Slashdot Mirror


3D "Crystal Ball" Monitors

glesga_kiss writes "Actuality Systems have issued a press release announcing sales of their 3D display technology, as reported by Yahoo Finance. The system works similar to an old spining disk optical illusion, except that the 21st century version produces an image that can change through the use of digital projection. In this case the screen is a rotating disk that is capable of producing light at any point that it passes through. The upshot is that you get a real 3D representation of your object, that can be viewed from 360 degrees around the display, without the need for any special goggles. Not quite ready for Hollywood, but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already..."

304 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Ahh... I can finally gaze into my crystal ball... by macshune · · Score: 3, Funny

    And check my e-mail!!! Woohoo!

  3. Supported on Linux by Surak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Supported under Linux according to this. I wonder if the drivers are open source (I doubt it.)

    I remember first seeing something like this on Star Wars when I was kid ... now it's really happening. Life imitates art. ;)

    1. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars invented a lot of different things. For example, look at Jabba the Hutt.

      --
      ... Continuation of this ...

      "There is a simple solution", I said. "First, we need to get off that shirt. It is covered in sperm and a little bit of smeared feces. Ok. Good. Does that feel better?"

      Surak replied, "Yes. It feels better, and I think my penis is growing. What can you do for that Doctor?"

      "Calm down, Surak. All in good time. First we need to get all of the caked sperm from your sinus cavity. I think I know what could do the trick. Here. Hold my penis for a second while I unbutton your pants."

      ... To Be Continued!

    2. Re:Supported on Linux by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This is one of the main reasons I love SciFi stuff so much...

    3. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rule 1 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say "Linux"
      Rule 2 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say "Opes source"
      Rule 3 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say nothing else worthwhile.

      You said NOTHING and you got moderated to a "4" what a fucking joke.
      KARMA WHORE!

    4. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a bit offtopic, Blaine, but you seem like the sort of fellow that could help me with a problem I'm having. You see, I have something that desperately needs calculating, and I'm wondering if you'd know a website that would fill my need.

      Please respond by attaching the answer to the bottom of all future posts. Be sure not to use the signature field in your user preferences. Thanks!

    5. Re:Supported on Linux by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      just how long till it actually sees main stream applicatoins. And if it runs on linux, then cool, so Does MAYA, which is what i would use a 3d display for anyway

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    6. Re:Supported on Linux by CausticWindow · · Score: 1, Troll

      Star Wars, art?

      You're in for a surprise.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    7. Re:Supported on Linux by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well the real trick for the linux comunity is to Make a Good user interface for this type of screen. I would sugest you start now so when it becomes main stream Linux will actually be ahead of Microsoft in userinterface.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Supported on Linux by clambake · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rule 1 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say "Linux"
      Rule 2 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say "Opes source"
      Rule 3 on being a Karma Whore.
      Say nothing else worthwhile.

      Ok, I'll bite:

      Linux

      Opes source

    9. Re:Supported on Linux by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I remember first seeing something like this on Star Wars when I was kid ... now it's really happening. Life imitates art. ;)"

      Me-sa be wishing you not saying that...

    10. Re:Supported on Linux by grammar+fascist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nothing else worthwhile.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    11. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehehe, I don't think that system really matters if the thing costs $40k. For that money they would probably get it supported under CP/M if needed.

    12. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Rule 4:
      Make fun of other Karma Whores if there's nothing interesting to say.

    13. Re:Supported on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow , it really works !

  4. 3d window manager! by samhalliday · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just imagine how cool this would be!! 3dWM

    1. Re:3d window manager! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, it looks like a 2d window manager, but with different sides of the desktop. I could accomplish the same thing with just multiple desktops and it wouldn't be as slow.

    2. Re:3d window manager! by Surye · · Score: 1

      If you looked more carefully, that's the VNC client, the actual desktop is more like an office desktop. But the problem with that that makes it unapplacible(spelling nazi's attention!) to this is that 3DWM is made to veiw from the center out, and this display is for the outside in.

  5. Re:Lets not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why you gotta ruin such a good activity with that kind of description

  6. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was in NASA Tech Briefs a cople months ago I think.

  7. photos by sstory · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why no one linked to the photos is beyond me, but slashdot posts are well-known for poorly-placed/defined links. Anyway, here it is.

    1. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they decided to link responibly, so that it would require at least 1 click to get to the bandwidth sucking pictures.

    2. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHORE

      Who the fuck can't find the pictures?
      huh?
      who?

      thought so!
      WHORE!

    3. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were pictures? I sure am glad to have found this thread. Thank you Mr. Whore!

    4. Re:photos by AlephNot · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who noticed the eye of Sauron in the background of those pictures?

      --
      "Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
    5. Re:photos by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is this little thing called responsible linking. I have been admin of several websites, and I know first hand just how much bandwidth those images can take. If someone isn't interested enough to do a little ferreting, then they shouldn't be absorbing my bandwidth on something that really isn't of interest to them.
      Either way, you've pulled a successful karma-whoring, so congrads.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    6. Re:photos by kfx · · Score: 1

      So that's where my other seeing stone went... damned hobbits just can't keep their hands off it, can they?

    7. Re:photos by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 1
      Its a sign.

      3-d monitors are evil.

      Seriously though, good eye. (Your's, not Sauron's)

    8. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like when they "responsibly" link to Bugzilla and random forums running as CGI scripts?

    9. Re:photos by sstory · · Score: 1

      Both posts which mentioned link responsibility contained spelling errors. Interesting.

    10. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, 90+% of post on /. contain spelling errors

    11. Re:photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Including yours.

  8. Not Ready for Hollywood by Andover+Net · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I dont think true 3d will ever be ready for Hollywood. Movies are made to tell a story. Thats why camera angles and such are important. The story is whats happening on the other side of the room.

    1. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What they need to d is make onethat show the same image 90 degrees apart. that way you can have 1 screen but an audience 'in the round' as it were.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by spumoni_fettuccini · · Score: 1

      I do not belive so. Hollywood has long sought to involve the audience in the experiance, thus the ever larger F/X budget. What better way than to totally immerse them in 3D. Of course it will take time to smooth out the way these films are shot, but to this day we still have great movies come out crappy by poor filming and direction. I look forward to ducking things flying at me and flinching from explosions.

      --
      -- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
    3. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      I agree, but who knows? Thats like saying stories cannot be told from writing because you can't hear the tone of voice the writer wanted.

      I think Hollywood is ready for true 3D, but the public isn't and will never be. Thats the real blocker. $40,000 USD? You can buy yourself a pretty good car with that kind of cash but even thats pennies compared to the cost of buying and building a true 3D movie theater. It'd probably end it being over $4 million USD (thats a huge underestimation considering how new and prototype staged it is right now) not to mention maintenance and merely encouraging movie makers to make 3D movies. (With the vague possibility of an entirely redone Star Wars series using the Final Fantasy The Movie program.)

    4. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by WankersRevenge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you just look at the history of the cinema, you will find that your statement is quite false. Film is built upon rapidly evolving technology. Careers have been destroyed by standing opposed to this natural evolution. Not to nitpick at ya. But don't worry. The stories won't change. Just the way they are told will continue to evolve.

    5. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by Andorion · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a silly thing to say.

      Who said you can't have different camera angles with a 3D display? What does one have to do with the other?

      ~Berj

    6. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by jjeffries · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never seen Jaws 3D... Dennis Quaid in all three fabulous planes, that's yer story, buddy.

    7. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by CausticWindow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah.. just look at all the movie theater executives destroyed by the massive success of IMAX.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
    8. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by SYFer · · Score: 1

      Home IMAX. I can see it now. Are you listening, Steve Jobs?

      --
      "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    9. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by markxz · · Score: 1

      So the plot has no consiquence, just the technology counts

    10. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by armyofone · · Score: 4, Funny

      I look forward to ducking things flying at me and flinching from explosions.

      Heh - just get yourself married! :-)

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    11. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say 360 degree representation will never be a standard Hollywood fixture, its too strange and not how we generally visualize the world, thus detracting from what is going on. However, 3D through stereo vision is an up and coming technology, and its how we see the world, so it will make camera angles all the more effective.

    12. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just as true now as it ever has been that a good script, a good director and good actors are much more important than any amount of special effects.

      If technology made great movies, then most of the best movies would have been made within the past few years, and there would have been a trend of movies becoming better and better over the last hundred (give or take) years. In fact the opposite is true. Most of the best movies were made from the 40s to the 60s. It has been since the 70s that technology has had a significant role in making movies, and any survey of the last hundred years of movie making will plainly show that it has been used as a substitute for those factors (script, directing, acting) which do contribute to a truly good movie because it's easy and it's predictable.

      These days, the use of CGI and other technological effects dominate movies, and all we can see in most theaters is cookie-cutter scripts, mediocre directors, and actors that spend more time in the gym than in acting classes. Hollywood isn't about to take a chance on a quality movie that might make a few bucks, when they can roll out the same tripe year after year while an increasingly uncritical crowd oohs and aahs over special effects and can guarantee good profits.

      In short, whenever the first words out of peoples' mouths about a new movies are "the special effects are great," I think "another steaming hunk of crap."

    13. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...And have a kid!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit geekoid:

      What they need to d is make onethat show the same image 90 degrees apart. that way you can have 1 screen but an audience 'in the round' as it were.

      ...or they could just use four simple flat screens.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    15. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by ddimas · · Score: 1

      One thing:

      Theatre in the round ... nuff said

    16. Re:Not Ready for Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "a"?

  9. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    karma whore

    no sign of slashdotting and your lame nude star wars comments suck

  10. awesome! by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    but can I display a TTY one one of these things, and what's the resolution from any given viewpoint?

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      700-something. And only 3-bit color. It's neat but it needs more color.

  11. Very exciting by Zerbey · · Score: 1

    Very exciting stuff, I'm blind in one eye so 3D "goggles" and their ilk have never worked for me! Thefore, I've been waiting for these technologies for a very long time.

    The possibilities are endless but I expect it'll be a while yet before this becomes popular. Maybe within 10 years.

    1. Re:Very exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually, 3D "goggles" still work for "one" eye. Hate to inform you that you still won't "see" in 3D "with" this.

    2. Re:Very exciting by anotherone · · Score: 1

      Uh, no offense or anything, but I don't think that this is going to let you see 3D either... what with the whole one-eye == no depth perception thing and all.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    3. Re:Very exciting by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I'm blind in one eye "

      wouldn't that mean you have no depth perception?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Very exciting by anonymous+loser · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does, or at least poor depth perception compared to you two-eyed freaks. I am also blind in one eye. I have depth perception thanks to stuff like shadows, the size of objects, etc. but still run into trouble sometimes in dark settings (where I can't judge shadows), or sometimes trying to catch a high-flying ball where the only background is the sky.

    5. Re:Very exciting by Gidobola · · Score: 2, Informative

      wouldn't that mean you have no depth perception?

      Not really. There are a number of ways to interpret three dimensions. One is to use two devices slightly distant from each other on which a single three dimension image is projected from two different angles (i.e. two human eyes.) The other is to move a single two dimension device over time (time is a dimension after all) to make 3 dimensions. So, unless the original poster stands completely still all of his life, he can still sense depth and the device in the article wouldn't be as unuseful as expected.

    6. Re:Very exciting by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Cover one eye, and look at the objects on your desk as you move your head around.

    7. Re:Very exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >> I'm blind in one eye so 3D

      Have you ever considered a career in piracy?

    8. Re:Very exciting by Zerbey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've no idea. I've been blind in one eye for my entire life so wouldn't really know how people with 2 working eyes "perceive" depth. I have no problems telling the differences between 2D (real world) and 3D (as seen on a TV screen/poster) objects, if that helps.

    9. Re:Very exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you can tell them apart so well that you get them mixed up.

      I assume that was either a typo or humor.

    10. Re:Very exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL... That's right folks, the world is in 2D while the TV is 3D... ::ROTFL::

      I can appreciate what you mean though: I'm another person blind in one eye, and I can do most things fine. Maybe I'm a little uncoordinated with catching things, but I've seen people with 20/20 vision that catch worse then I do... About the only thing is that my car license has an entry that indicates that I've got to have 2 wing-mirrors on any car I drive.

    11. Re:Very exciting by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Oh, shut it up it's been a long day hehehe.

      Yeah ok, 2D - posters, TV, 3D real world.

      What is real anyway?

      ARGH!!!

    12. Re:Very exciting by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply, however:
      I have 3 eyes, you insensitive clod!

      joking aside, sometimes I hate to post a legitimate question on slashdot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Very exciting by james_gnz · · Score: 1

      Yes, and focal distance too. Different focal distances are generally not handled by computer generated 3D virtual reality thingies, because its a very difficult problem. This results in an everything's-always-in-focus-even-though-things-so mehow-seem-to-be-at-different-distances-and-it-loo ks-kind-of-weird virtual world for people with 2 eyes. And, as mentioned, for people who don't have the 2-eye thing going on, focal distance rules, and everything just looks flat.

    14. Re:Very exciting by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      to answer your question, there would be practically zero depth perception, making it kinda pointless.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    15. Re:Very exciting by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      i didnt even notice till you corrected yourself ^^

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    16. Re:Very exciting by Hast · · Score: 1

      And what?

      You can't see 3D structures with one eye, that's impossible. What you're suggesting is parallaxing. This effect has been in existance on computers since early 2D games. If you only have one eye then there's no need for a fancy 3D display. You can use your normal display and hardware/software for tracking your head movements and thus simulate this effect.

      It could possibly be done with a normal web camera, and some software. I've been wanting to make an application for tracking head movements in any case. Would be useful as I have multiple screens and I'd like to have the computer track which screen I'm looking at.

    17. Re:Very exciting by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "You can use your normal display and hardware/software for tracking your head movements and thus simulate this effect."

      That's true, but with a 3d display, there's no need to simulate the effect. And if there is more than one person viewing this display, each can control his own view.

    18. Re:Very exciting by CedgeS · · Score: 1

      Zerbey,

      You're not missing much. Those of us who are lucky enough to have two working eyes can simulate one eyed vision fairly easily just by closing an eye. It is possible for you to do the same, but its a bit more difficult (see below).

      The second eye does not provide much aditional information, it just simplifies the mental process of depth perception using a little math. If there are two people are standing in a field, one 400 feet to the west of the other. Both of the people are facing north. Now imagine that there is a flag halfway in between them some distance to the North.
      Lets pretend the one on the West sees the flag as being 30 degrees east of North and the one on the East sees the flag as being 30 degrees west of North. It is now possible for them to calculate the distance, or "depth" to the flag using trigonometry. The formula would be (DistanceBetweenObservers / 2) / Tangent(Angle to flag). In this case, the flag is about 346 feet away.

      It is actually possible for you to see the same sort of information that a person with two eyes sees. By moving your head around slightly, your eye
      will visit multiple locations in a short period of time. This creates the same effect as having multiple eyes, because the scene you are looking at changes very little in the time your head bobs around, the pictures you see at two points in time are equivelent to the two pictures a person with binocular vision is revieving at every point in time. To return to the flag anology, a single person can calculate the position of the flag in the field by moving along the border of the field and visiting both locations, the East and the West. By measuring the angle to the flag at both locations, this single observer can make exactly the same calculation as the two observers.

      For the above reason "depth perception" issues associated with driving are a moot point. The motion of just one of the drivers eyes through the environment provides far more depth perception information than that of stationary binocular vision.

      The only benefits I have noticed of binocular vision over monocular vision are better ability to focus my eyes (this could probably be completely overcome through practice) and more intuitive depth perception when standing still (overcome by moving).

      Good luck and don't feel left out,

      Cedric

  12. "spining disk" by 56ker · · Score: 1

    Surely you mean spinning disk? Somebody correct me if it's not just a typo...

    1. Re:"spining disk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Surely you mean spinning disk? Somebody correct me if it's not just a typo...

