Review of a 3D LCD

MBCook writes "I just saw on Tom's Hardware a review of a 3D LCD screen: The DTI 2015XLS. Apparently it does work and doesn't need special glasses or other such anoyances. And remember: when you build your next awesome gameing PC, leave $1699 in your budget for one of these babies!"

Comments

Re:Usability nill

[Joe Rumsey]

Reading the article, it appears as though they can present completely independent images to each eye. The depth of the physical device doesn't matter at all if you can do that. They should be able to get every bit as much depth as a pair of goggles, just not the peripheral vision. The other drawback is that you have to keep your head fairly still, moving out of the correct viewing position will ruin the 3D effect.

3-D displays can be a problem

[DrScott]

One aspect of 3-D displays that people tend to overlook is the increased demand for accurate binocular alignment and accommodative-convergence interplay (that is, the relationship between binocular eye alignment and the focusing of the eyes). Nearpoint tasks such as reading can cause considerable eyestrain if a reader has problems with binocular alignment or focusing, and 3-D displays will only add to the possibility of having such problems. So while some people will be able to use 3-D displays easily, others will do so only with considerable effort or discomfort, while yet others will be unable to do so at all.

I wonder...

[Now15]

Could they make a simple detector system that worked out the position of your head, so that it could move the illumination plate to compensate? Then you'd be able to move your head around a little.

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

Just thinking...

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

--

Handicap distress...

[Deus Ex Machina]

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

Re:Handicap distress...

[nullity]

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

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

-Seth

Re:Handicap distress...

[Grab]

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

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

Graham.

Re:Handicap distress...

[tswinzig]

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

So basically you're worried because you're the only computer user with one good eye?

Re:Handicap distress...

[Preposterous Coward]

Your concern is interesting to me. I had a similar problem as a child -- legally blind in one eye -- but some fairly aggressive action (including a full-time eye patch over the good eye) at an early age corrected me to a point where both eyes are functional, although my bad one still needs a fairly high prescription in order to approach normalcy.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Screenshots would be nice

[miahrogers]

Well it probably would look like crap when you photographed it. Just like 3d images look like crap when you don't have goggles on. You definatly wouldn't be able to see the 3d aspect of it though. Just a thought.

Screenshots would be nice

[BierGuzzl]

A screenshot (for lack of a better term) would be nice, to at least show some examples of this technology in action. So far we've got the diagrams, and some pictores of the lcd screen -- but they left the damn thing turned OFF! What are they hiding?

It doesn't support Linux.

[Picass0]

The drivers are for Windows only. Count me out. Great technology, but I'm done with the dual-booting.

Good thing, but for what ?

[boaworm]

This sure seems really cool, especially for all those 3Dgames. I wonder though, if this product is intended for use with games or more business orientated use. They mention in the review things as autocad. It must be a great improvement when constructing 3D models and you can actually see them in 3D :)

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

Usability nill

[Alien54]

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

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

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

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

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

Premise

[Ratcrow]

The opening of the article states this:

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Premise

[canadian_right]

All very true, and past about 20 or 30 feet you get zero 3d from parallex.

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

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

This is the parralax barrier method.

[cogpp]

The way the do this isn't new. Despite the quite poor explaination of how it works in the review and on their home page I think this is a minor variation on the parral barrier method, explained with diagrams here (N.B. the first method on the page). All they have done is move the barrier from in front to between the liquid crystal and the backlight. It was invented by Frederick Ives in 1903, so it's not that new. If you want to make your own you should try printing a lot of fine lines on some acatate, and experimenting with that, certainly cheaper than their monitor.

3D-space

[Zo0ok]

The advantage with LCD is that it takes up 2D space on your desktop. 3D-LCD must be a step in the wrong direction.

It's a conspiracy!

[3-State Bit]

From the article:

The serial connection is required to activate the stereoscopic view, syncing and activating the illumination plane. Without the serial connection, or communications on your COM port with the DTI software, you won't get 3D.

and

However, the most important expectation that the 2015XLS places on the user is that it requires you to keep an eye on a small red light positioned on the bottom right hand corner of the display. This light cues you whether you are sitting in the right position for 3D viewing or not. If you can see the light then you are not, and the most frustrating thing about the display is constantly having to be aware of this.

Don't do it! Think about it people!!!
They're practically saying:
"Don't worry, you can continue using the monitor just fine. In exchange for the 3D effect, though, you'll need to agree to sit in the exact center in front of your monitor -- yes, that's right -- and a red dot will become visible if you move out of the way, just as a "friendly reminder". The monitor also needs to be able to interface with our software through the serial port. You might notice a slight drop in bandwidth, but don't mind the mpg files being uploaded to carnivore.fbi.com...it's just syncing with our central servers to accomodate for the, uh, curvature of the Earth or whatever. Anyway, look at this cool sample picture! Isn't it 3D-y?"


Big Brother is watching.



~

Oh lordy

[HongPong]

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

--

Re:Oh lordy

[Anthony Brundell]

The sheer originality of your joke really boggles my mind.

The evolution of Human-Computer interface

[Migelikor1]

Finally, there is effective research being done, to make computers, as Douglas Adams (RIP) would have put it, more than typewriters with televisions in front of them. By combining a 3D display with the 3D sensory technology in development by companies like Sensable people can interact with a genuine multidimensional, immersive computer environment. Beyond the prOn possibilities of merging the technologies (fondle-able images anyone?) is a whole new world of design. Though I can't see the displays improving word processing or programming much, designing products on a 3D screen, touching them in virtual space, and printing them on 3D printers offer a whole new world of simple product development. Converse is already using a 3D printing and fax system to design shoes in boston, and give their factories in Asia models to work from.

URL

[slashdot.org]

The company's website: http://www.dti3d.com/.

Pretty shitty, doesn't tell you much. But I can appreciate companies that put more effort in their product than their website. ;)

Re:Count Me Out

[Snootch]

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

43rd Law of Computing: