Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D TV For The Masses?

Posted by timothy on from the where's-ted-turner-when-you-need-him dept.

scubacuda writes: "Technology Review has an article on new software that could make 3D television a reality. Previously encumbered by an expensive process that takes up to nine cameras per scene, a company called DDD now takes existing 2D film and creates a "depth map" for each frame. A TV that can handle this sort of software rendering currently costs $25K, but DDD estimates that in a few years, a 3D TV could only cost only 20% more than its 2D counterpart."

7 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Should make the future of 3d modelling more fun... by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Imagine being able to import such images. It would require either work to edit the 3-d shape so it had a "back" & smooth the shape a little, or else software to interpolate multiple images from different angles into one high resolution 3-d shape - but the opportunity to get a wide variety of shapes to start the process of modelling would be of great benefit to many artists and designers.

    Of course, the flip side to all this would be that individuals and organizations may start copyrighting shapes in addition to images. The first court cases over something "shaped like" a copyrighted object will be very interesting.

    :^)

    Ryan Fenton

  2. Or, you could wear goggles by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When viewing stereo images in the lab (3D displays of biological molecule structures) we wear special goggles. They work fine; none of that red and blue crap. If you're trying to find early adopters for a new tech, I'd think that 3D goggles plus software to display these movies on a computer would net you much more market penetrance than $25,000 dual-display televisions (or other expensive hardware gimmickry) which are only going to become cheaper if people start buying them, which they'll only do if content is available for them, which will open happen if there's some cheaper way to view the things. One of them vicious things, only good.

    Of course, they're using MPEG format. That may mean nothing, or it may mean that they're tied to the MPAA somehow, so encouraging people to watch movies on their computers may not be their business plan. I'm just spouting, I know nothing about "DDD".

    In fact, since it looks like HDTV is not going to be a vehicle for DRM, the movie/TV industry could try to develop and deploy some 3D display standard that shut out computers (using patents on the underlying technology), and move all new content into it. Frightening possibility.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  3. Nothing left fot the imagination? by livio · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Although 3D TV is just a step forward in multimedia we see in our day to day lives, which apparently started with the regular 2D TV in the 60's, it seems that soon futuristic technologies will be right around the corner. I remember watching Star Treck about 10 years ago and seeing the "Holadeck", where the crew could enter a "hologram-like" world, and interact with this world.

    Now it seems that this is not very far away! It maked me wonder what will happen to the human mind. It is common knowledge that reading books stimulates one's imagination a lot more than watching today's TVs or movies, for example. What will happen when we leave our children to enter "holodeck-fairy-tale-land".

    It seems man will start to become distant from nature. Is this a good or a bad thing? What are the consequences for a kid growing up in this new virtual "environment"?

    I definately the advantages to a hologram world, like visiting places you could not otherwise visit, and experience new things, but maybe this process has to be carefully thought out.

    I guess the a Matrix world is closer then I imagined...

  4. Is this a joke? by jasno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, its been.. what? 15 years? since they started talking about HDTV? And you expect the people who can't even agree on a simple hi-def format to adopt and commercialize this?

    Hehe.. ok. I'll put this in the pile with all of the other schemes that are "only 5 years away".

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
  5. Viewing angle by bravehamster · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Anyone know what sort of viewing angle you get on this thing? Doesn't seem like you could have a very good viewing angle without losing the depth aspect of the image. This could really hurt acceptance, because most peoples homes have seating arrangements with quite significant angles to the TV.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
  6. Binocular stereo barely matters by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This new system is just binocular stereo, not 3D. Moving your head won't let you look around something. Except for closeups, binocular stereo barely matters. Beyond about 2 meters, people can't tell anyway.

    The main optical depth cues are relative motion, depth of focus, and binocular stereo. If you can provide all three, it looks real, but if you can only provide one, it looks fake. The spherical-mirror illusion, even with projected 2D images, looks more real than binocular stereo. High-end flight simulators have displays that are focused at infinity, which gives you the feeling of looking out at the world, not at a screen. (Low-cost focused-at-infinity displays would be great for gaming, if the optics weren't too bulky.)

    Scaling of binocular 3D, where there's far more separation than the usual eye width, is a dramatic effect which is cool for about a minute, then is a pain. This is why the concept died in moviemaking.

  7. Re:Bad news those who can't deal with 3D.... by __aawsxp7741 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also, to show some respect for illiterates, let's stop using written language. And not use speech so as not to exclude the deaf. And draw everything in black and white, for the colour-blind.