      No. It actually has spines! ;-)

    2. Re:"spining disk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one of those hibread disks.

  13. Re:Comment and mirror by k-0s · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Looking into my new crystal ball monitor I see this being a flop. Sure it seems really cool but you just KNOW it's going to out of the price range of nearly everyone, plus it's so small. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money I'd buy one the first day it comes out but alas, I don't so I won't.

  14. OOHH! by yeoua · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Porn in 3d!

    Too bad there isn't any tactile feedback... but you can tap on the glass and make it look like your interacting.

    1. Re:OOHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there isn't any tactile feedback
      Well, there's the spinning disk. Probably not the tactile feedback you want in that area of your anatomy, but tactile nonetheless...

  15. The best 3d display I've seen was by bolthole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    well, more of a movie projection,I guess. But Knotts Berry Farm (I think) in southern california, has (had?) a display with an alleged old indian shaman as narrator, that was effectively a 3d movie, without special glasses or anything. Quite solid-looking. It's really weird that the company hasnt been more prominent. I think the company was called "Virtual Light" or something like that.

    The whole thing was done up to look like a stage presentation, behind a glass box, elevated to the middle of a wall. Except if you looked at the depth of the wall from outside, there was no way the stage would fit in the wall ;-) It was that realistic, that you would really have no idea just by looking at it. They had fancy fake smoke effects, which were the obvious "illusion". but I think the shaman himself was also a recording. If so, that makes it a really really good holo-display.

    1. Re:The best 3d display I've seen was by SoCalChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That would be Mystery Lodge. It is fairly old now, but still a good show.

      http://www.themeparkinsider.com/parks/detail.cfm?A ttraction=239

    2. Re:The best 3d display I've seen was by anonymous+loser · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually the way they do that is hire really thin people as actors. Didn't you recognize Kate Moss as the shaman?

  16. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "mirror" is either Slashdotted while the main site works fine, or you posted the link BEFORE actually creating the mirror.
    WHORE

  17. But look at the price!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only $39,995 US. You'd want to be a dedicated pr0n watcher at that price!

    1. Re:But look at the price!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatr defines about 99% of Slashdot readership, doesn't it? (YES, that DOES include me!) And that's when you count Cowboy Neal only once!

    2. Re:But look at the price!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'd have to want low quality porn at that. That thing doesn't look nearly as detailed as even a low-quality 21-inch monitor.

  18. The Specs.... by mikeclark · · Score: 2, Informative

    Image Size and Display Type - Approx. 10" diameter spherical image - Swept-screen multiplanar volumetric display - Autostereoscopic: no viewing goggles - Volume-filling imagery - Supports many simultaneous viewers - no head-tracking Resolution / Color / Performance / Memory - Volume comprised of 198 2-D slices (1.1 slices / degree) - Approximately 768 x 768 pixel slice resolution - 24 Hz volume refresh - Full color (21-bit hardware-based stippling) - 8 colors at highest resolution - Polygons / sec.: To be announced - Dual volume buffers - TI(TM) 1600 MIPS DSP high-performance embedded processor - 3 Gbit DDR SDRAM (100 Mvoxels x 3 colors x 2 buffers) Viewing Angle - 360 horizontal, 270 vertical Brightness (typical) - To be announced Contrast (typical) - To be announced User Controls (Hardware and Software) - Power on/off, lamp standby, screen on/off - SCSI ID selector and auto-termination override - Additional functionality and control available through API Connectors - 2 SCSI-2 Wide Power Supply Electrical Requirements - Line voltage: 120V AC - Frequency: 50 to 60 Hz, single phase - Power: 250W Agency Approvals - Pending System Requirements - Works with PC-compatible systems running Microsoft® Windows 2000® or Linux. - SCSI connector. Size and Weight - 24" (61 cm) diameter x 9" (23 cm) high base - 20" (51 cm) diameter dome - Top of dome 21" (53 cm) from base of display - Weight: Approx. 60 lbs (27 kg)

  19. ball monitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought that's what the "turn your head and cough" test was for.

  20. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you post this lame comment as a reply? I'll tell you why - because you're looking to be displayed high on some stupid moderator's page.
    Your comment is in NO WAY a reply to the previous comment, and you waste my time saying NOTHING!
    NO KARMA FOR YOU!
    WHORE!

  21. Killer App? by Kilbasar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something like this needs a "Killer App" to really take off. There's lots of mention of uses in the fields of medicine, nuclear whatever, and other big important things, but I don't think that's what's going to push these things. So, what is? Simple. Porn. Come on, you KNOW you'd buy it if you could watch 3D porn on it!

    1. Re:Killer App? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the huge lump of cash you'd use to buy the thing to watch 3D-porn and jerk off in front of it, you could pay a real woman to come to your place and show you her lifesize 3D show with TruFeel[tm] and Smell-O-Vision[tm] technology ...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Killer App? by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      porn. the killer app for everything.

    3. Re:Killer App? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the killer app is a network monitoring and intrusion detection system for a very large WAN.

      imagine being able to use a flying mouse with this thing and fly along a T3 to a router zoom in and click on it then use the flat LCD on your desk next to it for config changes, stats, etc..

      Mmmm.... think of the sniping I could do in UT2003 if I could set up a cheat bot for it fly around looking for targets.

    4. Re:Killer App? by Malicious · · Score: 1

      Man, if they can show a schematic of the Death Star, and our plan of attack, i think it'll take off quite well.

