Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

PC Magazine Reviews Sharp's 3D Notebook 112

Posted by timothy from the my-laptops-are-all-3-d dept.
Moochman writes "I recently discovered this article over at PC Magazine, an excellent and fairly complete review of the Sharp RD3D, aka the 'world's first 3D laptop' (see previous Slashdot coverage here). In addition to rating performance, features, etc, it provides a nice little explanation and diagram of how the no-glasses 3D technology works, and discusses possible eye-strain issues. The biggest disappointment is that even the included 3D games still don't work right." Moochman provides a link to Sharp's information site, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC Magazine Reviews Sharp's 3D Notebook More

PC Magazine Reviews Sharp's 3D Notebook

Comments Filter:

  • Why do people say (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pingular ( 670773 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:31PM (#7588256)
    3D, when it blatantly isn't?
    Now I come to think of it, it could be 3D if you think of time as being a dimension...

    • Re:Why do people say (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lanswitch ( 705539 )
      Time is a dimension. any good marketing droid can safely claim it is true 3d...

    • Re:Why do people say (Score:5, Informative)

      by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:35PM (#7588541) Homepage Journal
      Because it can give an illusion of a 3D world. Then again, even a 2D image can give a pretty good illusion.

      IMHO it's important to see (pun intended) that vision in a 3D world is fundamentally 2D. A ray of light is 1D; this takes away that one dimension. The human retina is effectively a 2D surface. In an n-dimensional world, vision is (n-1)-dimensional.

      It helps a little that humans have two of those 2D eyes, but it doesn't make vision fully 3D (physical impossibility as explained above). Therefore a parallax-based system can give a perfectly good illusion; it's not fully 3D, but we don't need it to be as our vision is so limited.

      On the other hand, things change when you move your head. You can't peek behind the image. However, it is possible if the head position is being tracked and the image changes accordingly. I've experienced one such system, it used LCD shutter glasses whose position was tracked via radio waves. A friend at the local university showed me a molecular simulation with this system, it was pretty kewl. The only limitation was that it used a single flat screen, but they are planning to extend it to cover every wall of a room to give full 3D immersion.

      • Actually, the fresnel style 3d displays CAN support weave-and-bob 3d. This is also useful for multiple observers.

        Basically, the fresnel lens allows you to project N images in that many directions. You need image 1 and 2 to see in 3d from location 1, images 2 and 3 from location 2 ...
        You're efficively only limited by how good your lens is and how much horisontal resolution you're willing to trade for PoVs.
  • Just think of what spooky things those virus writers could do with this thing!

    RD

  • Ah yes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:37PM (#7588283)
    Good old PC Magazine, where if you don't have a 27" monitor, your computer system is worthless. Sometimes having all that free evaluation hardware and top-of-the-line enterprise-class software causes a reality-free zone where everyone spends $18,000 a year on brightly colored new icons to click.

    Quite surprising they didn't use the word "clunky" at least once.

  • Change of focus... (Score:5, Funny)

    by whiteranger99x ( 235024 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:37PM (#7588284) Journal
    In addition to rating performance, features, etc, it provides a nice little explanation and diagram of how the no-glasses 3D technology works, and discusses possible eye-strain issues

    Well, if we're talking about porn being viewed on one of these things, i think eye strain will be the last of their worries ;)

  • 3D my ass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:38PM (#7588288) Homepage Journal

    First off, every laptop is 3D. As long as they don't make it into flat sheets of paper, they have width, height and depth. And then referring to flat screen as 3D... Yeah, mod me down as flamebait/troll, the fact that you see 2 separate images with 2 eyes doesn't make it 3D. You can't look behind it, you can't just tilt your head to see it from different angle, and if you try, you lose all the '3d' effect.

    I remember one SCI-FI book where they had a really 3D computer. A small medallion with one button, that upon pressing the button displays a holographic interface - and senses user's interaction with it. And the display is fully holo=3D too.
    But that's a far future, and now anything that cheats your brain into seeing depth being called 3D is considered a good marketing technique.
    • Mod parent Insightful

      Seing how far objects move when you move forward/backward or side-to-side is an important aspect in judgeing distance. Incidentally, the parent shows that you would only benefit from the 3D if you have your head at the right angle and distance from the screen. blagh
    • Is a hologram 3D? It's just a flat piece of plastic. All else being equal, if your eyes see two different images with proper parallax it is indistinguishable from seeing into a 3D space.

      No, the technology is not perfect, and it's not up to the computers in the Final Fantasy movie yet, but it does what it claims to do.
      • I thought that the complaint was that it didn't quite do what it was supposed to do.

