Slashdot Mirror
3D LCD Display
Powerdog writes "After 10 years of lab work, Sharp has developed a 3D LCD display that works without glasses. They expect to use the displays in games at first, and expand into PCs and TVs. Production begins in a few months and products using them should be shipping in early 2003. Naturally, I just bought two 2D LCD displays for my home office two weeks ago."
Double D's are more than enough on my LCD screen, thank you.
Best Windows Freeware
the article doesn't really have any technical details, I'm curious to see what principle this screen operates on, and what makes it different technologically from the previous 3d LCD screens we've already seen (I think it's the 2d/3d nature of the screen without loss of resolution, as the article says, but I'd like to know how they get this to work)
-- the cake is a lie
I didn't see any indication in the article that Sharp had developed a 3D LCD. As far as I can tell, Sharp has developed a 3D flat screen.
http://www.dti3d.com/
d e. 1.shtml
http://www.neurokoptics.com/press/archive/giga.
How quickly are gaming/entertainment industries going to catch up to this kind of stuff?
Rain falls on everyone... lightning strikes some. -Maria Doria Russel
Aside from gaming, what are we planning to use these for?
I can see the use in design, nd maybe medical imaging? Any others?
I'm not disparaging the technology, or those who want one (I do) I'm genuinely curious . . . 3D is one of those "cool" things we've all had on our minds since watching our godzilla 3d movie as a kid, now that it's "here" how are we going to make use of the technology?
\Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
When you actually *make* something, it's not a mystery business plan. You say, wittily:
1. Create 3D LCD that works without glasses.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
In this case, ??? can be expressed as:
"Sell 3D LCD for more than it cost to manufacture it."
Okay?
What the hell? We can see in 3D because we have stereoscopic vision that takes advantage of the parallax effect, not some sort of 'light traversal time'. What are you talking about?
What would make this even better would be a way to easily rotate the "cube" representing your screen: you could have six applications open, each maximized on one plane, then just rotate the cube with a joystick to quickly switch around, or position it such that you can view parts of 2 or 3 apps at once.
But how would one implement a 3-D mouse?
The P.R. Gives some indication of how it works:
Mod this up!
Funniest troll I've read in a long time.
Objects are perceived as the same distance away when light takes the same amount of time to traverse from each of the objects.
That's great! Objects appear further away because it takes longer for the light from them to reach my eyes.
Best Windows Freeware
Depth perception comes from parallax between your eyes. NOT from how long it takes the light to reach each eye. You're thinking of stereophonic sound.
Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
...what effect a 3D display like this might have in terms of eye strain. If something like this were to become really widespread and used for day to day applications and GUIs, it's something to consider. Anyone out there that has worked with similar displays have an answer?
If you like 3D screens, you will like 3D stereoscopic cameras - stereoscopy.com and curtin.edu.au. Pretty cool stuff.
The article doesn't say how the 3D effect is done, but I would venture a guess: Lenticulars.
;- )
I used to work for a company that did a bit of research in lenticular software, its pretty neat, but a bitch to align properly.
And we all wanted a lenticular screen
(For those who don't know what lenticulars are, they are those plastick "ribbed" images you often got in cracker jacks boxes and on some toys, erroneously called holograms by 99.9% of the population.)
You can't take the sky from me...
Legs: [gasps] I'm seeing double here: four Krustys!
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
Secondly consider the mechanism you're suggesting, that would mean that the human eye and brain would have to be able to determine the time lag between light arriving from say 5 and 50 meters away. Consider how absurdly small a difference in arrival time there will be, and the complex series of chemical and electrical signals required to use this information.
If I'm mistaken I'd love to hear more.
Depth perception is a function of the angle of the eyeballs away from parallel. The closer an object is, the more the eye is turned in. That's why depth perception works very well up close (relatively large angular change for a small distance change) and depth perception doesn't work well for distances. Beyond 20 feet (maybe yards I forget) the mind uses other cues to decide distance. Once you have distance simluation, 3D is just shading.
...I'll wait for the 2nd generation release. You know, the ones with dual 1 watt speakers. That, and only that will justify the $4,000 pricetag.
