitation.

    Secondly, i've seen this technology, it works.. but tilt your head so that one eye is higher than the other.. Byebye 3d. Another thing shutter glasses don't suffer.

    Lastly, do you really need to shell out $1600 for a 17inch LCD just so you don't look geeky having to wear shutter glasses? Glasses costing $40 that work on 14" monitors, 21" monitors, anything as long as the refresh rate is good enough (120hz eliminates noticeable flicker).

    My point? Where is the stereoscopic support in XFree? This isn't new technology, just a new device using the same tricks. One aspect of linux that i adore is the development community keeping old, obsolete hardware alive. But it's been a long time since stereoscopic OpenGL was developed, i doubt that because new monitors support it that we are going to suddenly see new drivers.
  • Disclaimer: This is not a troll. Please don't read it as one; what I say in this post is not a joke.

    This isn't a problem that is going to apply to many people, but I thought it would be interesting to mention nonetheless: due to a birth defect I do not see with binocular vision, and therefore would be unable to use this monitor.

    I was born nearly blind in my left eye, and have approximately 16/20 vision, for which I wear corrective glasses. However, while I can see well enough out of both eyes now, when I was young I did not have vision in my left eye during the period where the brain becomes accustomed to fusing the signals from each eye into one, three dimensional image. Therefore I have always, and always will (short of major neurosurgery far beyond current technology), be able to see three dimensions only as you see them in Unreal or Quake on a CRT or LCD monitor. Flat. I can see out of both eyes, but my right eye is dominant while my left eye acts almost like peripheral vision, and takes over automatically if I look left, or if my right eye is covered. I can consciously switch between eyes, in which case one of my eyes will drift off to stare over your shoulder when I'm looking at you (very disconcerting apparently), but I cannot switch between them fast enough to construct a true three-dimensional image.

    The point of saying all that is to explain why I cannot use 3D glasses to watch green and red movies, and similarly could not see these nice new nifty LCD panels as if they had depth. In fact, I would probably see a really blurry and horrible picture that would make my eyes water. Not being able to use 3D panels wouldn't normally be a problem for me, because I wouldn't know what I'm missing when it comes to seeing a game in 3D -- to me, Unreal on a normal LCD is as 3D as anything else, except that the shadows and perspective I use to judge distance etc are displayed with pixels, not in real life. However, it would be a bit of an issue if these screens ever became mainstream, since I work in IT, among other things. Since I'm the only person I have ever met with this condition, it's unlikely to cause any serious trouble, but it sounded like something interesting to add. Has anyone else heard of people who have monocular vision, or have monocular vision themselves?

  • I think it was just a joke...
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • For what? Come one, you can't be that lacking in imagination! Short of a CAVE, this is one of the coolest visual gadgets out there...
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • My mother has a similar problem - an inability to focus more than one eye at a time, but when she tries any 3D effect, she just doesn't get it - no headaches or anything like that...do you know what causes these headaches?

    As for the advance of technology rendering you obsolete - I very much doubt it. Normal screens will always be cheaper to make, and what's more, are all that is required or wanted for the vast majority of computer activity - who needs to word process in 3D?

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • No "hardware" icon on the top - what's up?
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • What is the idea behind these "multilayer" LCDs? Why bother with more than two?
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • True; but colour is a better representation of a sheet of paper - the "target platform." 3D is only useful where that is its target platform - gaming and architecture being the two examples that spring to mind.

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • Well, how else are you supposed to control the monitor? Data going the other way down a VGA cable? Telepathy?
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • Hmm...neat idea, but it's a 3rd dimension along the lines of the other two - a pixel for each possible position - that's gotta hurt the old wallet, and that's jsut with 10 possible Z positions!

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • What on earth does whether or not it's a Dell have to do with it?
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • Hmm...it's back as usual now...I wonder what that was?
    43rd Law of Computing:
  • Sorry, late night...
    Memo to me: Ensure cffeine overload before /.ing...

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • You're being a little premature - it's very new stuff, and it's got a small enough target audience anyway - Linux drivers will come, almost certainly...

    43rd Law of Computing:
  • some say nat, she is a river
    that drowns the tender reed.

    some say nat, she is a razor
    that leaves your soul to bleed.

    some say nat, she is a hunger
    an endless aching need.

    i say nat, she is a flower
    and me, her only seed.

    i'm the heart afraid of breaking
    that never learns to dance.

    i'm the dream afraid of waking
    that never takes the chance.

    i'm the one who won't be taken
    who cannot seem to give.

    and the soul afraid of dying
    that never learns to live.

    when the night has been too lonely
    and the road has been too long.

    and you think that love is only
    for the lucky and the strong.

    just remember on the wall
    just behind your computer

    hangs the poster that with opium's love
    in the night becomes the one.

  • I often find people who ask, "Is viewing the actual world through one eye only really in 2D?" I ask in return: When you close or cover one eye, does the image in the other eye suddenly become flattened? Doesn't everything shift to the same apparent depth? Not in my experience.

    If it is accepted that two eyes are required for 3D vision, then it logically follows that anything less is not really 3D. But the very premise is wrong. It is incorrect to assume that binocular vision (using two eyes) is a necessary requirement for depth perception.

    What does 3D vision or depth perception mean? It is the ability of the mind to associate an item being viewed with a position in 3D space, to a desired degree of accuracy. And there are several aspects involved, absolute distance estimation (how far away?), relative placement, (which objects are further away than others?), and velocity estimation (how fast is an object approaching or receding?)

    The (human) brain uses many cues to determine depth. The most important of these factors is focusing power, which only requires one eye. In a way this makes sense, as one can also use the focus on a camera or telescope to measure the distances to objects.

    Note that a simple experiment may seem to invalidate this claim. Wearing or removing corrective lenses does not cause a shift in the apparent depth of objects. The lack of this expected effect, is usually explained by brain's consideration of the many other clues used to determine depth. But when the number and quality of those other clues is reduced, this affect can be made to occur. There is another simple experiment you can try. View a computer screen with text of three very different sizes, but the same font and color. Look through a tube so that the other portions of the screen are not visible. Many people report that after intentionally blurring their focus for a few seconds, the smaller text appears to drift further away. Restoring sharp visual focus brings all the text back to the same depth. Basically, this makes the brain disregard focus as a criteria for evaluating depth, and the brain is left with only the knowledge that objects further away appear smaller, and assumes the smaller text is further away based on this rule.

    Other factors known to influence depth perception include: binocular vision, small movements of the head (which provide separate vantage points just as binocular vision does), perception of textures (the better a texture can be seen, such as the fur on an animal, the closer it must be), lighting and shadows, assumptions about the shapes of objects, and comparison to other objects with known positions. The more of these factors the brain can take into account, the more accurate depth perception becomes. (Depth perception is a matter of degree, not a binary on/off switching.) Consider that most optical illusions have two requirements, the first is the provision of ambiguous or contradictory information; the second is the elimination of most other inputs that would otherwise help the brain to resolve the problem.

    The goal of 3D displays is to trick the brain into seeing objects on the display at different depths, even when they truly are not. The goal is deception, not truth; and considering just these techniques will not give a complete or truthful idea of how visual perception works. We've had tremendous success using binocular vision as part of this "tricking the brain" process. This has been done in many ways. Side by side images for each eye, dot stereogrammes, and red/green glasses or shutter glasses are the most widely known. But this should be not taken to imply that the brain requires binocular vision for depth perception (it doesn't), nor that binocular vision is the only method that will work for tricking the brain into perceiving depth from a flat screen or page.

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry