Slashdot Mirror


Sharp 3D Monitor Next Year

dOxxx writes "Sharp is bringing out a 3D monitor next year that requires no special glasses. It took them one day to convert Quake to work with the monitor. They are already selling cellphones in Japan for the NTT DoCoMo network with scaled-down versions of the screen."

122 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Radiation by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 2, Funny

    For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away

    My eyes! They burn, they burn!!

    1. Re:Radiation by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2

      For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away

      If you ask me, that's something of a show stopper. It'll be very hard to keep one's head still while getting used to the 3D images coming from the Grand Theft Autos and Quakes of the future.

      You can look forward to porn-site plug-in support to start popping up, however.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    2. Re:Radiation by flewp · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can look forward to porn-site plug-in support to start popping up, however.

      Something tells me it won't just be just the images that are popping up.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:Radiation by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "My eyes! They burn, they burn!!"

      My eyes! The goggles! They do nothing!

  2. Bring on the comedians by wheany · · Score: 4, Funny

    If someone says something to the effect of "Think what this will do for porn", I will kick his nuts. Think what THAT will do for porn.

    1. Re:Bring on the comedians by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Seeing as these screens are already being sold on cell phones in Japan, a more accurate offense would be:

      Think of what this will do for portable tentacle porn!

    2. Re:Bring on the comedians by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

      wheany writes:
      "Did you know that if you chew on a piece of aluminum foil for couple of minutes, you'll get high? " ...what?? Is this simply an attempt to get a lot of really dumb people to chew on foil?

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
    3. Re:Bring on the comedians by wheany · · Score: 1

      Nooooooo, I would never do such a thing.

    4. Re:Bring on the comedians by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      I guess. It didn't do anything for me.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:Bring on the comedians by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

      I knew of someone -- not a friend, mind you, just knowledge of this person -- who told me personally that at his job as a telephone psychic reader he would often have people call with questions about physical ailments. This individual would ask things like, "do your bowel movements have a sulfur odor to them?" Of course he took a great deal of amusement in contemplating the sight of these poor, credulous wretches bent over the toilet, sniffing.

      I think yours is much funnier. =)

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
    6. Re:Bring on the comedians by unitron · · Score: 2

      Actually it's the sea creatures wearing sailor outfits of which they're really afraid.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  3. Umm... by XgD · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Sharp's 3D monitor can be thought of as a TFT sandwich. The monitor contains two TFT panels separated by a parallax barrier, which directs pixel images to two separate regions so that each eye receives a slightly different image.
    In the end, the brain formulates the signals so that the image appears to be a three-dimensional object, Nakagawa said.

    if MP3's can damage your ears, then what's this gonna do to my eyes and brain!?!?!?

  4. Sharp 3D monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As opposed to those damned dull 3D monitors...

    1. Re:Sharp 3D monitor by mr.+methane · · Score: 1

      The challenge presented by new technologies is often broken down into "how do I slip this into my budget for next year without the boss noticing that it's a high-zoot gaming system?"

      My first instinct is to point out the excellent opportunity for highly-intuitive presentations of complex data which will clearly increase sales through more clearly communicating to prospects the benefits of using (insert product or service here).

      (on a related note, Nvidia needs to stop calling it's pro/workstation cards by names that STILL sound like they're intended for high-framerate gaming. Even if that IS why I buy them! "uh, yeah, see, telnet works a whole lot better in 1600x1200, really!")

  5. Old news? by zebs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I seem to remember reading about this, or something very similar before.

    The image depth relies on the system drawing the image on one of two physical layers and the distance between the two layers and the viewers position creates the 3D image.

    Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?

    1. Re:Old news? by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 1, Funny

      Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?

      Not really, it would enable the display to draw 4D objects. However, our brains have not evolved to ability to understand 4D, so you'd probably just get a headache.

    2. Re:Old news? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's an advantage if you've got three or more eyes? I think this thing deals with stereoscopic vision, you get one image for each eye

    3. Re:Old news? by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      That'd be cool. I have a basic understanding of the geocube, but i'd like to see a 4-D representation rather than an animated GIF.

    4. Re:Old news? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't. The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time. Not very hard to work with that. Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed. 2D is hard to think in because there is no such thing as 2D. Things we think as being 2D arn't, just close to it. I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.

    5. Re:Old news? by acaudel · · Score: 1

      I think I've seen pictures of this. I think that using more than two layers might give the picture more depth. Since each layer is clear except for the part of the image that is shown, you could add several layers and get even more of a 3-D effect.