If you think
Sharp has developed a 3D LCD display that works without glasses
I applaud Sharp's achievements in this exciting area of optical technology, but if the display only works without glasses, this eliminates a good percentage of computer users who, like myself, have to wear glasses.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Yes, you're right, but you forgot one significant detail: the software solution.
If you have a sufficiently efficient 3d card that has an incredibly low latency, you can emulate the long light traversal time by simply just sending the light from the deep objects *later*. This probably would require the logic to be integrated to the LCD screen itself because the signal latency in the vga cable from the sound card to the monitor in itself is too high. I'm unsure whether Sharp used this in their monitors, it'll be interesting to see when they give out more details.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Dimension Technologies makes products which, by the looks of their technology, are identical to Sharp's "new" breakthrough. DTI's made their first display with this technique years ago, and claims to have several patents. Can anyone show how Sharp is not infringing on DTI's patents?
Can I have some of what you're smoking? Sounds like it must be pretty good stuff.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Oh pls... Depth perception is the result of the brain comparing the two images generated by each eye. The closer the object, the greater the perceived difference. Human brains operate on millisecond speed (if that) and your eye can register up to 60 images a second or so, which means that practically speaking, the speed of the light hitting your eyes is inconsequential unless the difference is massive(by several orders of magnitude). Go back to school, 'genius'.
This is really neat, but if you're running a word processor or a spreadsheet, will you ever care? If you're simulating something n-dimensional, what good is 3d? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Of course, so was the laser.
See what I've been reading.
How come there weren't any pictures on the linked site? It would be nice to see
I wonder how the purveyors of bukkake and cumshot videos will react to this?
WRONG.
That would only work if you were able to know when the light being reflected from said objects originated. Given that light, in most cases, is a constant element (it's not frequently changing, i.e. stopping and starting, like a strobe), and given that you are not the originator of the light and you have no way of being sure which received photon (or group thereof) is (are) supposed to be synchronous in origin/reflection with which other photon, your explanation for depth perception/3D vision is not possible. 3-D vision actually relies on a number of processing tricks in the brain. You do the footwork, but the most commonly cited ones are: motion parallax, relative size, occlusion and binocular disparity.
Active sonar works the way you describe, as does radar. Human vision does not. Think of it in terms of active vs. passive processes. An active system is one that originates some signal and meters the response. A passive system makes sense of the existing signals whose origins/timings are not often known. Human vision is a passive system...
I'm surprised this took so long, now that I think about it some. The illusion of depth on a flat surface can be achieved by forcing each eye to receive a different image, effectively tricking the eye into believing that what it's seeing has depth.
Try looking very closely at an LCD monitor some time, like within 4 inches. Due to the narrow viewing angle present on LCDs, each eye will see a different view of the same pixels. If you angle your head just right, you can perceive something resembling depth, though without any real control. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to engineer a panel to make use of this effect.
Then again, my eyes are pretty jacked up, what with me having severe macular degeneration and some pretty crappy color vision. The experiment may also work a little better if you drink a bottle of 'tussin right before viewing.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
I understand why 3D has potential for Games, and the advantage in movies is also obvious.
My question is, Is there a business application for 3D? Ive been trying to think of one, but Im drawing a blank....
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
I have come across PhysicsGenius making posts like this. I like him, adding in some hidden humor that takes reading the post a few times. I assume his karma must awful. Well I'm sure he gets some great laughs reading all the replies.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
You know, like, to grasp the rounded, perky ... uhhhh ...
TyZone
Are you really an idiot or just pretending to be one?
I nominate "Physics Genius" for most egregious misnomer of the year.
That this is one small step for man, one giant leap towards holodecks being a reality
As with the case for any new media (TV, VHS, DVD, Internet), the driving killer app is: pr0n.
Bring on the boobies!
i will go with a volumetric display any day of the week.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
A nice explanation.
f
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/020927-1.gi
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
MAN: ``Honest, dear, it isn't for porn, it's for designing ... uh ... stuff! Yeah, that's the ticket! Stuff! Look, I bought it to use with Autocad!''.
