Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Sharp 3D Monitor Next Year 187

Posted by timothy from the pine-in-3d dept.
dOxxx writes "Sharp is bringing out a 3D monitor next year that requires no special glasses. It took them one day to convert Quake to work with the monitor. They are already selling cellphones in Japan for the NTT DoCoMo network with scaled-down versions of the screen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sharp 3D Monitor Next Year More

Sharp 3D Monitor Next Year

Comments Filter:
  • For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away

    My eyes! They burn, they burn!!
    • For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away

      If you ask me, that's something of a show stopper. It'll be very hard to keep one's head still while getting used to the 3D images coming from the Grand Theft Autos and Quakes of the future.

      You can look forward to porn-site plug-in support to start popping up, however.
    • "My eyes! They burn, they burn!!"

      My eyes! The goggles! They do nothing!

  • Bring on the comedians (Score:4, Funny)

    by wheany ( 460585 ) <wheany+sd@iki.fi> on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:40PM (#4937273) Homepage Journal
    If someone says something to the effect of "Think what this will do for porn", I will kick his nuts. Think what THAT will do for porn.

    • Practical applications (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hey, think what this will dooOOOOOOGHHHHHHH!

      eep
    • Seeing as these screens are already being sold on cell phones in Japan, a more accurate offense would be:

      Think of what this will do for portable tentacle porn!

    • Applications (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rjamestaylor ( 117847 )
      My first thought was 3D MRI (et al) viewing on handheld devices like the Zaurus [myzaurus.com] in the exam room.

      But, perhaps that's because I'm already using the Zaurus as a mobile platform for medical technology. And, I'm married.

      Just goes to show that interpretation (and application) is dependent on the interpreter's context. . . (:

    • wheany writes:
      "Did you know that if you chew on a piece of aluminum foil for couple of minutes, you'll get high? " ...what?? Is this simply an attempt to get a lot of really dumb people to chew on foil?

  • Umm... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by XgD ( 578260 )
    Sharp's 3D monitor can be thought of as a TFT sandwich. The monitor contains two TFT panels separated by a parallax barrier, which directs pixel images to two separate regions so that each eye receives a slightly different image.
    In the end, the brain formulates the signals so that the image appears to be a three-dimensional object, Nakagawa said.

    if MP3's can damage your ears, then what's this gonna do to my eyes and brain!?!?!?

  • Sharp 3D monitor (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:42PM (#4937285)
    As opposed to those damned dull 3D monitors...
    • The challenge presented by new technologies is often broken down into "how do I slip this into my budget for next year without the boss noticing that it's a high-zoot gaming system?"

      My first instinct is to point out the excellent opportunity for highly-intuitive presentations of complex data which will clearly increase sales through more clearly communicating to prospects the benefits of using (insert product or service here).

      (on a related note, Nvidia needs to stop calling it's pro/workstation cards by names that STILL sound like they're intended for high-framerate gaming. Even if that IS why I buy them! "uh, yeah, see, telnet works a whole lot better in 1600x1200, really!")

  • Old news? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zebs ( 105927 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:43PM (#4937290) Homepage
    I seem to remember reading about this, or something very similar before.

    The image depth relies on the system drawing the image on one of two physical layers and the distance between the two layers and the viewers position creates the 3D image.

    Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?
    • Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?

      Not really, it would enable the display to draw 4D objects. However, our brains have not evolved to ability to understand 4D, so you'd probably just get a headache.
      • That'd be cool. I have a basic understanding of the geocube, but i'd like to see a 4-D representation rather than an animated GIF.
      • Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't. The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time. Not very hard to work with that. Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed. 2D is hard to think in because there is no such thing as 2D. Things we think as being 2D arn't, just close to it. I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.

        • Re:Old news? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Planesdragon ( 210349 )
          Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.

          Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving.

          Most folk who claim "special thinking ability" are just failing to communicate what they're talking about it. Or they don't understand the concept of multiple dimensions.

          The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time.

          The world we live in only has 4 dimensions. Oh, sure, there are 6-7 dimensions that makes THOSE up, but we have no way of percieving them or altering them. If we could, we've have found them a LONG time ago.

          Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed.

          You're wasting thought processes in something that can't exist.