    6. Re:Old news? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      • Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?


      If enough layers where used with each layer some how being able to go to transparent, a real 3D image could be created.

      That is about it though. ^_^ We only have two eyes, so this sort of face "offset" 3d can only go so far.
    7. Re:Old news? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.

      Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving.

      Most folk who claim "special thinking ability" are just failing to communicate what they're talking about it. Or they don't understand the concept of multiple dimensions.

      The world we live in is way more than 4D. The 4th demension is time.

      The world we live in only has 4 dimensions. Oh, sure, there are 6-7 dimensions that makes THOSE up, but we have no way of percieving them or altering them. If we could, we've have found them a LONG time ago.

      Granted I relize many people, maybe most, only think in 2D, how I don't know. I think in 3D all the time and add more D's as needed.

      You're wasting thought processes in something that can't exist.

      Most folk "think" in 2D+, which is how we can navigate. Sure, we _can_ move vertically, but not as easilly as we move horizontally or laterally.

      I can't even write on paper without my mind visulizing the thickness of the letters.

      Again, you're wasting thought process. Look at your computer monitor--it IS 2D, and a perceptive mind should realize THAT before trying to contemplate the micrometer depth of letters on paper.

    8. Re:Old news? by fferreres · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Independant varibles != Dimension.

      Yes, we can think of more variables, as long as the space is 3D. Space, for us, is some kind of instantaneous visualisation. When you add time, you think about it as a path.

      You can't really "perceive" the details of you last week experiences without linearly going though them, you can't ... uh (for la of a better generic term) visualize them. But you can easily visualize a very complex shape in 3D with no need to add go linearly on the details.

      So yes, I can think of color tone as a variable, radious of dots as a variable, time as a variable, anything as a variable but I can't imagine anything in 4D and sure as hell no in 4D.

      Now, I don't know if that is _hardcoded_ problem for humans. Because as we know, we autoteach about 3D when we are born, and that gets burned in neuros structures.

      What would happen if we attached a baby to a virtual but 100% consistent 4D world? That would be really hard, because we are 3D in nature ...for ever do in us or elsewhere, there would be infinite other dots in 4D. Anyway, it's my guess he will adapt to it and will be able to come back to "3D" (with a lot of pain, but possible). What you cannot do is go from 3D to 4D once fully trained in 3D.

      That would be a nice experiment, maybe with rats or some other mammal. Now, looking at 4D shapes as would be seen in our 3D mind is pretty impressive. Really crazy.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    9. Re:Old news? by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Just because it seem obviously for people to use time as the fourth dimension, does not make it so.

      Time is often represented as the fourth dimension.
      But it is not nesecarily the fourth, as it can be a seperate concept (as it often is in science).
      Take the concept of time and space, it represents any given universe, either based on super string theory (10+ dimensions at times) or a 3D universe as we persive it, or any other theory.
      Together these make the world that can be observed, regardless of the abilities of the observer.

      Besides, when was the last time you gave the time of the day in meters? ;p

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    10. Re:Old news? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      well, if supper string theory is valid, we actualy exist in a 10 OR 21 dimentional univese.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    11. Re:Old news? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      err wait...that would be "SUPER" not "SUPPER" silly me :-p

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    12. Re:Old news? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2

      I'm not wasting thought process if that how my mind works. Thinking in more dimensions is not hard, it's easy. converting to flat is hard. I do not claim special thinking ability. the is nothing special at all about it.

      "Just because you can't think in 4D doesn't mean others can't.

      Picture something that's 4D. Now stop it from moving."

      Just because time is involved doesn't imply movement. In the super grand scheme of things relating something relitive to the universe or any point other than say earth this wouldn't be the case but in the most simple case, say a box on a desk. Time can pass and it not move.

      There could be infinite demensions dependent on how you look at things. far as the definition of demensions go there are infinit ones. I could come up with more and more variables. If your talking string theroy then there is a fix number though the arn't sure which one. There is two theroys far as I know. I don't know if the numbers by the poster below are the ones I have heard of.

      When people think demensiones the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions one could come up with.

      If your thinking the 4th D would be yet another shape defining demension, well there is no reason to think that. It could be but that's very unlikely. The time and any other demension could have an effect on defining the shape of an object. I think the most common idea about when people think inpossable 4D is that in 4D you would see 4 sides of an object like a cube at the same time. There really isn't much reason to think such a thing would exist because it would do nothing in defining it. Saying that only fails because it's not a 4D object in a 4D universe doesn't count ether. The point of demensions is they are definable. There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.