WOMAN: ``You paid HOW MUCH to look at pictures of nekkid women?'' (loud footstomps. door slams.)
MAN: ``I thought she'd fall for it. Oh, well, bakk to bukkake!''
See what I've been reading.
Parallax occlusion might be the most economically feasible technology at the moment, but it's not that great. You can only see a good 3D image from certain angles and certain distances from the screen. Given a "Switching LCD" (their terminology) with a fine enough vertical grating (i.e. considerably higher than the horizontal resolution of the display LCD), and given a tracking system on the monitor (IR sensor or even a camera with position sensing software) that can sense where the viewer (singular!) is, the switching LCD could adjust the occlusion dynamically to make a sweet spot follow the viewer. This could also be done mechanically I guess, using a simple static grating, by moving the switching LCD left and right and forward and back as needed. This wouldn't work so well at the edges though, or anywhere the viewing angle deviates considerably from 90 degrees.
I'm still hoping to be able to buy a holographic monitor within my lifetime.
I've seen them work at DTI with my own eyes you silly buffoon !!!! go away ..better yet go back to school..better yet get a refund for whatever schooling you did get
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
...by controlling the path of travel of light, makes it possible to separate the display images so that slightly different images reach the left and right eyes.
So does this mean that your head has to be in the right place to see the intended effect? It would suck to have to keep your head perfectly still to see the correct image. And that would make fast paced games tough...
Or does it just depend on the angular difference? If so, that'd be super cool, since several people could all crowd around a monitor and all see the same 3D image. Imagine a wall sized monitor at a FPS tournament. 10ft high 3D characters shooting at you. SWEET!
This is correct. It's just like hearing. If you look carefully you'll find that blue objects are very easy to pinpoint spacially while red objects make you stare harder. Think subwoofers and longer wavelengths.
nope.
I just play one on slashdot...
For whatever it's worth, I didn't actually intend to be so harsh sounding in my original post...sarcastic harshness just doesn't play well in a text based medium...
In the same way that black-and-white TVs switched to color, we really think displays are going to switch to 3-D," Stephen Bold, managing director of Sharp Laboratories of Europe Ltd, said after a news conference.
I hate to throw the wet blanket over 10 years of research, but I got news for both the pointy heads and the marketing department: Going from being able to have friends over to watch TV from different positions around the room to requiring everyone to look at a certain angle (and probably occupy the same space at the same time) is NOT an improvement over existing displays, 3D notwithstanding.
There might be specialized applications, but to compare this to the change from B&W to color television is absolutely absurd.
Call me when you have THREE DIMENSIONAL television that I can see from ANY angle. Then I'll be interested. I'll actually be impressed when I can walk around the image and see different angles.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
fuck the hype.
Where are the god damn pictures?
For something that useless, atleast have cool pictures to back it up - like Apple.
Go see Space Station in IMAX 3D.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I first ran into this notion in the sequel to James T. Culbertson's _The Minds of Robots_. The earlier book was quite interesting and threatened to actually solve some basic problems in the origins of consciousness. The sequel (I forget the title offhand) was a true pseudo-scientific excursion in which he presents this exact suggestion that depth perception results from the distance traveled by light rays reflecting off of an object. His earlier book relies on relativistic effects applied to signals traveling through the nervous system whose points of origin are light rays bouncing off of objects in external reality, so it wasn't a great leap for him. I doubt whether Culbertson actually invented the idea. It sounds like something out of the late Middle Ages, just prior to the Renaissance. Galileo shot most of those ideas to pieces, but some folks just never get the message.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Liquid Crystal Display not..
Large Color Display
Little Color Display
Large Card Display
Little Card Display
Little Colored Dots
Liquid Core Display
Liquid Color Display
Light Color Display
As a hardware guy I HATE it when people get it wrong.
Of course it'll work. All you need to do is this. Just stop the light for however long you need to to make the object appear at the proper depth.
I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
If anyone's interested, here's a babelfish'd link to a Japanese page with some pictures of the unit and more information. Looks pretty cool to me.