          Most folk "think" in 2D+, which is how we can navigate. Sure, we _can_ move vertically, but not as easilly as we move horizontally or laterally.

          I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.

          Again, you're wasting thought process. Look at your computer monitor--it IS 2D, and a perceptive mind should realize THAT before trying to contemplate the micrometer depth of letters on paper.
          • I'm not wasting thought process if that how my mind works. Thinking in more dimensions is not hard, it's easy. converting to flat is hard. I do not claim special thinking ability. the is nothing special at all about it.

            "Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.

            Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving."

            Just because time is involved doesn't imply movement. In the super grand scheme of things relating something relitive to the universe or any point other than say earth this wouldn't be the case but in the most simple case, say a box on a desk. Time can pass and it not move.

            There could be infinite demensions dependent on how you look at things. far as the definition of demensions go there are infinit ones. I could come up with more and more variables. If your talking string theroy then there is a fix number though the arn't sure which one. There is two theroys far as I know. I don't know if the numbers by the poster below are the ones I have heard of.

            When people think demensiones the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions one could come up with.

            If your thinking the 4th D would be yet another shape defining demension, well there is no reason to think that. It could be but that's very unlikely. The time and any other demension could have an effect on defining the shape of an object. I think the most common idea about when people think inpossable 4D is that in 4D you would see 4 sides of an object like a cube at the same time. There really isn't much reason to think such a thing would exist because it would do nothing in defining it. Saying that only fails because it's not a 4D object in a 4D universe doesn't count ether. The point of demensions is they are definable. There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.
            • There could be infinite demensions [sp] dependent on how you look at things.

              No, there can't. There's an infinite number of _degrees of movement_, but a finite number of dimensions.

              When people think demensiones [sp] the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real [sp] reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions [sp] are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions [sp] one could come up with.

              Stress, heat transfer, refraction, etc. aren't "dimensions." They're "qualities." A "dimension" is a word that means "perpindicular axis which fixes a point in space-time", and the space-time we know only has four, while being made up of more than this.

              Everyone percieves four dimensions. A lot of people contemplate in only two and a half dimensions--they think of x and y, or y and z, and add either z or x as a secondary process. And if you ask them to think about t, it's yet another mental step.

              A few people are said to be able to concieve in 3D, but this may simply be a very-efficient application of the "2D+1" mental process. Since t is the only variable of space-time in which we have constant motion, it's always useful to think about it using a seperate process.

              If you find yourself contemplating z or t when the data is useless, you may have a mental defiency that needs to be treated via either mental effort or medical science. (The data isn't always useless--noting the location of hills on a 2D naviagion across the surface of the Earth is noting valuble and relatively unchanging landmarks.)

              However, from your post I would presume that you're simply lacking the correct vocabulary to appreciate what "dimension" means and what it doesn't mean.

              There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.

              We live in 4D spacetime. As such, we are incapable of measuring any dimension other than x, y, z, and t.

              "Wasted thought" is probably only when you realize that you're noticing an extra quality or pondering an extraneous detail when in the midst of work. While it's important to know how your own mind works, it's wasteful to spend too much time reveling in your own thought process--or debating thought processes on /. ;)

        • Re:Old news? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by fferreres ( 525414 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:28PM (#4937462)
          Independant varibles != Dimension.

          Yes, we can think of more variables, as long as the space is 3D. Space, for us, is some kind of instantaneous visualisation. When you add time, you think about it as a path.

          You can't really "perceive" the details of you last week experiences without linearly going though them, you can't ... uh (for la of a better generic term) visualize them. But you can easily visualize a very complex shape in 3D with no need to add go linearly on the details.

          So yes, I can think of color tone as a variable, radious of dots as a variable, time as a variable, anything as a variable but I can't imagine anything in 4D and sure as hell no in 4D.

          Now, I don't know if that is _hardcoded_ problem for humans. Because as we know, we autoteach about 3D when we are born, and that gets burned in neuros structures.

          What would happen if we attached a baby to a virtual but 100% consistent 4D world? That would be really hard, because we are 3D in nature ...for ever do in us or elsewhere, there would be infinite other dots in 4D. Anyway, it's my guess he will adapt to it and will be able to come back to "3D" (with a lot of pain, but possible). What you cannot do is go from 3D to 4D once fully trained in 3D.