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    5. Re:Killer App? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't pay for the woman, you pay for her to go away.

    6. Re:Killer App? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Virtual Motel ?

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    7. Re:Killer App? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      With the huge lump of cash you'd use to buy the thing to watch 3D-porn and jerk off in front of it, you could pay a real woman to come to your place and ...

      You're totally correct but there are obviously millions of sad and lonely guys who don't think this way and spend billions on the end of phone sex lines, purchasing porn videos etc. Porn is obviously very successful - if you can find a totally new way of delivering it you're unlikely to fail, no matter how expensive the service is initially.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    8. Re:Killer App? by swankypimp · · Score: 2, Funny

      But a Real Woman doesn't have Linux drivers...

      --

      --All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
  22. I know� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already...

    360 degree up skirts with 3d vulva.

  23. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doh! Forgot to post anonymously, damn rearranged options below the comment box!!

    Oh well, the loss of karma from my parent post plus the gain of karma from my original karma whore post should even things out.

  24. Translation... by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

    Not quite ready for Hollywood, but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already...

    Which is to say, the people who designed it plan to make money off of it.

  25. Watching in 3D by Professor_Quail · · Score: 0, Troll

    Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock'

    So...now they can watch their server crash in three dimensions.
    ------

  26. Looking Good by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    This looks awesome - in the picture as seen here Military its about the volume of my 19" monitor - if not slightly larger. This might not help us to be more productive in the office, but it certainly will help with graphic design.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  27. Re:Lets not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn I said KARMA WHORE already to you.
    You are a WHORE WHORE WHORE!
    I come to Slashdot for a discussion, and even when browsing at 3 or 4 I have to see motherfucking lame ass jokes like your's, just cause it's worth a few karma points to the poster.

  28. Old technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been around for a couple of years. I've seen this kind of thing at SIGGRAPH since at least 2001. Really neat, but not even close to brand new. Several companies make them.

  29. Deja vu by caouchouc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hmm... This seems all too familiar.

  30. Re:Ahh... I can finally gaze into my crystal ball. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Toons!

    Eeee-mail!

  31. Too bad this is hardly news to /. by cybergeak · · Score: 1

    This same product by the same people has been on here at least once before, and it was months ago at that.

    i realize that being a editor for this site and finding stuff to post is a danuting task and mistakes are bound to be made, but i figured i should be one of the first to point this out.

    1. Re:Too bad this is hardly news to /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't, and you didn't even provide the damning evidence.
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=626 27&cid=5849 176

  32. Uses by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1
    but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already...
    IE: Warcraft 3!
    --
    I do security
    1. Re:Uses by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      Oh, and man do those last pictures in the gallery remind me of the heads in a jar from futurama

      --
      I do security
  33. YOU SIR HAVE HUMILIATED YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you've already shot yourself if the foot, go ahead and point the gun at your head.

  34. As an alternative technology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Try the real thing: a woman!

    Ooops, forgot where I am... sorry to be so insensitive...

    (Note to moderators with high karma and low intelligence: this is _not_ a troll, it is called a joke... look for it in the dictionary)

    1. Re:As an alternative technology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if a comment is funny, so long as you include a disclaimer.

      (Note to mods: this is _not_ offtopic, its insightful... you clueless dorks)

  35. More Information and schematic by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Informative

    here have fun...

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:More Information and schematic by samhalliday · · Score: 1

      wow! that pic made it seem a lot larger than i had figured from the original article!

    2. Re:More Information and schematic by arhines · · Score: 1

      Hey, I wrote that, and was about to post it myself :) thanks for doing it for me though

    3. Re:More Information and schematic by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1
      Hey! re-post it anyways, its not like slashdot ever has dupes ;)

      nice story by the way, the rest of ZZZ seems packed full of cool stuff as well.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  36. Quite an old idea... by bj8rn · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing an earlier prototype version (?) of this thing on an Australian TV show called "Beyound 2000" sometime in the middle of the nineties (the show being even older). The prototype was cylinder-shaped and could only display primitive things like straight lines, but the idea was basically the same.

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  37. In my day... by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting device. I developed the software used on the NOSC/SPAWAR laser-based volumetric display back in '96. It used a rotating two-bladed helix, in which each blade traveled from the top of the volume to the bottom of the volume as it rotated through 180 degrees. With two blades on a 600 RPM spindle, we got 20 frames/sec update - right on the cusp of image jitter. We used a Krypton/Argon laser and a prism to get RGB, and fed each primary color to a separate pair of acousto-optical devices steered by my program, which got an interrupt each time one of the blades crossed through zero degrees. The display space was 4096 by 4096 by 4096(polar coords), by using 12-bit D/A converters controlling X and Y, and 4096 slots in the display controller's memory, one for each of 4096 angles of rotation in 180 degrees.

    Our major limitation was the decay rate of the acousto-optical devices, which limited the speed at which we could randomly paint the voxels in our volume. We did, at most (if I remember correctly) about 40,000 voxels per 20th of a second. As a result, we were limited to wire frame images.

    --
    Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    1. Re:In my day... by james_gnz · · Score: 1
      Interesting device. I developed the software used on the NOSC/SPAWAR laser-based volumetric display back in '96.

      Rotating double helix... Krypton laser... the description is cool in and of itself! :-)

      The device in this story really does look like a crystal ball too... The only other thing I need is a beat-up old caravan, and appropriate gypsie clothes. :-D

  38. A Palantir is a dangerous tool by willpost · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    GANDALF: They are not all accounted for, the lost seeing stones. You do not know who else may be watching!