I just play one on slashdot...
Damn, I have got to remember that one. ROFL.
FWIW, You didn't sound like an Asshole to me, just a dotter.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Hm, seems to me that going from B&W to color was a no-brainer. It just seems to me that to make this transition to 3D as widespread as color TV, we would have to really want a 3D display all the time. Spend your 40 hour work week staring at a flickering, retina burning, 3D workspace. I'm thankful that using my computer doesn't require depth perception, and mimics a flat document rather than an interactive, immersive, buzzword, buzzword, environment.
Naturally, I just bought two 2D LCD displays for my home office two weeks ago.
You are reading about monitors when you just bought two? Don't do that, you will only cause yourself heartache and grief.
When I make a major purchase, I research the hell out of it for a while, buy it, and then don't look at the market until I need to replace it. You will always find a better deal after you buy something, especially with computer hardware.
It does bring a whole new meaning to 'pop up ads', doesn't it.
Yest it sure does!
"And like that
Sheesh - I wanted to see that 3D effect in my 2D browser window...
3D's for losers - I want 4D
I stick to walls...
But Tom's Hardware had an article reviewing a 3d LCD display back in May of 2001.
And I'm going to vote on the whole "it's crap' side. I don't want to be forced to sit in one spot for it -- so, I won't buy it. Still, it's cool that it's being produced.
Well, anyway, it is news in that it, um, is slightly different. But it's hardly revolutionary.
3D shutter glasses are fairly cheap now, and work better, and hell buy two and two people can watch in 3d!
The screens can only be seen in 3-D from certain angles and distances, however, and a "sweet spot indicator" -- a small bar at the lower end of the screen -- appears solid black when the viewer is at an optimum position for 3-D.
Get out of the sweet spot runt!
MOOOOMMMMMM!
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
So if you run towards something, you're actually going to be seeing into *THE FUTURE*, and if you run backwards, you can look into the past.
Not A Sig
I bought a Geforce2 from MSI with an Elsa 3D Revelator bundle. The bundle contained polarised shutter glasses (dongled onto the VGA cable) that sync up to your CRT monitor's refresh rate, opening each eye in turn. The drivers show you a different picture for each eye.
These things rock. Almost all OpenGL or D3D games work with them. It's very useful for platformers where you have to judge distances to jump accurately (like in American McGee's Alice). It's good for heaving grenades accurately (like in Counter-Strike, Grand Theft Auto 3). It's good for flight simulators, where judging distance can be crucial (like in MS Combat Flight Simulator). Driving is great (!) in 3D.
If it doesn't actually improve the way you play certain games, then eye-candy alone makes it worth it.
You can do some weird things with stereoscopic gaming. Using GLDoom (or the like), you can play Doom in stereo. Using an emulator like ePSXe, you can play console games in stereo.
There can be some problems. Some games use 2D elements with their 3D games. GTA3, for example, has 3D cars, people, and architecture; but it uses 2D for most particles. This means that fire, smoke, and some debris appear at screen depth (along with the 2D hud elements).
The only really practical use of this system right now is games (is that really practical?). There are no workable 3D desktops/web browsers/word processors/etc., so the Snow Crash/Johnny Mnemonic metaverse-thingy isn't quite there yet. However, there is existing technology lying around to do it today.
Another thing: These glasses are CHEAP! (
Now when I look at porn and the girl has DDD breast they'll be in 3D. no I'll never get any work done.
Sounds like bs to me, but then, how do they know how far a really distant galaxy is, based on the incoming light (and also indicating *how long* ago the light was from)? I don't know if human eyes have a mechanism for this regardless, but I believe not.
Depth perception is partly based on having stereoscopic vision (2 eyes) which we can judge between them, and also based on the proportion something takes up in our visible spectrum VS other objects, shadowing etc, etc.
If you had an object X distance in a void, and there were no point of reference of other objects, then you would have a very difficult time determining how far away the object was.