          That would be a nice experiment, maybe with rats or some other mammal. Now, looking at 4D shapes as would be seen in our 3D mind is pretty impressive. Really crazy.
        • Just because it seem obviously for people to use time as the fourth dimension, does not make it so.

          Time is often represented as the fourth dimension.
          But it is not nesecarily the fourth, as it can be a seperate concept (as it often is in science).
          Take the concept of time and space, it represents any given universe, either based on super string theory (10+ dimensions at times) or a 3D universe as we persive it, or any other theory.
          Together these make the world that can be observed, regardless of the abilities of the observer.

          Besides, when was the last time you gave the time of the day in meters? ;p
    • Maybe there's an advantage if you've got three or more eyes? I think this thing deals with stereoscopic vision, you get one image for each eye
    • I think I've seen pictures of this. I think that using more than two layers might give the picture more depth. Since each layer is clear except for the part of the image that is shown, you could add several layers and get even more of a 3-D effect.
      • Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?


      If enough layers where used with each layer some how being able to go to transparent, a real 3D image could be created.

      That is about it though. ^_^ We only have two eyes, so this sort of face "offset" 3d can only go so far.
    • Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?

      Do you have more than two eyeballs?

  • ASCII Art (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hanji ( 626246 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:43PM (#4937291)
    How long before some bozo starts making 3D ASCII Art? You KNOW someone will...
  • I, for one, can't wait to see this. After seeing the psuedo-3D farce that was those supposed "glasses" that worked in conjunction with Direct3D, it would be a nice change to actually get some close-to-3D images. It would sure come in handy with my gaming, because it's hard for me to judge distance in gaming; I have a hard time approximating model height.

  • Been there (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:50PM (#4937323)
    I saw one of these at Sharp Space Town in Japan while looking for the new Zaurus C700 [dynamism.com], which incidentaly wasn't at that location. The monitor was very hard to look at, the different layers were very distinct and it was like looking at two images superimposed at different height. Was neat when you got just the right viewing angle, but pretty hard to maintain... you'd probably have to get a neck brace and not move your head at all =)

  • The fun this could present... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Salubri ( 618957 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:50PM (#4937328) Journal
    Can you imagine the poor sap that is sitting with his face just about 1.3 feet away from his screen with a TV card on his/her computer watching the big fight or some huge sports event?

    "I have a cramp in my neck and I haven't moved out of this uncomfortable position in 3 hours but MY GOD... It looks like I'm gonna get sacked when they rush the quarterback! The chiropractor bills are worth it!"

    "Want some chips?"

    "I can barely BREATHE without the image distorting, let alone eat man!"

    Let's hope they improve this before unleashing it on the masses.

  • Dangerous (Score:5, Funny)

    by yobbo ( 324595 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:51PM (#4937332)
    Do I now have to duck before a popup window cleans me up?

  • (OT) ZDNet rant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:51PM (#4937335)
    Would it really kill zdnet to include a picture with stories like this? I couldn't even find a link to the company the whole article was about. I can live w/ their obvious biases, but really, at least include a picture or at least a link to a picture.

    • Re:(OT) ZDNet rant (Score:2, Insightful)

      by C.Maggard ( 635855 )
      A picture really couldn't approximate what the monitor does; since it's 3D, you need at least two simultaneous viewing angles to see the intended effect. A picture of the monitor would be ok, but I get the feeling it would basically look like any other monitor until you turned it on.
    • Would it really kill zdnet to include a picture with stories like this?

      Oh yeah, a 2D picture of a 3D display -- that would be impressive!

      Just like those ads on TV for TVs that have a better picture quality than the one you're watching. How does that work? :-)
  • Why doesn't the article have any screenshots?

    :)

  • So if I use two of these, set up in a typical side-by-side configuration, and I use them to display a pair of slightly-different, slightly-stereo 3D images, and I deep-focus my eyes to bring these two already-3D images together to become one, will I go blind?
  • ...but I don't think that's possible.

  • I saw a picture of one of these things... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:55PM (#4937350)
    I saw a picture of one of these things on the web, but it looked pretty 2-D to me.

