Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

3D Display a Little Bit Closer to Reality 207

Posted by CowboyNeal from the reaching-out-and-touching dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D Display a Little Bit Closer to Reality More

3D Display a Little Bit Closer to Reality

Comments Filter:
  • Something really IS going to jump out of the display and hit those poor designers in the face
  • Oh great... Like it's not annoying enough when I'm trying to have dinner with a friend and his stupid girlfriend calls him to nag him for 20 minutes in the middle of it... Now he'll actually get totally engaged in the experience of humoring her and completely forget I'm there. Isn't technology wonderful?

  • Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by httpamphibio.us ( 579491 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:15PM (#5454694)
    Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? I can't see this being relevant to any more than 1/100 of the computer using populace.
    • gaming = entertainment.
      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)

      by MisterFancypants ( 615129 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:18PM (#5454719)
      I work for a company that creates software for the scientific community. You'd be surprised how many customers use our OpenGL-based 3D molecular modelling solution using stereo-3D display devices of various kinds (most often they use high-end shutter glasses). They would be all over this type of technology.

    • Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Angry White Guy ( 521337 ) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:18PM (#5454720)
      Cad/Cam Medical Research engraving engineering model building mapping weather forecasting physics civil engineering automobile manufacturing shall I go on?

    • Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Wraithlyn ( 133796 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:24PM (#5454763)
      You've got to be kidding. You're telling me you can't think of countless applications for painlessly and naturally being able to view something in 3D? How about checking out an item on EBay and being able to look at it from any angle? 3D videoconferencing? How about a 3D user interface where you can look "behind" things? 3D porn! 3D movies! Hell, even with just games... I think that'd be a bit more than 1% of users.

      And best of all, this might finally give Slashdot some real depth. ;D
      • I can't see how the way we simulate three dimensions on a computer now would be done any better by making it closer to true 3d.

        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?
        • "Physically moving to look behind something on your monitor is incredibly inefficient"

          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.
          • Why do you say this? Is manipulating a keyboard and/or mouse to change your viewpoint more efficient?

            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)

              by afidel ( 530433 )
              Yes, it happens to battlefield and trauma surgeons all the time. Besides, pseudo 3D maps from technology like MRI's have been used for a long time, true 3D would obviously be better.

          • Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:3, Informative)

            by AlecC ( 512609 )
            Imagine a surgeon performing surgery through the use of a 3D display...

            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.

      • Would be interesting to see the early adopters of these screens physically recoil from web banner ads... the monkey punches you!! (er.. in Soviet Russia?) etc.

        :-)
    • "Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? I can't see this being relevant to any more than 1/100 of the computer using populace."

      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...

    • I think more than 1/100th of the computer useing populace plays games. I would see this technology as about as vialble as a Radeon9700, which is to say, pretty viable.
    • "Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? "

      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.
      • 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.

        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)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      " Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this?"

      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.
    • architecture, as in buildings, not software

    • Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by visgoth ( 613861 )
      Anyone who works in the cg animation industry would kill for a good high res 3d display (I know I would!) Trying to model somthing that's displayed on a standard 2d screen is no simple task. Sure, using a shaded view helps provide visual cues as to what is closer to you. However, once you switch to a wireframe view any and all sense of depth is lost.

      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.

      • There was one 3d modeling software I used a long time ago which would slightly "wiggle" the wireframe back and forth, maybe by about 2-3 degrees of rotation.. enough that you kept your current view but could make out some depth from the wireframe.
    • Well 3d Displays can be helpful in analizing data. Lets assume you are dealing with 3d graphs where often on 2D Displays sometimes plays perspective tricks on eyes. As well allow interpretating data when there is overlap. As well as tools that can help give scale to objects when they give 2d dispays representing 3d information and certon lighting the size of the object is distorted with a 3d display you can use your eyes to easally judge the distance and sizes and proporton of objects on the screen. 3d Displays are a tool designed to give people information the way that we evolved (and/or given by God) to view data naturally. In 3d.