      • Re:3D my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:20PM (#7588478) Homepage Journal
        Hologram is a flat piece of plastic, but by viewing it from different angles, you can see different objects, stuff hidden behind other stuff etc. Just as if it was a "window into another world". By mounting a cube of 6 correctly aligned holograms, you can allow viewing an object from all directions.

        Still, with holograms there are two major problems (and several minor, like lighting etc). One is focus - you see sharply what the camera took sharply. Background is usually blurred. And the other is amount of data contained and needed to be generated, plus resolution comparable to light wave size, which causes mostly every electronic application impossible - just not enough bandwidth and no small enough pixels to create a holograms on the fly.

        BTW, make a hologram of a hologram: Result: the pictured image appears 'in front of the plastic', like floating in air, on your side.

    • Re:3D my ass. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:09PM (#7588428) Homepage Journal
      [shrug] 2.5D, maybe?

      I mean, fine, it's not true 3D. But it's still a hell of an advance in display technology. True, open-air, walk-around 3D projection would be very very cool, but for most of the applications that people want 3D display for right now, this is a big step in the right direction.

      Obviously there's plenty of room for improvement. You should be able to "tilt your head to see it from different angle," I agree. I'd say a reasonable standard is that the illusion of depth should be maintainable anywhere from 1 to 3 feet away from the screen, and with the viewer's head positioned directly in front of any part of the screen including the edges. If they can get that down ... well, as far as I'm concerned, they've pulled off a miracle.

    • Re:3D my ass. (Score:2, Funny)

      by zephc ( 225327 )
      Maybe not 3D your ass, and hopefully *never* 3D his ass [goatse.cx]

  • gl / directx (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dollargonzo ( 519030 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:38PM (#7588293) Homepage
    what i am intereted in is what kind of API they provide to access the 3d capabilities of their display technology. what exactly are the games doing to make them look 3d? is this just an opengl wrapper (like wicked3d for an anaglyph effect) or is there support in the video card hardware to output to this kind of display...interesting stuff though, either way

    • Re:gl / directx (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iantri ( 687643 ) <.iantri. .at. .gmx.net.> on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:12PM (#7588438) Homepage
      Actually, this lends itself to an interesting question. Software like the aforementioned wicked3d [stereo3d.com] or SciTech's GLDirect [scitechsoft.com] allows users to see "3D" (actually stereo images) in any game that uses 3D acellerated graphics (DirectX/OpenGL) using either red/blue anaglyph glasses or LCD shutters.

      What I'm wondering is does this notebook come with the appropriate drivers to interpret the standard DirectX calls (like the above programs) and display any game in stereo or does the game have to be specifically written for it?

    • Re:gl / directx (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As far as I know, opengl and directx allow for a left and right screen buffer, one for each eye, the programmer can then render to these as s/he so wishes.

    • One developer's experience (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      We've had the experience of getting ahold of some of the demo units because our company, Micoy [micoy.com], is doing work with stereo imaging of full-360-degree video. We were able to take an existing OpenGL-based application and make it work on the RD3D with a few simple function calls.

      Essentially, you want to draw your scene twice from two different perspectives: one for the left eye and one for the right eye. Their API uses the OpenGL stencil buffer and sub-pixel-level multi-sampling to take those 2 perspectives

  • parallax (Score:4, Informative)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:39PM (#7588295) Homepage Journal
    Te 3Dness works (or was that fails to work?) by allowing each eye to see a different picture. Only B&W is 3D, and the front picture is color. This is cheaper but no doubt causes problems. It's no surprise that "3D" games don't look 3D on it because it is a different type of 3Dness than before.

    Give this some time, and it will improve significanttly. Plus, it will be backed by the computer industry (sell more bigger CPUs and memory)
  • I don't really see the point with these 3D displays.
    There is a very large number of different projections of 3 dimensional Riemannian space to flat 2D Euclidian space. Using clever parametrisations these projections can suited to every users needs. Further more unlike this 3D-3D projection these dimension lowering projections have less computional complexity, thus requiring less resources.
    Even more such projections are known from arbitrary high dimensional spaces to 2D, enabling experts to reconstruct the
    • Is "cumputing" something mathematicians do while in an orgy? Couldn't resist, sorry, all.

    • Re:Why 3D displays ? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The same argument suggests that a black and white display is as good as a color display, "besides the coolness factor," since you could always display three monochrome color separations. In fact, the human vision system is specialized to process information more efficiently if it is presented in certain ways, and stereoscopic 3D systems (mostly shutter goggles in my experience) find wide use in business contexts such as protein folding research.

  • RD3D? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by XNormal ( 8617 )
    RD3D? It is anything like R2D2?

  • Stereo, not 3D. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <.iantri. .at. .gmx.net.> on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:06PM (#7588401) Homepage
    This only provides stereo images, not 3D.