    13. Re:Old news? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      There could be infinite demensions [sp] dependent on how you look at things.

      No, there can't. There's an infinite number of _degrees of movement_, but a finite number of dimensions.

      When people think demensiones [sp] the first ones that come to mind are x,y,z,t there is no real [sp] reason to think the first three-four are this aside from convention. There is no reason to think those demensions [sp] are any more meaningful than it is to have say stress, strain, rate of heat transfer...etc or any other of the bizillion demensions [sp] one could come up with.

      Stress, heat transfer, refraction, etc. aren't "dimensions." They're "qualities." A "dimension" is a word that means "perpindicular axis which fixes a point in space-time", and the space-time we know only has four, while being made up of more than this.

      Everyone percieves four dimensions. A lot of people contemplate in only two and a half dimensions--they think of x and y, or y and z, and add either z or x as a secondary process. And if you ask them to think about t, it's yet another mental step.

      A few people are said to be able to concieve in 3D, but this may simply be a very-efficient application of the "2D+1" mental process. Since t is the only variable of space-time in which we have constant motion, it's always useful to think about it using a seperate process.

      If you find yourself contemplating z or t when the data is useless, you may have a mental defiency that needs to be treated via either mental effort or medical science. (The data isn't always useless--noting the location of hills on a 2D naviagion across the surface of the Earth is noting valuble and relatively unchanging landmarks.)

      However, from your post I would presume that you're simply lacking the correct vocabulary to appreciate what "dimension" means and what it doesn't mean.

      There are none that we can't measure in some way. That wouldn't be a dimension. If we couldn't define it and measure it.

      We live in 4D spacetime. As such, we are incapable of measuring any dimension other than x, y, z, and t.

      "Wasted thought" is probably only when you realize that you're noticing an extra quality or pondering an extraneous detail when in the midst of work. While it's important to know how your own mind works, it's wasteful to spend too much time reveling in your own thought process--or debating thought processes on /. ;)

    14. Re:Old news? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      You mean, "our 4D universe exists in a universe with much more dimensions that are beyond our ability to percieve."

    15. Re:Old news? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2

      Until you know what your talking about stop replying.

    16. Re:Old news? by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      Would there be any advantage in using more than two layers?

      Do you have more than two eyeballs?

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    17. Re:Old news? by mackstann · · Score: 2
      Your? I don't have a talking about.

      Perhaps you don't know what your're talking about. sack my cack!

    18. Re:Old news? by mackstann · · Score: 2

      haha FUCK i can't believe i fucked up that troll

      YOU WIN THIS TIME, SLASHDOT

    19. Re:Old news? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Sure... each of the three layers would deliver a different image to a different one of your three eyes.

      Already very popular with beings from the outer fringes of the galaxy. (Andromeda hasn't caught up yet, though... 4 layers for them is a little harder to build)

    20. Re:Old news? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Having two eyes lends itself to perceiving 3 spatial dimentions.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    21. Re:Old news? by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter, blind people also think in 3D and they, technically speaking, have zero eyes ;)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  6. ASCII Art by Hanji · · Score: 4, Funny

    How long before some bozo starts making 3D ASCII Art? You KNOW someone will...

    --
    A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    1. Re:ASCII Art by monomania · · Score: 5, Funny
      How long before some bozo starts making 3D ASCII Art? You KNOW someone will...

      Aha! I knew I'd find a use for Unicode someday....

    2. Re:ASCII Art by Ziviyr · · Score: 2

      Gotta make a 3-D font and a 3-D console first...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    3. Re:ASCII Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There already is AA3D.

  7. Should be interesting... by C.Maggard · · Score: 1

    I, for one, can't wait to see this. After seeing the psuedo-3D farce that was those supposed "glasses" that worked in conjunction with Direct3D, it would be a nice change to actually get some close-to-3D images. It would sure come in handy with my gaming, because it's hard for me to judge distance in gaming; I have a hard time approximating model height.

  8. Practical applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey, think what this will dooOOOOOOGHHHHHHH!

    eep

  9. Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I saw one of these at Sharp Space Town in Japan while looking for the new Zaurus C700, which incidentaly wasn't at that location. The monitor was very hard to look at, the different layers were very distinct and it was like looking at two images superimposed at different height. Was neat when you got just the right viewing angle, but pretty hard to maintain... you'd probably have to get a neck brace and not move your head at all =)

  10. The fun this could present... by Salubri · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you imagine the poor sap that is sitting with his face just about 1.3 feet away from his screen with a TV card on his/her computer watching the big fight or some huge sports event?