  39. Yeah by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's why the crazy concept of "plays" never caught on. What were those Greeks thinking, trying to tell a story without camera angles?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Yeah by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why the crazy concept of "plays" never caught on. What were those Greeks thinking, trying to tell a story without camera angles?

      No, stage dramas take full advantage of "camera angles". Instead of moving a camera to change the viewers angle, they change the scenery and staging of the action to change the camera angle.

      Just about every city with a decent sized theater community has a "theater in the round" where the audience sits completely or nearly completely around the stage, which in some cases eliminates the concept of camera angle. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these stages were able to rotate as well.

  40. I want just show You... by paja · · Score: 1

    ...our latest progress. As You can see on this super cool 3D graph ...OUCH...

    1. Re:I want just show You... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...where is my finger?

  41. nothing like going back to the good ole days... by nvalid · · Score: 1
    before hidden surface removal. This would be really cool if you couldn't see through the surface of the objects and see the rear-facing surfaces as well as the front-facing ones. Check out the movie of the mathematical function and you can see the surface get brighter and dimmer as you look through the surface a varying number of times.

    movies here

  42. Kind of like that old Sega game, Time Traveler by rob-fu · · Score: 1

    ...where they had a holographic-like display (although not a true holograph, but it was the early nineties, so who knew any better). the gameplay was pretty flaky since they used taped actors and if you didn't move your joystick the right way, you're screwed (a la Dragon's Lair).

    Here is a link to it.

  43. Not true by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be very helpful for people who do medical and scientific imaging.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  44. Great 3d Pron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well obviously the pron sites will be very happy. All new 3d orb porn.

  45. Re:Comment and mirror by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    it's kind of funny, but the site works fine and the mirror is currently slashdotted :)

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
  46. Re:Shameless Plug by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 1

    I too do "3D" but its only to connect to "Control systems" ... also the Vid proggry i have to enable system users to do maintenance vids is kinda cool...http://www.lamack.org/

    --
    *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
  47. Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by xixax · · Score: 1
    Someone once said that fridges full of rotting vegetables prove that 3D user interfaces won't work. Or at least that they won't work if we blindly apply metaphors to them without thinking too deeply.

    "Wow! I have mustard?"

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
    1. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by samhalliday · · Score: 1

      i think i understand your metaphor... proving that if anyone says anything random at all, a little bit of imagination can make it mean whatever you want it to say. ahh, the wonders of a semi-human mind... :-D

    2. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by phillymjs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a system integrator/end user support person, I'll tell you exactly why 3D UIs are a bad idea:

      Because this is 2003, and I STILL hear, "You mean the other mouse button does something DIFFERENT?" far too frequently.

      If people can't handle a mouse with two buttons, trying to understand a 3D UI will make their brains liquefy and flow out of their ears.

      ~Philly

    3. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      Personally.. I think it'd make it easier for those people (is that good or bad?) by the things you could create to make navigation easier.. As in.. Like you could have a virtual office, notebook here (notepad/pico), calendar on the wall.. Visual representation of files, mom's cooking recipes in 3d kitchen.. Dad's workshop plans in the garage.. Games in the virtual bedroom.. ooh.. new possibilites..

    4. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      iirc, SGI's used to (still do?) have an optional file manager that was 3d based. looked kinda like that one in jurasic park (might have been that one for all i know). either way, your problem is that you talk to idiots, or mac users. what's the difference anyway? Answer: the average idiot isn't $3000 poorer. BURNING KARMA, BURNING IT ALL! and it feels SOOOOO good. CHACHACHA!

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    5. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      Microsoft BOB It was such a great idea I just installed it on my win 98 test box aaahhhhhh bob I've missed you

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    6. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Informative

      iirc, SGI's used to (still do?) have an optional file manager that was 3d based. looked kinda like that one in jurasic park (might have been that one for all i know).

      Yes, they made it just for the movie. For a long time they proudly distributed the entire thing for free (though only for IRIX) on their website. I don't think it exists there any more, but those of you lucky enough to own an SGI box can get it here.

    7. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the 3D part, you just reinvented Microsoft BOB!!!

    8. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting..

      i dont know if they copied jurassic park or vice versa, but at this datacenter we use an enterprise monitoring software from Computer Associates called Unicenter. it has an optioal 3d interface that is basically exactly like the jurassic park scene - except instead of flying from building to building, you fly from server to router to switch etc.

      http://www.winnetmag.com/Files/237/Screen_01.gif
      http://www.winnetmag.com/Files/237/Screen_02.gif
      http://www.uni-koeln.de/rrzk/kurse/unterlagen/ma na gement-frameworks/img039.GIF

      kinda looks neat, but we ditched it REAL quick for the basic 2d interface

    9. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

      err - Gamecube?

      I could be wrong, mabe its just some games, but doesnt the gamecube have a 3D Gui? - sure you dont have to Quake your way around some envirinment to configure the game but the Interface is real time 3D rather than bitmap.

      If you drop the controller too many times, one of the analogue stix can rotate the interface on screen.

      unless u have too much information for the screen at any one time there is no point in using a non-standard interface - but real-time 3Dgfx on good hardware will look better than bitmaps, be more scalable and lower overhead.

      --
      This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
    10. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's a great application: if I had a 3D wireframe interface for my fridge I *could* see what was in the back behind the other 3 bags of romaine.