    It still sounds kind of cool though, but this sort of thing is doable on regular hardware with red/blue or LCD shutter glasses, or just doing the eye-crossing thing.

    Unfortunately, it costs a hell of a lot of money for something that looks as good or better with $1.50 anaglyph (red/blue) glasses.

  • 3D? I'm still waiting for a 2D system! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by meckardt ( 113120 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:06PM (#7588406) Homepage

    After all, my current laptop is what... 14" x 12" x 2"? I want the darn thing to be as thin as a piece of paper... and if it folds up, so much the better. The heck with the fancy displays.

  • It'll be news when Sharp... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...produces a 2-D laptop that can be stored anywhere and has more than 4 hours battery life.
  • make me vomit? then again I've never been able to handle them 3d glasses eather. I guess it's due to how my eyes work, one at a time...The technology is an interesting Idea but be damned if I'm gonna spend 3200 bucks on a laptop to puke on...

  • Obviously not done with nVidia! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by totzta ( 715230 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:27PM (#7588502)
    I was amazed last week to find that my GeForce4 Ti4200 is one of a huge number of nVidia cards that support nVidia's 3D stereo drivers. I had a pair of red/blue glasses knocking about from Smash Hits Magazine in 1983, or similar, and literally a couple of minutes later I was playing Tiger Woods 2004, Medal of Honor:AA and an old driving game in wonderful 3D. The best thing of all is that the 3D support is for all DirectX or OpenGL games with no internal support required.

    Surely if Sharp had forseen that the driver and technology already existed, they could have got this thing off the ground without having to re-invent the wheel, and then fix the bugs.

    Ummm. Mixed metaphor ending.

  • Glasses (Score:3, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) * <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:30PM (#7588514) Homepage
    and there was me hoping to see a room full of business men wearing 60's green and purple glasses whilst listening to a lecture :)

    Rus

  • checked those out at Telecom'2003 in Geneva: nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lol the unbeliever ( 311135 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:40PM (#7588566)
    I saw those in October: Sharp had a big booth, with these screeens on all the form factors. Altogether Very Nice, but I noticed that these screens are better on handhelds than on laptops, as positioning the screen to your eyes in the *right* (ie fiddly) way is natural with a handheld, but requires neck movemement with a laptop

  • A wonder for people with two eyes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TechnoWeeniePas ( 411708 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @02:54PM (#7588639)
    I would be interested in seeing how technology like this would work for someone like myself who only has one good eye. Would it act just like a "2D" monitor when it was in "3D" mode or would I only be able to see half of the pixels?

    • Re:A wonder for people with two eyes (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ok, this I can speak to! I also have only one good eye, And I work with 3D graphics. While it is a bit of a pain to set up sometimes, we use our VR system in stereoscopic 3D sometimes. I can't see it because only my left eye works. i can of course understand the math, and also see each images (left and right), but I cant see the depth created by viewing the images correctly. For people with only one good eye stereo images are mostly useless.

      -tim
  • Kind of funny the way it doesn't market...

    because you can't see it in action on a normal screen!

    They'll have to think of a way to overcome this if to speed up uptake.
    • The author of the review seems to think the problem is selling enough of these laptops to interest hordes of software developers: 'And as with any new technology, Sharp faces a chicken-and-egg challenge: Selling enough units to make it worthwhile for software makers to 3-D-enable their apps, and having enough compatible apps to make the 3-D machine worth buying. (Sharp says there are hundreds of titles that are 3-D enabled.)'

      There should be hundreds of titles already since anything already written to Dire

  • AnandTech also has coverage (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    AnandTech also covered this monitor at COMDEX.

    http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1924

  • Caught in a Catch .22 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Captain Beefheart ( 628365 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @03:09PM (#7588708)
    Looks like they hobbled themselves by choosing a niche format DVD burner, a full-sized Pentium 4 Volcano, and 2 hours of battery time--and almost 12 pounds of travel weight for only a 15" screen. Hopefully this product won't fail and they won't blame the failure on the tech instead of their unappetizing hardware loadout.

    Of course, total cost per unit is much cheaper for Sharp as they gather up second-tier parts to keep the MSRP down, but it's those second-tier parts that cast a shadow over the 3d gimmick. Once you've showed off the new toy to all your friends, you're still stuck with a niche format DVD burner, a full-sized Pentium 4 Volcano, 2 hours of battery time, and a travel weight that's difficult to justify.