    "I have a cramp in my neck and I haven't moved out of this uncomfortable position in 3 hours but MY GOD... It looks like I'm gonna get sacked when they rush the quarterback! The chiropractor bills are worth it!"

    "Want some chips?"

    "I can barely BREATHE without the image distorting, let alone eat man!"

    Let's hope they improve this before unleashing it on the masses.

    --
    ----- I want my LART.
  11. Dangerous by yobbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do I now have to duck before a popup window cleans me up?

  12. (OT) ZDNet rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would it really kill zdnet to include a picture with stories like this? I couldn't even find a link to the company the whole article was about. I can live w/ their obvious biases, but really, at least include a picture or at least a link to a picture.

    1. Re:(OT) ZDNet rant by C.Maggard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A picture really couldn't approximate what the monitor does; since it's 3D, you need at least two simultaneous viewing angles to see the intended effect. A picture of the monitor would be ok, but I get the feeling it would basically look like any other monitor until you turned it on.

    2. Re:(OT) ZDNet rant by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      Would it really kill zdnet to include a picture with stories like this?

      Oh yeah, a 2D picture of a 3D display -- that would be impressive!

      Just like those ads on TV for TVs that have a better picture quality than the one you're watching. How does that work? :-)

  13. Really want to see this! by HisMother · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Why doesn't the article have any screenshots?

    :)

    --
    Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
  14. Hmmm... by rgoer · · Score: 1

    So if I use two of these, set up in a typical side-by-side configuration, and I use them to display a pair of slightly-different, slightly-stereo 3D images, and I deep-focus my eyes to bring these two already-3D images together to become one, will I go blind?

  15. I'd like to see a screenshot by carpe_noctem · · Score: 2

    ...but I don't think that's possible.

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  16. I saw a picture of one of these things... by bahwi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I saw a picture of one of these things on the web, but it looked pretty 2-D to me.

    Damn JPEG Compression! My eyes hurt!

  17. What sound does one hand clapping make? by bogie · · Score: 3, Funny

    None. But somehow I'm sure one-handed web surfers everywhere are celebrating.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  18. Shadowrun Reference!! by bahwi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whenever I can I try to bring in a Shadowrun Reference. Hopefully without glasses, and hopefully soon they'll eliminate the box, and then eliminate the viewing angle and we'll have the wonderful world of trideo that will revolutionize TV viewing!

    Oh wait, same crap, new dimension.

    "3 Dimensions and not a damn thing to watch." *rimshot* *tomato splat*

  19. Lower prices? by gearheadsmp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will this lower prices on normal Flat Panel Displays? It appears a 3D display would cost way more, thus making lower-end displays else less desirable, thus lowering their prices.

  20. Interface Futures by snitty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Imagine the future to of the interfaces and desktops, You could have true 3D layering of windows. Imagine flippping though folder heirachies in 3D.

    I think you could also do some amazing screen savers. Flying Windows that look like they are going to clonk you in the head.

    How long till we get OS support for these babies?

    --
    Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
    1. Re:Interface Futures by C.Maggard · · Score: 1

      How long till we get OS support for these babies? Knowing the track record for this kind of thing...about two years after it's outdated.

    2. Re:Interface Futures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      3D UI's are useless for most tasks. In fact, it actually makes the interface worse. There have been tons of 3D UI's developed and they all suck. The problem is that other than being a neat trick, there is really nothing to be gained by having a 3D interface.

      Now for 3D animation, modelling, etc., this LCD panel would be cool. The thing is, those programs already have 3D interfaces because that's a natural way of working with that data. A 3D word processor is pointless and stupid. When you write on real paper, it's a 2D interface.

    3. Re:Interface Futures by seann · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Imagine flippping though folder heirachies in 3D."
      It's really boring.
      that SGI file system browsing program (featured in jurasic pork) does it.
      really boring.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    4. Re:Interface Futures by L0rdJagged · · Score: 1

      "This is Unix, I know this!"-Jurrasic Park

  21. Revolutionary New Pop-Up Ads! by bahwi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ow! My Eye!

    1. Re:Revolutionary New Pop-Up Ads! by bahwi · · Score: 2

      Because it's not about someone's breast popping out your eye! That's why it's redundant! =) It has to be about pron! =)

  22. Standards by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2
    A 3D consortium--which includes Toshiba, Sony, Olympus, Kodak and Microsoft among its founding members--was recently established to hammer out standards for hardware manufacturing and software development.