    Damn JPEG Compression! My eyes hurt!

  • What sound does one hand clapping make? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bogie ( 31020 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:56PM (#4937353) Journal
    None. But somehow I'm sure one-handed web surfers everywhere are celebrating.

  • Shadowrun Reference!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:57PM (#4937358)
    Whenever I can I try to bring in a Shadowrun Reference [shadowrunrpg.com]. Hopefully without glasses, and hopefully soon they'll eliminate the box, and then eliminate the viewing angle and we'll have the wonderful world of trideo that will revolutionize TV viewing!

    Oh wait, same crap, new dimension.

    "3 Dimensions and not a damn thing to watch." *rimshot* *tomato splat*

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:58PM (#4937362)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Interface Futures (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snitty ( 308387 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @03:59PM (#4937364) Homepage
    Imagine the future to of the interfaces and desktops, You could have true 3D layering of windows. Imagine flippping though folder heirachies in 3D.

    I think you could also do some amazing screen savers. Flying Windows that look like they are going to clonk you in the head.

    How long till we get OS support for these babies?
    • How long till we get OS support for these babies? Knowing the track record for this kind of thing...about two years after it's outdated.

    • Re:Interface Futures (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      3D UI's are useless for most tasks. In fact, it actually makes the interface worse. There have been tons of 3D UI's developed and they all suck. The problem is that other than being a neat trick, there is really nothing to be gained by having a 3D interface.

      Now for 3D animation, modelling, etc., this LCD panel would be cool. The thing is, those programs already have 3D interfaces because that's a natural way of working with that data. A 3D word processor is pointless and stupid. When you write on real paper, it's a 2D interface.

    • Re:Interface Futures (Score:2, Informative)

      by seann ( 307009 )
      "Imagine flippping though folder heirachies in 3D."
      It's really boring.
      that SGI file system browsing program (featured in jurasic pork) does it.
      really boring.

  • Revolutionary New Pop-Up Ads! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bahwi ( 43111 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:00PM (#4937366)
    Ow! My Eye!
  • A 3D consortium--which includes Toshiba, Sony, Olympus, Kodak and Microsoft among its founding members--was recently established to hammer out standards for hardware manufacturing and software development.

    Microsoft and standards. Heh. Taking bets on wether the next Windows version will horribly ignore their own standards or not. :)

  • DoCoMo? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:09PM (#4937397)
    I keep hearing that. Does it actually mean anything, or stand for anything in particular? It is an unusual name.

    • Re:DoCoMo? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:18PM (#4937427)
      Docomo is Japanese for "anywhere". However, NTT somehow jammed it into an acroymn of sorts to mean Do Communications over the Mobile Network. - akamichi

  • No additional software? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tidan ( 541596 ) <tidan_md&yahoo,com> on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:10PM (#4937400)
    The monitors will let people see high-resolution 3D images or run 3D programs without using special glasses or additional software. For example, bodies and bullets appear to fly all over the place in a version of the popular game "Quake" that has been adjusted to work on Sharp's 3D monitors.

    Okay, so using an adjusted version of Quake doesn't count as being additional software? No additional software required seems a bit misleading in this case. Will we need a special patch for each new program? If so, who will offer/code these patches? The game developers or the monitor manufacturers?

    • I'll fathom a guess:

      The 3d monitor support will rely on an updated DirectX/OpenGL software renderer, which would, in turn, seemlessly patch all games. They had to make a patched version of Quake because these updated software renderers are not yet available.

    • Re:No additional software? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:29PM (#4937468)
      Chances are they'll try some hacks in the Direct3d driver to guess at the Z values of onscreen objects in games. (Most likely, just reading the depth-buffer values that games use for hidden surface removal).

      There is already a line of 3d glasses [x-buy.com] which will supposedly work with any game running on an NVidia card.

      Given Sharp's emphasis on "3D without special glasses", the effect produced is probably similar to that existing product (but integrated into the monitor, and not as separate glasses)
      • I would think it would be even easier than that-- the display doesn't actually have to be aware of the depth of anything, it just has to show two pictures. It could care less what they are.