    • Re:Non-gaming usage? (Score:5, Funny)

      by isomeme ( 177414 ) <cdberry@gmail.com> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @10:21PM (#5455141) Journal
      Four words: "Blue Cube of Death".

    • already have uses (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lingqi ( 577227 )
      One word: cellphone
      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
    • Slashdot:

      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

    • Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? I can't see this being relevant to any more than 1/100 of the computer using populace.

      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.

    • The same sort of thing was said about colour displays when they first came out. Why pay three times as much for colour when you can display anything any reasonable user wants on green-and white. It wasn't a problem at the time, but I would place a big bet that if the net had been around, people would have saud the only real use of colour was for porn.

      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.

  • What does this mean? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by epiphani ( 254981 ) <epiphani@@@dal...net> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:15PM (#5454700)
    Can someone explain to me a little better what a 3D display is exactly? I dont get it. As far as I'm concerned, my monitor already does 3D.
    • Uh, 3D, ya know? Like depth and all that? Ever seen a 3d movie? Like that.
      • "Uh, 3D, ya know? Like depth and all that? Ever seen a 3d movie? Like that."

        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.
        • Ummm, I'm losing something here. As far as I'm concerned, my monitor is a 2D device. To put a pixel on screen, all you need to send is an X and a Y. Even if there is also Z info, as in a '3D' game, the monitor only displays in 2D.

          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.

    • Can someone explain to me a little better what a 3D display is exactly? I dont get it. As far as I'm concerned, my monitor already does 3D.

      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)

      by Yosi ( 139306 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:32PM (#5454818) Journal
      These 3-d displays that they are talking about send two different pictures in different directions. In that ways, you get an illusion of parallax so you see depth.

      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>
      • Even the holographic display isn't the Holy Grail, since everything on the screen is in the same plane in real life, so everything is in perfect focus, making the scene look weird and unreal. In the real world, whether or not an object is in focus is an important part of our depth perception. Is there any research going on into displays that would be able to simulate a depth of focus effect, where the eye could focus on different objects in the scene at different depths? Would it be possible to do this in the type of display that projects directly into the eye with fancy optics? Or would it have to be done by sensing the eye's depth of focus and having a computer change the scene to match, many times a second?

        • Re:What does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Yosi ( 139306 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @11:14PM (#5455535) Journal
          No. That was precisely my point. A hologram is a real effect to the point that it has focal planes. In an analog hologram, every piece of information about a light wave, including its direcion and intensity, is saved in a diffraction pattern, that can be read by shining the reference beam again. In a holographic video system, something is causing the exact same diffraction patterns that the holographic plate would have stored.

          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, Informative)

          by Sondek ( 207966 )
          There are two components to how people use the focus cue for depth perception. There is the blur gradient, that is how things in front of and behind your point of focus get blurier. There is also your eye muscles physical accommodation to this depth. Research seems to indicate that the blur gradient is not as important as the eye's accomodative depth. The depth of focus is a really hard thing to simulate on a display. You can try to use a measure of gaze direction, but to stop people from getting uncomfortable the lag needs to be reduced to almost zero. So you effectively need many depth planes you can project onto.

          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.
    • Your monitor (well, technically your graphics card) "projects" *ONE PARTICULAR VIEWING ANGLE* of a 3D scene onto a flat 2D plane. If you look at this image from different angles, it always looks the same.

      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)

        by jtdubs ( 61885 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:39PM (#5454872)
        No, no, I'm afraid it doesn't.

        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
      • There's a gaming device that requires you to put a sensor on your forehead(Think little circle), then has a reader that sits on your monitr and detects what way your head is turned and uses it as a hatswitch in sim games, very cool.
    • Here is how to test if your at a 2D or 3D:

      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?

  • mm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by robzster1977 ( 518768 )
    3D BSODs.