    11. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 1
      Hey, that's a great application: if I had a 3D wireframe interface for my fridge I *could* see what was in the back behind the other 3 bags of romaine.
      Or you could wrap all your food in plastic wrap that works like this. It shouldn't be too much of a leap to project a wirefram on top of that material.
    12. Re:Why 3D UIs are a bad idea by dforsey · · Score: 1

      There are no "easy to use" 3D interfaces that exist even in the real world. Go ahead, try to find one.


      Uh... airplane control


      Nope, not easy to use, and it's mainly a 2D interface with the rudder thrown in.... talk to a pilot.


      Any others?

  48. This is NOT NEW... by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    notice the ©2001 at the bottom of the page...

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  49. *Drool* by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    This is now item #716 on my "gadgets I wish I owned" list. (Yeah, yeah it's a really long list - one of the perils of slashdot). Anyway, imagine having one of these to hack away at...

    Hmm.... only $40,000?.... and I've got a birthday coming up!

  50. Prior Art by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't know why you bothered posting, The Wicked Witch of the West had one of those things quite a while ago.

  51. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God moderators are moronic, how the hell is this offtopic? Yeah it's a horny geek comment, but it's mildly amusing, and more importantly he mirrored the image.

  52. Saw this years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this demoed at a trade show a couple of years ago -- looks about the same. It was an amazing demo, but I'm not sure that it's actually useful. The military likes the idea, though. Perhaps they want to see Princess Lea, too?

  53. Depth Perception by Zerbey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stop flaming me about depth perception!

    I've no idea how someone with 2 eyes views the world since I've been blind in one eye since birth. What I think is 3D and you think is 3D is probably different. Anyway, I have no problems with depth perception I probably just view it a different way to what you do.

    Question: A TV screen is a "flat" 2D image, to me it's like looking through a window. Is it the same for people who have 2 working eyes?

    I'm intrigued!

    1. Re:Depth Perception by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not really. I guess suspension of reality helps the enjoyment of television, but at the same time, looking out the window and watching TV are not analogous. There are differences, mostly dealing with clues provided by two slightly different images. Looking out a window, the second eye gives those clues, one can tell the window's there, but that there's depth beyond the window. A television doesn't provide those clues, it just looks different. The shading is there, sure, but at the same time, there's just something "missing".

      Of course, here, we start veering off into the insanely interesting tangent of perception of reality. I'm colorblind, thus my internal color set is slightly different than yours. Most of the time, it doesn't make a difference, but at the same time, I hate talking about colors because my mental crayon box has different labels than yours. How exactly do you describe the color blue, anyways?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I hate talking about colors because my mental crayon box has different labels than yours.

      As it seems to us which see all colors (though everybody is a little different, you know), it seems you colorblind folks just see repeated colors.

      As you put, it's different labels: blue for instance, might look like brown, so that your crayon box would have less variation (and hence your world, too).

      BTW, colors bothers us in some sense: ever heard the expression "crying colors"? Sometimes we have to turn down color saturation or change color options to achieve a less annoying combination. That's why you get monochromatic vehicle interiors and elegant Armani suits, where everything is of the same color (also called "ton-sur-ton" in French).

      Colors are heavily used in other areas like camouflage, for instance, and colorblinded people are less fooled by such schemes, as the military already knew in W.W. II.

      > How exactly do you describe the color blue, anyways?

      That's a tough one. Blue is present in nature almost only in the sky -- the sea near me is mostly green, but I see photos of Greece in which the sea looks blue there.

      There are a few blue flowers, almost no blue fruits (blueberry is fact a very dark tone of vilet, if I'm not wrong and I might be, please someone help me here), _no_ blue animal (ok, there are many blue birds and a mandrill ape has blue features) etc.

      For this exact reason, maybe, blue is widely used in human objects and art.

      I could elaborate on feelings that colors suggest, and which would be related to blue, but there's a lot of literature about that.

      For a physical description, imagine a laser where one could vary the frequency of the emitted light by turning a knob. Blue is one of the frequencies. Just that.

    3. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of my eyes work (though short sighted) however I have a similiar problem. I have a condition whereby both eyes do not converge at the same place. This results in double vision. I have a rather bad case of it, though at very close distances (eg: reading a book) I do not have the problem.

      Coloured glasses type 3D systems do not work for me, however the clear glasses based ones work fine (Because you focus on the glasses not the screen). In fact the projected images was probably the largest 3D objects I have ever seen to this day, otherwise it disappears into double vision. So I have seen 3D it was amazing, but then again you will probably find that you notice more detail in a given scene then people with 3D vision, as you require more information for the same result. I have often remarked on things walking down the street that others never noticed.

      The brain automatically blocks the vision from one eye (I can switch between eyes at will) to prevent the double vision becoming a hinderence. I do get some rough 3D information, though if I try and see detail, the image from one eye is blocked by my brain.

      I have started doing eye exercises, and have prisim glasses (however they give me blinding headaches), but I will probably never have decent 3D vision. Since starting the exercises I have noticed that I am more aware of my prephieral vision on my blocked side (normally left eye), and I seem to be getting somewhat better hand-eye co-ordination (eg: catching a ball), then before. So I'm probably better off then you, but because I have focus problems as well (need glasses for distance).

      I find distance perception to be much better during the day, I tend to drive very carefully at night, cars aren't much of a problem, headlights are pretty much the same distance apart between models, however I have very little idea of distance to a bike, so I typically slow down till they go past, just to be safe. So I suppose if you don't have great depth perception you get used to judging via relative sizes, number of street lights, etc. But there are times when nothing beats proper 3D vision for depth perception.