        A new 3D driver that renders the scene from two viewpoints, each an inch and a half to the left and right of the original viewpoint, would end up rendering exactly what your eyes need to see. I'm assuming their modified version of Quake does something similar-- rendering a shot for each eye, with the viewpoints separated a few inches.

        But hey, what do I know? I just post here.

        • Yeah, but the point about "no additional software" is that they don't have the resources to go around modifying all these existing games to output 2 pictures with 9 cm displacement between them. The games just output a list of triangles, based on viewing from a single camera position.

          At some point Sharp has to slip in a modified driver which will produce the separate left_eye and right_eye images based on the 3d geometry the game wants to show. It'll need to know depth info so that the polygons can be given a horizontal displacement inversely proportional to their distance from the viewer. (A far-off tower looks the same from each eye, but a hand in your face has two detectably different images)

          The existing stereoscopic 3d glasses also need a different image for each eye, and I assume they're generated the same way this Sharp monitor will.
  • True that LCD's are pretty, lightweight to carry, ect. These 3D LCD monitors seem pretty neat, I can feel the eye strain from it already. Anyone that has spent over 4 hours playing any game knows that a CRT with a refresh rate of 100hz can keep your eyeballs from popping out of their sockets.

    On the other hand, LCD's look smart, and will get you hand jobs from women you don't even know! Of course, after 4 hours of gaming on this thing you'll be blind as a bat, so it won't matter if she looks like Nicole Bass from the Howard Stern show or Hally Berry. You're eyes will neatly pop out of their sockets from the low refresh rate strain.

    LCD is simply too slow to have an effective refresh rate for 3D. OLED's look promising, since they don't have any moving parts to rely on. (LCD crystals change orientation when a current is passed through them (i.e. moving part)

    Gotta love these gimmicks though..
    • Except one problem. LCD's don't refresh at all. There is no moving dot drawing the pixels like there is on a CRT. That's why an LCD at any 'refresh' looks cleaner than an CRT at any refresh rate, when looking at a static image. Moving images LCDs have trouble with, because of the response times of the displays (the time it takes a pixel to change colors/brightness).

      Where's my -1 (Moron)?
      • Exactly my point! LCD is crap for gaming, OLED is a much better prospect. OLED would have been a better choice here too since you can squeeze 20 OLED screens in the space of 2 LED screens.

        The reason LCD sucks so bad for gaming is just like I pointed out, those crystals are a moving part, and it takes time for them to change alignment. With OLED you just pass a current BLAM lit pixel. Drop current and BLAM unlit pixel. LED you pass current to the crytals, wait for them to change alignment so the light can pass through. Same thing goes for turning a pixel off, wait time.

        a little ms here, a little ms there, and it adds up.
        • Alignment, what alignment are you talking about? Pixels don't move, they change color intensities. In this 3D LCD, its really just 2 screens designed to be seen at two different angles to be trick your eyes into believing its "3D"

          Moderators, can we get a (-1) Moron?

          Besides, LCDs will have 30ms response RSN, and then it won't matter. At 25ms, you have time for 40FPS, which is more than most human eyes can distinguish.

          • You're right, we do need a (-1) Moron. For you.

            Liquid crystal displays have moving parts. Just because they're no-see-ums (well, no-see-shape-ums) doesn't make it less true.

            You're right that most people can't distinguish consciously between 40 and 100Hz, but the headache you get from extended close up concentrated viewing (as when using a monitor actively rather than watching a TV or film passively) of bright 40Hz moving images is just as real as if you could.

          • f00k j00 twit. You could have come back with an intelligent argument but you called me a moron. F00k Y00.
          • Nice troll lord hunter. the parent is talking about the molecules in liquid crystal displays which have to line up and block the light coming from the backlight. This kind of device takes a lot more time to change state than a device which exploits the emission of photons from electrons which are jumping to a lower energy level (i.e. all light emitting diode technologies).

            Try reading this site [howstuffworks.com] before calling anybody a moron.

            I'm going to bite off a bit more here and respond to your second point: what's the point of having the most expensive, overclocked system that can render a complex game at huge fps if your monitor can only do 40fps? If you are building the ultimate system, you want the bottleneck to be in the user, not the system.