    Microsoft and standards. Heh. Taking bets on wether the next Windows version will horribly ignore their own standards or not. :)

  23. Applications by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My first thought was 3D MRI (et al) viewing on handheld devices like the Zaurus in the exam room.

    But, perhaps that's because I'm already using the Zaurus as a mobile platform for medical technology. And, I'm married.

    Just goes to show that interpretation (and application) is dependent on the interpreter's context. . . (:

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  24. DoCoMo? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I keep hearing that. Does it actually mean anything, or stand for anything in particular? It is an unusual name.

    1. Re:DoCoMo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Docomo is Japanese for "anywhere". However, NTT somehow jammed it into an acroymn of sorts to mean Do Communications over the Mobile Network. - akamichi

  25. No additional software? by Tidan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The monitors will let people see high-resolution 3D images or run 3D programs without using special glasses or additional software. For example, bodies and bullets appear to fly all over the place in a version of the popular game "Quake" that has been adjusted to work on Sharp's 3D monitors.

    Okay, so using an adjusted version of Quake doesn't count as being additional software? No additional software required seems a bit misleading in this case. Will we need a special patch for each new program? If so, who will offer/code these patches? The game developers or the monitor manufacturers?

    --
    free ipod? yeah.
    1. Re:No additional software? by sabNetwork · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll fathom a guess:

      The 3d monitor support will rely on an updated DirectX/OpenGL software renderer, which would, in turn, seemlessly patch all games. They had to make a patched version of Quake because these updated software renderers are not yet available.

    2. Re:No additional software? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chances are they'll try some hacks in the Direct3d driver to guess at the Z values of onscreen objects in games. (Most likely, just reading the depth-buffer values that games use for hidden surface removal).

      There is already a line of 3d glasses which will supposedly work with any game running on an NVidia card.

      Given Sharp's emphasis on "3D without special glasses", the effect produced is probably similar to that existing product (but integrated into the monitor, and not as separate glasses)

    3. Re:No additional software? by Prune · · Score: 1

      This is a piece of cake to implement at the graphics driver level. All GeForce cards and recent drivers from NVidia support stereo 3D, and work with the vast majority of 3D games.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    4. Re:No additional software? by raygundan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would think it would be even easier than that-- the display doesn't actually have to be aware of the depth of anything, it just has to show two pictures. It could care less what they are.

      A new 3D driver that renders the scene from two viewpoints, each an inch and a half to the left and right of the original viewpoint, would end up rendering exactly what your eyes need to see. I'm assuming their modified version of Quake does something similar-- rendering a shot for each eye, with the viewpoints separated a few inches.

      But hey, what do I know? I just post here.

    5. Re:No additional software? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the point about "no additional software" is that they don't have the resources to go around modifying all these existing games to output 2 pictures with 9 cm displacement between them. The games just output a list of triangles, based on viewing from a single camera position.

      At some point Sharp has to slip in a modified driver which will produce the separate left_eye and right_eye images based on the 3d geometry the game wants to show. It'll need to know depth info so that the polygons can be given a horizontal displacement inversely proportional to their distance from the viewer. (A far-off tower looks the same from each eye, but a hand in your face has two detectably different images)

      The existing stereoscopic 3d glasses also need a different image for each eye, and I assume they're generated the same way this Sharp monitor will.

  26. True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by t0qer · · Score: 1

    True that LCD's are pretty, lightweight to carry, ect. These 3D LCD monitors seem pretty neat, I can feel the eye strain from it already. Anyone that has spent over 4 hours playing any game knows that a CRT with a refresh rate of 100hz can keep your eyeballs from popping out of their sockets.

    On the other hand, LCD's look smart, and will get you hand jobs from women you don't even know! Of course, after 4 hours of gaming on this thing you'll be blind as a bat, so it won't matter if she looks like Nicole Bass from the Howard Stern show or Hally Berry. You're eyes will neatly pop out of their sockets from the low refresh rate strain.

    LCD is simply too slow to have an effective refresh rate for 3D. OLED's look promising, since they don't have any moving parts to rely on. (LCD crystals change orientation when a current is passed through them (i.e. moving part)

    Gotta love these gimmicks though..

    1. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by LordHunter317 · · Score: 2

      Except one problem. LCD's don't refresh at all. There is no moving dot drawing the pixels like there is on a CRT. That's why an LCD at any 'refresh' looks cleaner than an CRT at any refresh rate, when looking at a static image. Moving images LCDs have trouble with, because of the response times of the displays (the time it takes a pixel to change colors/brightness).

      Where's my -1 (Moron)?

    2. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by bob65 · · Score: 1

      If you're getting more eyestrain from LCD's than CRTs because of the refresh rate, then um, I think there's something wrong with you. Have you even used an LCD before? If you did get more eyestrain, it was not from the refresh rate, as I don't think you can get more eyestrain from something that DOES NOT FLICKER. (as opposed to flickering 100 times per second).

    3. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by t0qer · · Score: 2

      Exactly my point! LCD is crap for gaming, OLED is a much better prospect. OLED would have been a better choice here too since you can squeeze 20 OLED screens in the space of 2 LED screens.

      The reason LCD sucks so bad for gaming is just like I pointed out, those crystals are a moving part, and it takes time for them to change alignment. With OLED you just pass a current BLAM lit pixel. Drop current and BLAM unlit pixel. LED you pass current to the crytals, wait for them to change alignment so the light can pass through. Same thing goes for turning a pixel off, wait time.

      a little ms here, a little ms there, and it adds up.

    4. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by LordHunter317 · · Score: 2

      Alignment, what alignment are you talking about? Pixels don't move, they change color intensities. In this 3D LCD, its really just 2 screens designed to be seen at two different angles to be trick your eyes into believing its "3D"

      Moderators, can we get a (-1) Moron?

      Besides, LCDs will have 30ms response RSN, and then it won't matter. At 25ms, you have time for 40FPS, which is more than most human eyes can distinguish.

    5. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      You're right, we do need a (-1) Moron. For you.

      Liquid crystal displays have moving parts. Just because they're no-see-ums (well, no-see-shape-ums) doesn't make it less true.

      You're right that most people can't distinguish consciously between 40 and 100Hz, but the headache you get from extended close up concentrated viewing (as when using a monitor actively rather than watching a TV or film passively) of bright 40Hz moving images is just as real as if you could.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      How quickly can you refresh... sorry, sorry redraw the entire screen on an LCD monitor?

      Just because it doesn't flicker to and from blank doesn't mean it's not (when e.g. playing a game) displaying a series of discrete images at a limited rate.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by bob65 · · Score: 1

      True, but I haven't yet heard of slow redraw rates causing eyestrain

    8. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by Twyst · · Score: 1

      Here. Read this.

      http://www.howstuffworks.com/lcd.htm

      LCDs are made of LOTS of little moving parts. Basically, the crystals have to twist and untwist in response to an electrical charge to work.

      --
      -- Karma is for people who think they matter.
    9. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by t0qer · · Score: 2

      f00k j00 twit. You could have come back with an intelligent argument but you called me a moron. F00k Y00.

    10. Re:True gamers want high refresh rate CRT's by nounderscores · · Score: 2

      Nice troll lord hunter. the parent is talking about the molecules in liquid crystal displays which have to line up and block the light coming from the backlight. This kind of device takes a lot more time to change state than a device which exploits the emission of photons from electrons which are jumping to a lower energy level (i.e. all light emitting diode technologies).

      Try reading this site before calling anybody a moron.

      I'm going to bite off a bit more here and respond to your second point: what's the point of having the most expensive, overclocked system that can render a complex game at huge fps if your monitor can only do 40fps? If you are building the ultimate system, you want the bottleneck to be in the user, not the system.

      ("Can't you see the extra fps? must be your eyes, then. certainly nothing wrong with my system.")

  27. I hate these things by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    People with one eye that is far weaker than the other cannot use them. Irritating. Nerve Regeneration had better come along quickly, I want the rest of my Optic nerve. . . .

  28. Ads by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although several companies have come out with Web browser software and other technology to make images appear to pop off the screen, the Web largely remains a two-dimensional world.

    Banner ads, popup ads... popoff ads... coming soon to a Sharp 3D monitor near you!

    1. Re:Ads by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      "the Web largely remains a two-dimensional world."
      Apparently the p0rn industry hasn't gotten a hold of a prototype yet.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    2. Re:Ads by PyroMosh · · Score: 2

      No, but I'm quite excited about the prospect of this getting a decent market penetration (to make developing content for it worth while).

  29. Hurt vision? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    So will this hurt your vision in the same way those audio formats purportedly hurt your hearing... Wait a minute... Do current displays hurt your vision in the same way that the audio formats purporedly hurt your hearing? They are nowhere near the same resolution as real life and forget about depth perception... Hmm, perhaps I should ask if the new displays improve your vision over the old ones.