    Just what I always wanted.
    • Forget 3d BSODs, think "boobies".

      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)

    by EverStoned ( 620906 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:17PM (#5454713) Homepage
    Talk of 3D screens always make me think back to the failed Nintendo VirtuaBoy. It gave you glocoma (Yes, you can smoke pot legaly, but that's beside the point.)

    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.
    • I dont know about glocoma, but it sure gives me a big ars headache just thinking bout playing it.
    • Well, that's the whole point, really. The idea is to design a monitor/screen system that can create a truly 3D image, without having to rely on any kind of goggles or glasses. So that people could sit back in their comfy chair, and get a 3D experience.

      yrs,
      Ephemeriis
    • "It gave you glocoma"

      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.

  • While objects in the background do not pose problems, viewing objects in the foreground can cause the eyes to shift back and forth rapidly.

    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)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:21PM (#5454747)
    It will never happen! Remember that no technology becomes popular without being embraced by the porn industry and how the heck will the porn industry work with 3D displays?!? It's pointless to think about it I mean it's completely and utterly ridiculo...
    ooh...
    ooohhhhhhh!!!

    ummmm nevermind

  • Longhorn/Blackcomb (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gazoombo ( 650701 )
    I've heard that future versions of windows will escape the standard 2 dimensional desktop and add a 3D element to the GUI. Will these be the types of displays it will use? and how can they code for a 3D GUI without having a device to use it with? Or was it just 3D-looking on a standard 2D display.. ideas?

  • Does it hurt to use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:28PM (#5454789)
    We've been seeing 3D display technologies for 50 years. Some have been better than others, but they have all suffered from the same flaw. Namely, that using them for any length of time results in a headache/eye strain. The article notes near the end that this technology is not free of the problem.

    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...

    • "...but untill I can use one for 6 hours with no eyestrain, I don't think I want one."

      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?!?!?!
    • If you stare at anything for 6 hours straight you are bound to end up with some sort of eye strain. Granted, somethings will cause it quicker than others. This display sounds like it may cause problems for people with weak eye muscles, but it is probably something that you can adjust to over time.

  • What about poor MS? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Toasty16 ( 586358 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:30PM (#5454807) Homepage
    They'll have to replace DirectX with "TotallyInYourFaceX" or "DirectAndToThePointX" or something similar.

    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.

  • How is this better than a holo? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:31PM (#5454812) Journal
    Cool tech, two LCDs seperated by a screen rather than glasses, but the eye strain problem seems to be a killer. Think of all the problems with eye strain from a regular monitor (ergonomics, hysteria to some degree, possibly law suits).

    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?
  • I thought about using some kind of gas which would be suspended in a chamber. You'd need 2 lasers (X and Y axis) which would shine into the gas and light it up. Voila! 3d display which you could walk around, probably on par with the one in Star Wars.
    • Unfortunately, unless you can form the gas into the shapes you want, your lasers will make lines through all of X and all of Y, not dots at X,Y.

      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.

      • What about the holographic arcade game Sega produced about a decade ago? It was called Time Traveller or something, and used a cylindrical screen reflect the light giving the illusion of having the FMV actors standing in front of you.

        I wonder if this basic technology could be further exploited...

    • This has actually been done, but using specially created crystals instead of a gas. Somehow when the two lasers hit the same point it causes the crystal to fluoresce. Unfortunately the process to create the crystals is extremely expensive and they were having a lot of trouble with the scan rates of the laser, iirc.

      Here's a (apparently outdated) link:
      http://www.vdivde-it.de/felix/english_solidfelix.h tml [vdivde-it.de]

  • Sim City 4 (Score:3)

    by HaloZero ( 610207 ) <protodeka@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:40PM (#5454885) Homepage
    That's all I've got to say.