There would still be a diminishing lines (like when you draw a "3d picture" and lines from the bottom corners inwards to the horizon), but if sources of shadow were low it would be increasingly hard to tell the distance of the object as the diminishing lines would not be defined. You may notice that after a certain distance, it can be difficult to tell whether an object on a blue sky is a near bird, or a distant plane.
Sharp has developed a 3D LCD display that works without glasses.
I have a 3D LCD display at home that works great with or without glasses.
Now what would really be cool, is a 2D LCD display... I mean, sure they're already pretty thin.....
oh wait.... I'm supposed to read the article first, aren't I?
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
*sigh* We all know it's just another technology that will be used mainly for porn.
Close the world.
Thousands of cases of epileptic seizures in children reportedly triggered by Super Pokemon Sunshine 3d for the Super Advance Game Boy 3d video game system.
Actually, if there's a corresponding capture device then this would be good for anything with products for sale. Customers could look *around* the product before buying.
They mention realty for an example, but I'm sure auto sellers, antique sellers, etc would love to have their customers be able to look at the product left front right top bottom.
A 3D Flatscreen. See, it's flat, but it's 3D...
Aah, nevermind.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
...Pretty good. I was lucky enough to get a demo of this technology a couple of years ago when some Sharp guys visited a "certain company that makes processors for a certain company named after a fruit" that I happened to be working at. The effect is very good, however as they noted you have to be sitting at a very specific distance, and dead in front of the screen (at least as of two years ago). This is not too big a deal for games, at least if you're like me and you go into a 3d shooter trance as soon as Quake or the like boots up. However, for CAD type tasks I image keeping your head still for hours on end would be a bit aggravating.
Personally, if they could sell it for only 50% more than a normal moniter, and if the LCD could refresh fast enough w/o ghosting for 3d shooters, I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.
LCD display? Liquid Crystal Display display?
michael, you're going on The List, along with people who say "SAT Test" and "HIV Virus" and "GUI Interface" and "ATM Machine" and "NIC Card".
"Naturally, I just bought two 2D LCD displays for my home office two weeks ago."
2 x 2D = 4D
4D > 3D
QED
"The screens can only be seen in 3-D from certain angles and distances, however, and a "sweet spot indicator" -- a small bar at the lower end of the screen -- appears solid black when the viewer is at an optimum position for 3-D."
Right... this is basically the same idea as many kind of "3D without glasses" dating back to the turn of the century. Including the well-known lenticular displays.
In effect it creates a pair of invisible "virtual glasses" in the air and you have to line up your head with them to see the effect. The problem is that your eyes are only 3 inches apart, so even ideally, at the VERY BEST you only have 3 inches of freedom to move your head before the left eye moves into the right-eye "virtual lens" or vice versa. In real life, the image is likely to blur or darken or otherwise turn funny if you move your head less than that.
This is going to create neck cramps like you won't believe, and all sorts of other irritations.
It's one thing to have a gimmick on a cereal package, or a poster, that grabs your attention for a few seconds. It's quite another to look at it for as long as you'd look at a computer screen.
Consumer cameras that produce lenticular "view-without-glasses" prints have been available on and off for decades. They have NEVER been popular.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Good work.
Man, you're getting a lotta flames for what was actually a fairly well written article.
The reason why vision cannot work like this is not because the eyes are passive receivers. The real reason is that light waves have a far higher frequency and speed than sound which makes detecting run-time differences and phase shifts rather hard for our "slow" nerve cells.
Three dimensional hearing works because your brain is able to detect minute differences in the *arrival* of soundwaves at one ear vs. the other and then determine the direction of origin.
Three dimensional vision works because we have a small amount of seperation between our eyes. The brain compares the image received from both eyes and composites them together. 3D vision is a result of depth perception. Numerous optical illusions can trick the brain into seeing 2D images as 3D objects by playing with the relationship between what the individual eyes see and how the brain composites those images together.
What you describe would require advanced knowledge of when light leaves a distant object, and the computing power in our brains to detect the small intervals between the arrival of photons moving at the speed of light.
I'll leave the relativistic implications of being able to see in a vacuum as a homework assignment.
