Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D Display a Little Bit Closer to Reality

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the reaching-out-and-touching dept.

arielsebbag writes "According to CNET, Several high-tech companies including Sony and Sanyo have officially unveiled a consortium to create technical and safety standards for bringing three-dimensional displays to desktops, laptops and cell phones. They are probably focusing their efforts on the technology developed by Sharp. It looks like they are actually good to go and hopefully the 3D display will hit the market by 2004."

10 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Non-gaming usage? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this? I can't see this being relevant to any more than 1/100 of the computer using populace.

    --
    sig.
    1. Re:Non-gaming usage? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't see how the way we simulate three dimensions on a computer now would be done any better by making it closer to true 3d.

      Physically moving to look behind something on your monitor is incredibly inefficient, we'd have a whole new class for RSIs. On eBay... we can simulate 3D just like we do now, why aren't people doing it? There probably isn't a demand for it, 3d videoconferencing?? Why? What would that gain you?

      --
      sig.
    2. Re:Non-gaming usage? by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Physically moving to look behind something on your monitor is incredibly inefficient"

      Why do you say this? Is manipulating a keyboard and/or mouse to change your viewpoint more efficient? Head movement is intuitive, natural, and exactly how we change perspective in the real world.

      Imagine a surgeon performing surgery through the use of a 3D display... both of his hands could be occupied with "virtual tools" or whatever, so it would be much easier for him to just look around the model.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    3. Re:Non-gaming usage? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " Is there going to be any legitimate non-gaming or high end science usage for something like this?"

      I could go for a GUI where windows with the focus are brought forward, while windows without focus are dropped back a bit but still not obscured by the focus window. Moving my head to see around the focus window is often easier/better than alt-tabbing or trying to tile them.

  2. Re:What does this mean? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, 3D, ya know? Like depth and all that? Ever seen a 3d movie? Like that.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  3. 3D, but must be viewed from a fixed point by shird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For example, the 3D images are best viewed from 40 centimeters away, Sharp representatives said. Sitting closer or further away results in seeing two overlapping images As with all other 3D attempts, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose? You pretty much have to view the 3D model from a fixed point, so you may as well just render the image in 2D. How is viewing a "3D" image any better than a 2D representation of a 3D model when you can't rotate your head around the image?

    --
    I.O.U One Sig.
  4. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Monitors are hard on the eyes, yes. But what about those of us who CAN NOT see 3d or depth properly? Ie. A person with strabizmus?

    Ppl with strabizmus don't really have control over their eyes, they can only interperet the image from ONE eye at a time, and they can't usually control which eye they get that image from. (Thus they can't get the depth/3d part)

  5. A Premonition: Apple will popularize this by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't help but think that this is the kind of jump in technology that Apple is uniquely positioned to popularize.

    One day, they'll simply announce that they'll only sell 3D displays from then on. There will be alot of customers buying 3rd party monitors for a while, just like there were when they switched to all LCDs, but plenty of customers will buy the displays just 'cause they come with their Macs.

    Meanwhile Apple gets to drop selling plain old LCDs, which by then will be a low profit margin commodity, just as CRTs were when they dropped them, and move to selling only higher end/higher profit displays. And selling them in more volume than anyone else is likely to be at the time, because of their access to all Mac customers.

    And Apple is well positioned for the move on the software side too. They have already re-implemented their entire windowing system in OpenGL. It would be relatively trivial to add 3D window positioning and widgets. (And damn cool in some ways too, there will certainly be some useless eye candy, but some simple obvious things like being able to look behind a window just by moving your head a bit, would by really cool imho).

    Other large volume computer companies, like Dell, would undoubtedly follow in Apple's footsteps, looking for the same advantages, but none of them have the secure vertical niche that Apple has.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  6. 3D will be assimilated by metoo34 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "One of the first subcommittees will examine establishing methods for tweaking software applications so that they can take advantage of 3D screens. Hardware input-output specifications will be the subject of another subcommittee."

    3D Consortium member list:
    Sony, Sanyo, Itochu, NTT Data, Sharp, Microsoft, Kodak,Olympus
    Who's proprietary drivers will be the only thing it works with for the first few years?

  7. Focal depth (slightly OT) by wgmari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have read through the posts, and many people have stated that it only simulates 3D through twin images, but hurts the eye due to it all being on a single focal plane. While I can understand this, what I don't get is how does the eye know what the focal plane is?

    I mean, if I close one eye and look at the monitor, it is in focus. If I then hold my finger ~10cm from my eye, it will be out of focus unless I try to look at it, in which case the monitor will be out of focus. In what way does a SINGLE eye have to change to focus at these different lengths? And how does it "know" where to focus on without the input from the second eye? Would it possible to trick the eye into thinking that the light is coming from a particular distance, regardless of where it is really coming from? If so, then you'd be able have true 3D, wouldn't you?