  • 3D, but must be viewed from a fixed point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shird ( 566377 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:41PM (#5454898) Homepage Journal
    For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away, Sharp representatives said. Sitting closer or further away results in seeing two overlapping images As with all other 3D attempts, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose? You pretty much have to view the 3D model from a fixed point, so you may as well just render the image in 2D. How is viewing a "3D" image any better than a 2D representation of a 3D model when you can't rotate your head around the image?
    • People want 3D for a feature called "cool". :)

      LS
    • For complex displays, such as molecules, cad images, or medical images, having depth perception can *really* help out with understanding the image clearly, even if you can't turn your head and "look around." Basically, instead of your brain needing to *guess* the depth information from the 2d image, it can get almost explicit depth information from the two images these 3d monitors give you.

      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)

    by TunaTime ( 657041 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @09:59PM (#5455009)
    Seen 3D displays already from 15" LCDs to 50" plasmas from ddd. Check them out at www.ddd.com

  • 3D displays could help me! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @10:06PM (#5455058) Homepage
    I would really like there to be a practical 3D display technology.

    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".

    • That's true.....
      The problem with anaglyphs is that the red/blue filtration leads to pretty compromised colour fidelity....
      • That's why I use a RED/CYAN filter. Red/blue is PASSE. If you read my technical description you'd see that I do the image for RED/CYAN.

        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)

    by theefer ( 467185 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @10:22PM (#5455147) Homepage
    Finally, we'll be able to use 3dwm [3dwm.org] in its full glory !

  • 3D Display... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dmayle ( 200765 )
    Does anyone remember FELIX 3D [felix3d.com] displays? I know they can't be used on cell phones, but at least they work...

  • Dimension Technologies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gmplague ( 412185 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @10:33PM (#5455230) Homepage
    Dimentions Technologies Incorporated have been selling 3D monitors (without the glasses!) for years. When they first came out they got very favorable reviews, but the major quip was with the price. Well, the prices have come down significantly, and you can get a 15" True 3D flat panel monitor, for $1700, and an 18" for $5000. 32-Bit color, resolutions up to 1024x768 (for the smaller ones), and 1280 x 1024 for the big ones, that's not such a bad deal. Also, it goes from 2D monitor to 3D at the toch of a button. Not bad if you ask me.

    Site is here [dti3d.com].
    • I reviewed one of their units awhile back. It worked very well but DID produce quite a bit of eyestrain after long usage. Not ideal for long gaming sessions, not yet at least. Great picture though, and the 3D effect was very nice.
  • What was the 3D (actually holographic) video game from the late 80's? Had something to do with a time travelling cowboy and was similar to Dragon's Lair in that you manipulated video rather than actually played a game...

    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.

  • I can't help but think that this is the kind of jump in technology that Apple is uniquely positioned to popularize.

    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)

    by SlipJig ( 184130 )
    This technology sounds like a more complicated (and expensive) version of the already-complicated and expensive LCD technology we have. Furthermore, it doesn't sound like the technology will work well with the OLED's that are just starting to come out.

    Given a choice between "3D" LCD and 2D OLED, I'll take OLED, thank you very much.
  • "One of the first subcommittees will examine establishing methods for tweaking software applications so that they can take advantage of 3D screens. Hardware input-output specifications will be the subject of another subcommittee."

    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)

    by dvnelson72 ( 595066 )
    http://www.realtime-3d.com

    there are graphic @dult 3d videos and images availabe that display the possiblities.
  • Imagine the first time you get the crap scared out of you by a 3d X-10 popup ad.
  • ...in the article is that, to achieve the illusion of depth, the user must continuously blink one eye, then the other, exactly 30 times per second.

    SIG FAULT
  • ... and safety standards...

    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 lost an eye five years ago to a mugger, so everything is 2D for me.

    Yeah, I know, the punchline isn't very funny.
  • I have read through the posts, and many people have stated that it only simulates 3D through twin images, but hurts the eye due to it all being on a single focal plane. While I can understand this, what I don't get is how does the eye know what the focal plane is?

    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Close