The parallax blocker is a mechanical filter fitted by the user to the display. It most definitely is switchable.
RTFWP
Being able to manipulate a molecular structure or actually see a 3D representation of a ternary phase diagram would be hugely useful. Also surface plots of multi dimensional data would be much easier to manipulate.
Then you toss in all the design, CAD-CAM, visible relations in a database, etc and the possibilities are endless.
And that's just for materials and design. A lot of the same applications would work for drug research, medical applications, entymology, architectural renderings, etc etc.
That's the reason why tiny yellow text (red+green) on white background (red+green+blue) is so difficult to read: the only difference is blue, which is blurred! However, big yellow text on white background is quite easily readable, as the blurring won't affect large text.
Depending on how many different images it could show under each parallax barrier, you could easily generate volumetric displays.
I do this all the time with Lenticular Images. The trick is that the parallax barrier (or lens in the case of lenticular) blocks more than 50% of the display beneath at a time. If it blocks 80%, and shows 20% to each eye, there's room for 5 separate "views". By moving your head side-to-side, you see different stereo pairs, effectively seeing "around" objects on the screen.
By blocking 90%, showing 10% to each eye, you suddenly allow 10 views.
The problem is that by blocking 90% and showing 10%, your screen is now only 10% as bright as it used to be.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I'm hoping that this device will interface with OpenGL stereo quad buffering, or with a dual-output video card. So far the only 3D graphics card I've encountered with stereo that works in Linux is the nVidia Quadro 4... Does anyone know of any others?
reed
VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
So if you run towards something, you're actually going to be seeing into *THE FUTURE*, and if you run backwards, you can look into the past.
True... you just have to be running faster than c. =)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
... was a two-layer LCD screen where the foreground layer was transaprent and the background layer was about an inch or two back. I saw one of these at Siggraph 2001.
Okay, it didn't look 3D, but it was still damn cool, and it looked just fine. They had one of these hooked up to a Windows box. I'll tell you guys something, it was cool having a foreground and background layer to put windows around in. I was really getting into that! It was certainly more interesting than trying to pull off stereoscopy with a 'sweet spot'.
"The screens can only be seen in 3-D from certain angles and distances, however, and a "sweet spot indicator" -- a small bar at the lower end of the screen -- appears solid black when the viewer is at an optimum position for 3- D." Well that's not very useful since I usually headbang to my fragging.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Aren't these screens technically 4-D?
You've got X coordinates, you've got Y coordinates, you've got T as in time, and now you've got Z as in depth. X,Y,T,Z is four dimensions.
Measuring it that was is kind of interesting. Paper'd be 2D because the image doesn't change. Typical monitors would be 3D since they update 60-100 times a second. And stereo monitors would be 4D (In a sense...) since they are monitors with depth.
Anybody remember 'electric ink' that's supposed to show up one day? That'd become 3D and so on...
Is Sharp the same company that makes those shitty little calculators?
A friend of mine once had one... at least six or seven years ago. It consisted of a wireless sender of the size of a peanut (including shell) and of an antenna that had to be fixed to the screen. The sender, which had two mouse buttons on it, was to be attached to the index finger. The antenna consisted of three ultrasonic microphones (I guess?) and was fixed to one corner of the screen. One microphone sat right in the corner, the other microphones were located a couple of centimeters away from the corner on the screen's top and left edge.
Basically, the sender constantly transmitted ultrasonic signals. The antenna setup made it possible to calculate the mouse's position along the two axes parallel to the screen from the signal's delay between the three detectors. Concerning the third axis, there are two possibilities:
a) Assuming that the signals are sent out at a given interval, movement to and from the screen results in different delays between the individual signals.
b) Assuming that the mouse is calibrated regularly to compensate for the loss of battery power, the distance can be calculated from the signal strength.
As I said, I saw this mouse at least six or seven years ago. I was pretty impressed by the device, which functioned properly and exactly. However, this was the time of Windows 3.1, and I thought it was pretty useless. I remember that there was a game where one had to throw rings onto a stick-apparently this was distributed with the "mouse". One or perhaps two years later, I saw one (just one) of these mice on sale at a local store, in bad condition, for only a few bucks.