  30. Sounds familiar by leibnizme · · Score: 1

    For all the information you could possibly care about, see the last time /. discussed this monitor: Here

    1. Re:Sounds familiar by still_sick · · Score: 2
      --
      ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
  31. Wow... by Peterus7 · · Score: 1

    3d cell phones. Just wow.... This is going WAY too far. Only in Japan...

  32. Visions of the future by Bob+Bobbinson · · Score: 1

    The article states :
    "Sharp envisions a time when complete computers will be embedded into monitors"

    Maybe they should have a look at an iMac some day.

    1. Re:Visions of the future by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Or a TRS-80 Model I, from 25 years ago. Boy, Sharp is thinking really innovative stuff there.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    2. Re:Visions of the future by jgrissinger · · Score: 1

      You have the right idea but the Model 1 had a seperate monitor. You are thinking of the Model II or the Model III

    3. Re:Visions of the future by seangw · · Score: 1

      Personally I envision a time when all computers will have built in monitors...

  33. I thought all Monitors were 3D by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    ... usually in the form of a biggish box.

    Oh-- it displays things in 3D?! Was that in the article?

    --

    -pyrrho

  34. Quake - 2D? by Tafs · · Score: 1

    "Turning traditional 2D 'Quake' into a 3D program took only a day, Nakagawa said."

    Since when is Quake 2D? When it came out, it was "the first real 3d game".

    1. Re:Quake - 2D? by Tafs · · Score: 1

      > Eh. Quake 2 takes place in 2 planes. Just because it tricks your simple mind into thinking it resembles 3 planes, doesn't mean it IS 3 planes. It's a simple optical illusion. Like changing the picture more than 24 times per second brings the appearance of Motion. But the thing you are animating doesn't reall MOVE anywhere.

      Super Mario is a 2D game. Making that 3D would be impressive (and it was :)

      Quake takes place in three planes. It is not a platform game. It is displayed on a (relatively) flat screen, as a 2d rendering of that 3D world. But the gameplay is 3d.

      And what this monitor does is no different from what mine does. It tricks your mind into think that you are seeing a 3d world - it just tricks it into seeing "depth" as well.

      A real 3d monitor would have to have real voxels. which would be cool as hell, but very hard. Tricking the mind is cheaper and easier.

  35. And their next product... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2

    ...will be the "Magic Eye Monitor," where you have to look just the right way for several hours before you can see whats on the screen.
    This will be a kind of a sequel product, specifically marketed to the people whose eyes have been permanently crossed from the 3D model.

    --
    This space available.
  36. The Real Question is where you can see a demo by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know where to see these things live. Any Screenshot will be useless. I am just wondering how good they are.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  37. Could revive the arcade big way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    that could really do the same SFII did in the 90's. Those monitor will cost lot more than consummer monitor for a long time but arcade could afford that (at the same time , why not revisit the price and put it back to 25cent again).

    Virtua Fighter 5 would be perfect game to use that.

  38. Re:Not so impressive.... by WetCat · · Score: 1

    Heh, you sound like,
    "I hate Pavarotti because my friend
    Rabinovich sang his songs for me. It was
    awful."

  39. Bah... by ActiveSX · · Score: 2

    Earlier this year, the company showed off an LCD panel with an embedded Zilog microprocessor.

    Sega did that years ago!

  40. "Old" technology by neonstz · · Score: 2

    We bought a similar LCD monitor for testing at work one and half year ago. It "supports" several viewers at once by alternating between the left and right image in several vertical "beams". There has been several stories about these monitors before.

    It works quite well, but it is really a pain in the a** (neck?) to use.

  41. Re:Please please please usage based charging by Ironpoint · · Score: 1


    Haha thats ridiculous. LCDs don't have a refresh rate.

    What is interesting though is that after using LCD for the last year, 75hz CRTs look like crap and its easy to tell the difference between 75hz and 85hz crts. Before LCD, 75hz crts looked great.

    Now if your talking about "ghosting", that has been eliminated on most LCDs except for the crap brands.

  42. Medical problems by nounderscores · · Score: 2

    hmmm... What would happen if you were blind in one eye? Would you see a 2d image or a bunch of stripy garbage?

  43. Area resident concussed by porn site popup window by nounderscores · · Score: 2

    Had it coming say police.