    • Furthermore, the cost of the 3d tech has to be more than "the low hundreds of dollars," which we will peg at $300. I just priced an Alienware laptop which has:

      --1024MB of RAM vs. 512MB
      --Mobility Radeon 9600 128MB vs. GeForce4 440 Go (64MB?), the mobile version of the MX cards
      --8MB cache 60 GB 7200 RPM Hitachi vs. standard generic 60GB drive
      --4x2x8x DVD-RW vs. DVD-RAM drive
      --16.1" 1600x1200 UXGA vs. 15" 1024x768 XGA

      ...and it was still about $125 less!!!

      So either the tech costs a lot more than they'r

  • Neck strain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @03:32PM (#7588826) Homepage
    I don't get it. It took years to convince the industry that it was important to have a detachable keyboard and an adjustable tilt/swivel CRT. The laptop returned to the single-piece design and I've been wondering for some time when we're going to start to hear complaints from people that use them for more than a few hours a day.

    But now, we're going to have a device that requires you to hold your head in one specific position in order to view the 3D effect?

    This will be a nice business-builder for chiropractors.
  • I have seen one of these up close (/me looks over to demo unit sitting on desk and no I don't work for Sharp) and I am truly impressed. It does require finding a 'sweet spot' for the entire screen to seem stereo, but there are 'semi-sweet' (like chocolate) spots to the left and right so observers can get a taste. I have been working with shutter glasses for a while now and this beats the eye strain and weight of shutter glasses hands down when dealing with a single PC display.

    Interesting side note, wi
  • At the end of the article, an almost incoherent comment by some reader:

    what I dont understand is all this bla bla about, all this can be achived with simple eye glasses, it needs only to tell the optician what he has to do, with this you can not only see 3D on a computer screen but also on any printed media, its amazing, I wont tell you now how to do because than all this guys run to apply patents, which I think they shoulnd get because its so simple it only needs to use the brain a little, it even works
  • Now, if you can find a way to make a genuine 2D laptop, THEN I'd be impressed.

  • That is a peculiar eye position for a laptop (Score:4, Funny)

    by cfish ( 61161 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @05:18PM (#7589370)
    The article says your eyes need to 21 inches from the screen and perfectly centered.

    You'd look like a big retarded hunch back if you do that in front of a laptop.
  • Sharp says that uses might include medical imaging, CAD, architectural mock-ups, life sciences, possibly online shopping, and of course gaming and digital imaging

    HMMM

    Maybe pr0n?

    pr0n is this display's "killer app"

  • What I find most notable is that it doesn't work with existing 3D apps and requires some kind of special 3D support.

    So essentially, they bothered to make a 3D laptop, but they didn't bother to make it OpenGL or Direct3D compatible. What a waste. Who's gonna want it then.
  • I've been making 3D models for quite a while now. When this whole sharp thing came up I noticed something. After building a piece of my model, I rotate the model around in the 3d view to see it at various angles. I think the reason I'm doing this is to get a clear idea of what the shape looks like in 3D. If I had stereo view, there's a very good chance I'd find it would speed up my development time. I'd have a clearer idea of what the model looks like.

    As you can see, I'm not being very commital about
  • I used to own one, and it was a great piece of hardware. The Actius 250 weighed about 3 pounds, 1" thick, and with the extra batteries, could go 8-10 hours between charges.

    However, Sharp's support just sucked. No driver updates, no support any OS beyond Win 98, no technical details, nothing. Any problem had one response: wipe the machine, use the recover disk.

    Like Sony, they want to sell computers like other consumer electronics. Doesn't work.

    Very sad, since their engineering is terrific.

    Jonathan

  • Arrrrgh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by I kan Spl ( 614759 )
    I can tell that tehy have never fired a read gun before:

    "However, three 3-D-enabled Electronic Arts games bundled with our test unit were problematic. On Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2, we observed vertical bands and ghosting (secondary images); on James Bond 007: Nightfire, the ghosting was severe, and each eye saw not one but two aiming circles, making it hard to rack up a decent kill rate."

    Of course you wil see 2 targeting cirles, as you are trying to focus on the targeter and the target "behind" it at t
  • Every plain, vanilla model of mare is always 3D!
  • I haven't seen one of these things in person, but the tradeoffs seem fairly bad. They're directing light from alternating columns pixels to each eye. OK, but the separation between your eyes is not really that big... so presumably you couldn't really have this effect working if you moved 3" to the side. Presumably it also degrades noticeably along the way to that 3" of displacement. Maybe I'm overestimating the size of this problem for most people (I am a little fidgety), but this seems pretty restricti
  • I just had to go out and get one, so I'll be happy to answer any questions. I can report that there are about 15 zones of stereovision as you move your head around the screen. The three or so most central ones are best so 1 - 3 poeople can view good stereo at a time. You need to be about 25 inches from the monitor to get best results as obviously if you are further away the paralax increases to wider than the gap bewteen your eyes so you lose the effect. Any closer and the gaps are too small. I have downl

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close