In conclusion, this device was invented waaay before it's time.
where's all that Karma?
LCD means Liquid Crystal Display. LCD Display means Liquid Crystal Display Display. Maybe the poster was just trying to get across that it's 3D with a display^2.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
...or does anyone else find the sentence "flat 3D screen" a bit funny?
RMN
~~~
That's :) what :) smileys :) are :) for. ;)
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
OK, I closed my eye. My conclusion: The only reason you can perceive depth when one eye is closed is because your brain recognizes the visual cues inherent in the motions of the objects around you as a result of your relative movement to them, i.e. parallax. This along with the eyes natural ranging ability achieved through focusing incoming light on the retina. Also, your brain has other mechanisms for checking relative distance to an object and attaching depth from things such as: intersections with flat surfaces and shadows on the object and objects around them, but these things are not usually developed in the brain to an automatic degree because parallax and focus do such a nice job. Unless of course you are one of these "mono"s that I see posting everywhere on here, then I'm sure the brain adapts and acquires a bit of depth information from those other catagories.
Now, if we really wanted some kind of awesome 3d monitor that looked great from every angle and allowed the eye the ability to focus on far off objects (which IMHO would be far more natural) we would probably need about 100 times the density of pixels. For every point you see on the screen you would have to define a ray partitioning mechanism (lets call it per element spherical resolution for fun) to determine how many individual light cones each point would shoot out of it. For a basic reconstruction of a scene to look good from most any angle on a standard sized monitor I would think it would probably have to consist of about 100 rays per point (this is not a constant though it should be directly proportional to the distance from the screen in order to keep the perceived ray density higher), where each ray points in a unique direction which is uniformly distanced from the others, but is always out of the screen (this is all per pixel). Micro$oft's (ooh dare I say that name in a positive manner on slashdot) R&D department has been developing this sort of technology (albeit not for monitors but more like for dynamic focus elements and complex 3d image reconstruction using simple ray maps on invisible cubes) for a while now. I would suggest checking out their site if you really want to know how vision or optics in general work. They have some nice white papers on it.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
You are dumb. Your eyeball does not shoot light out of it, and thusly you cannot measure within any kind of reason the amount of time it takes for light to get there and back, divide by two, and then find the distance by taking the speed of light and dividing it by that time. It just doesn't work that way bucko. Also we cannot detect if the light coming from one object is in the same phase as another object. Our eyeballs only detect frequency. See my above post. I hate ignorance. And I especially hate ignorance when it poses as intelligence. Even if they are trolling.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Because of the "sweet spot" I can't help but call this display a 1d display. It shows depth, that's nice, but something isnt "three dimensional" unless you can move your head and see it differently. This current method with LCs facing in different directions will not lead to that technology..
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
That is not the first autostereo LCD display at all. More information and lot of links on this page.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
He used a grating that he'd generated by writing a little postscript program for a laser printer (to make lines with the right spacing) then copying it to an overhead-projector foil. Put in front of a standard LCD turned 90 degrees (so the three colors of each pixel are aligned vertically) and you have a stereo display.
All these guys did is substitute a second LCD for the grating so they could turn the grating off to switch between a full-resolution 2-d or a half-resolution stereo display.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Wake up you people, he's a troll, and a clever one too. Gotta laugh looking at all the people swallowing the bait...
:). Btw, he must have at least a bit of a clue to troll in this way.
Check out his other posts too, some gold nuggets in there
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Monitors aren't meant to be seen from every angle, but mainly from direct, near front.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
You forgot:
Patent 3D LCD, license patent to big companies, make killing.
Synergy is your friend
The programmers of old were mysterious and profound. We cannot fathom
their thoughts, so all we do is describe their appearance.
Aware, like a fox crossing the water. Alert, like a general on the
battlefield. Kind, like a hostess greeting her guests. Simple, like uncarved
blocks of wood. Opaque, like black pools in darkened caves.
Who can tell the secrets of their hearts and minds?
The answer exists only in the Tao.
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...