  44. Nice try but by rdunnell · · Score: 1

    some people don't have the option to correct the vision in a weaker eye. People suffering from degenerative diseases (or hell, flat out blindness in one eye) can't always put on a pair of glasses and compensate for the problem. Not all vision loss is caused by something that a lens can correct!

  45. Re:3rd world countries. by pato+perez · · Score: 1

    Only if you have more than two eyes.

    What boggles the mind is how many layers you'd need to enable fly-vision!

    =P

  46. Saw these at Electronica by homemademissiles · · Score: 4, Informative

    They actually had these on display at the Electronica show in Munich this year. The effect is impressive and works well. The horizontal resolution is fairly low and if you move past the display you get this wierd 'popping' image. You need to stay stationary for the best effect. I got the impression that there was some type of fresnel lens on the fronts of the panel. Cant wait until the resolution goes up!

  47. Glasses are sounding pretty good... by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 2

    It sounds like they are really proud of getting 3d without having to wear glasses...

    1. No possible variance in viewing angle mentioned.
    2. Good results only at 40cm.

    So... even though this thing does not touch your head, you have to lock your head in synch with it for good results.

    I think I'd rather wear the glasses.

  48. popups by sarcast · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for the day when people have these and popup ads start popping up on the screen in 3D. If you thought those X-Cam ads were annoying now, just wait until they jump out at you.

  49. False Advertising by paganizer · · Score: 1

    We should declare a moratorium on the usage of "3d" on any display technology that doesn't involve either a) providing seperate images to each eye, or b) Holotanks.

    On the other hand, I guess they should have called my 17" monitor 3D...it takes up width, breadth and depth on my desktop.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  50. Number of layers for flys? by BobTheBooser · · Score: 1

    My guess would be 2.
    Flys do not have hundreds of eyes, they have hundreds of small directional tubes, with each one leading to something similar to a rod in our eyes. The tubes only accept light in one direction therefor the combination of many of these tube/rod devices acts something similar to the lense in our eyes.

  51. also on CNET by laard · · Score: 1

    This may be useless but CNET also has the same article here

    --
    --- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
  52. that means: puppet theater for everybody by g4dget · · Score: 2
    Don't get too excited. Think about it: you are looking through a 14" rectangular window from a few feet away. And you can't get much closer than a few feet away because the resolution is too low. And you probably can't move your head too far from side to side either. It's going to be like looking at a scene contained in a shoebox.

    There are some 3D scenes that it makes sense to watch that way: 3D molecules, geometric models, etc. But I wouldn't expect the experience to be too realistic for 3D games or pr0n. But realistic or not, I suppose it might still be fun.

    We perceive 3D shape in many ways. Stereo vision, which these displays provide is only one, and not really the most important one (many people don't have stereo vision at all). I think what would be much more exciting for games are displays with head tracking and peripheral vision; those give you much more of a feeling of "being there" than stereo vision. The ways to create such immersive displays is via something like "the Cave" (very expensive all-around projection) or head-mounted displays; both are unfortunately still expensive, but technologically, they are perhaps simpler than attempts at providing stereo vision.

  53. Re:That's cool and all... by PyroMosh · · Score: 2

    MOD PARENT UP!!! I've been drooling over this company's 3D LCDs since the late 90s. You can buy one now from DTI. Up to 18"!

  54. Hmm, nice =D by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

    I was allready going to get a new monitor next year, i wonder how much these will cost or will it drop normal monitor prices dramatically.

    I wish that monitor will either be around normal monitor prices or not much above it or it would result to drop the prices of regular monitors ^_^
    It would for sure to be kewl to play Quake with that one =)

  55. UT2003 by dalangalma · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's UT2003's midget player models...

  56. Re:That's cool and all... by MSZ · · Score: 1

    Maybe these people you mention have the technology, but I'm not spending 5 grand to get fancy monitor for gaming...

    Now we'll see how much will these Sharp ones cost. I hope it will be affordable.

    --
    The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
  57. Health issues? by 74Carlton · · Score: 1

    Gamers will be earlier adopters, and spend inordinate amounts of time in front of these in a virtual (or real?) head clamp. As a result they will suffer "frozen neck" syndrome. I had a frozen shoulder once, the physical therapy was incredibly painful. Lawsuits to follow.

    Just speculation...

  58. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    The Tao doesn't take sides;
    it gives birth to both wins and losses.
    The Guru doesn't take sides;
    she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

    The Tao is like a stack:
    the data changes but not the structure.
    the more you use it, the deeper it becomes;
    the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

    Hold on to the root.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...