            ("Can't you see the extra fps? must be your eyes, then. certainly nothing wrong with my system.")
    • If you're getting more eyestrain from LCD's than CRTs because of the refresh rate, then um, I think there's something wrong with you. Have you even used an LCD before? If you did get more eyestrain, it was not from the refresh rate, as I don't think you can get more eyestrain from something that DOES NOT FLICKER. (as opposed to flickering 100 times per second).
  • People with one eye that is far weaker than the other cannot use them. Irritating. Nerve Regeneration had better come along quickly, I want the rest of my Optic nerve. . . .

  • Ads (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cheese Cracker ( 615402 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @04:25PM (#4937453)
    Although several companies have come out with Web browser software and other technology to make images appear to pop off the screen, the Web largely remains a two-dimensional world.

    Banner ads, popup ads... popoff ads... coming soon to a Sharp 3D monitor near you!
  • So will this hurt your vision in the same way those audio formats purportedly hurt your hearing... Wait a minute... Do current displays hurt your vision in the same way that the audio formats purporedly hurt your hearing? They are nowhere near the same resolution as real life and forget about depth perception... Hmm, perhaps I should ask if the new displays improve your vision over the old ones.
  • For all the information you could possibly care about, see the last time /. discussed this monitor: Here [slashdot.org]
  • 3d cell phones. Just wow.... This is going WAY too far. Only in Japan...
  • The article states :
    "Sharp envisions a time when complete computers will be embedded into monitors"

    Maybe they should have a look at an iMac some day.
  • ... usually in the form of a biggish box.

    Oh-- it displays things in 3D?! Was that in the article?
  • "Turning traditional 2D 'Quake' into a 3D program took only a day, Nakagawa said."

    Since when is Quake 2D? When it came out, it was "the first real 3d game".
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Does anyone know where to see these things live. Any Screenshot will be useless. I am just wondering how good they are.

  • Could revive the arcade big way (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that could really do the same SFII did in the 90's. Those monitor will cost lot more than consummer monitor for a long time but arcade could afford that (at the same time , why not revisit the price and put it back to 25cent again).

    Virtua Fighter 5 would be perfect game to use that.
  • Earlier this year, the company showed off an LCD panel with an embedded Zilog microprocessor.

    Sega did that [vgmuseum.com] years ago!

  • We bought a similar LCD monitor [dti3d.com] for testing at work one and half year ago. It "supports" several viewers at once by alternating between the left and right image in several vertical "beams". There has been several [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org] about these monitors before.

    It works quite well, but it is really a pain in the a** (neck?) to use.

  • Saw these at Electronica (Score:4, Informative)

    by homemademissiles ( 629240 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @06:43PM (#4937935)
    They actually had these on display at the Electronica show in Munich this year. The effect is impressive and works well. The horizontal resolution is fairly low and if you move past the display you get this wierd 'popping' image. You need to stay stationary for the best effect. I got the impression that there was some type of fresnel lens on the fronts of the panel. Cant wait until the resolution goes up!
  • It sounds like they are really proud of getting 3d without having to wear glasses...

    1. No possible variance in viewing angle mentioned.
    2. Good results only at 40cm.

    So... even though this thing does not touch your head, you have to lock your head in synch with it for good results.

    I think I'd rather wear the glasses.
  • Don't get too excited. Think about it: you are looking through a 14" rectangular window from a few feet away. And you can't get much closer than a few feet away because the resolution is too low. And you probably can't move your head too far from side to side either. It's going to be like looking at a scene contained in a shoebox.

    There are some 3D scenes that it makes sense to watch that way: 3D molecules, geometric models, etc. But I wouldn't expect the experience to be too realistic for 3D games or pr0n. But realistic or not, I suppose it might still be fun.

    We perceive 3D shape in many ways. Stereo vision, which these displays provide is only one, and not really the most important one (many people don't have stereo vision at all). I think what would be much more exciting for games are displays with head tracking and peripheral vision; those give you much more of a feeling of "being there" than stereo vision. The ways to create such immersive displays is via something like "the Cave" (very expensive all-around projection) or head-mounted displays; both are unfortunately still expensive, but technologically, they are perhaps simpler than attempts at providing stereo vision.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close