      Having seen in 3D a few times, I'm looking forward to the day medicine will be able to fix my vision, or replace at least one eye, to match the other. (Also some of Gordie's benefits in ST:TNG would be nice ;-) )

      PS: I don't remember the clinical name of my condition, but minor cases are relatively common, and can largely be fixed through exercises.

    4. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn missed this in preview:

      "but because I have focus problems as well (need glasses for distance)."

      Should be:

      but because I have focus problems as well (need glasses for distance). I can't comment on the looking through a window being 3D/2D. I can pretty much always tell the difference between a window and a TV though, A TVs lighting is pretty much always slightly off, and a window can be determined relatively easily, simply by moving your head, objects at different distances will seem to move at different speeds, and the brain can figure out that it has depth. If I have to stand stationary, and look at a screen of a picture, then at a glass window with a painting behind it, I wouldn't have a clue which was which.

    5. Re:Depth Perception by waferbuster · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the proper response around these parts would be "I'm blind in one eye and have no depth perception, you insensitive clod!"

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
    6. Re:Depth Perception by condour75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      motion parallax... while you would unfortunately see nothing different in a standard goggle-based 3d video or movie, a device like the crystal ball would appear 3d as soon as you moved your head. We 2 eye types see a television screen a little differently than through a window, and if you think about it, so do you. With a window, your viewing angle determines the area seen on the other side, and the apparent relationships of forms to one another. Not so in televisions, where the image instead just uniformly distorts according to the viewing angle. With the crystal ball, moving around the ball would reveal different aspects of the object being displayed, and you'd get a sense of the object's depth as you moved.

    7. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you emphasized "_NO_ blue animals"

      then name 2 of the many blue animals... birds and apes like you mentioned are in fact animals. as are the abundant variety of blue fish in the blue sea.

      so we have blue mammals (your ape.. BLUE whale)
      blue fish
      blue birds
      curstacean? "blue crab"
      i could go on

    8. Re:Depth Perception by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      Not to be insensitive but are you lying?

      I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that you have never asked anyone else what the 3D perception of the world is to them, especially comparing the Television and a window.

      As an AI grad (and being a carnivore) I know a little about depth perception, and despite what most people think two eyes are NOT required for depth perception. Try it yourself: Look at an object six feet away, notice the depth you feel, close and eye, notice the depth loss, now sway side to side, notice the return of depth perception?

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    9. Re:Depth Perception by ddimas · · Score: 1

      As I am sure you know, steroscopic vision has a range of ~20 feet (6 or 7 Meters). Anything further than that you will see in exactly the same way as someone with two eyes. And to tell you the truth most people with two eyes can't tell the difference until they try to touch something. BTW do you have a habit of bobbing your head back and forth sometimes (that's another way to get steroscopic information)?

      In regards to your question, Yes. You are supposed to sit more than 10 feet from the thing anyhow (X-Rays are emitted by the TV).

    10. Re:Depth Perception by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Hello AC,

      Actually I probably have a similar problem to the one you do. Let me clarify, my right eye (the useless one) does have some vision but it is extremely poor so my brain has always cancelled out that eye, even after surgeries to try and correct it and spending the first 10 years of my life wearing glasses. If I close my left eye I can see a but everything is a blur. The clinical term is a "lazy eye". If I squint I do get double vision but the other image is a blur, certainly no 3D. I've never tried the clear 3D glasses, maybe they will work for me.

      My hand-eye coordination is also a little off, probably due to poor depth perception but after a lot of practise I think it's comparable to the average person with 2 eyes now. I put my butter fingers down to lack of skill rather than eyesight nowadays :-)

      They tried me on those horrible prism glasses when I was a kid but it gave me blinding headaches as well. I never saw the point anyway, my vision didn't change noticeably when I was wearing them.

      Driving has never been a problem for me, curiously my peripheral vision is fine - eg I can see things to my extreme right with no problems. I'm assuming my left eye lenses has grown shaped differently to compensate or something, but that's pure speculation. Judging distances is also not a problem even at night.

    11. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One neat thing about having two eyes is when they are each looking at something different.. the two images overlap, but its not a 50/50 overlay. Your brain picks out the most important parts of each image (like the edges) and makes those parts more opaque.

    12. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assholes make people act like assholes. So here I go because most of what you are talking about is just frankly fuq'd up wrong:

      First--"impossible" is a pretty strong word. I find it impossible for you to believe it is impossible for that person not to know or ask. You know nothing about him/her, e.g. age, phobias, family, location, social stigmas. Reminds me of a time I was on irc years back, talking to someone I had known albeit only online for over a year, when I found out he was disabled. Never would have known if he hadn't mentioned it.

      But one thing I do know is when someone acts like a total dick.

      Second--you're wrong re the number of eyes. Rather accurate perception re the swaying, except you just don't take it far enough. And you're an AI grad? Before you got into grad school, maybe you should have grown up. Anyways, you need more work looking at biological systems than logical computers. You don't have need 2 eyes. You can have 3. 4. 5. Even 6 and more. And yes, one works.

      Even none. I'll let you think about that one. Bothered? Look up human phobias sometime. The blind get vertigo.

      btw, while you are a carnivore, you're really an omnivore. I hope. Either that, or you will likely die a nasty death when you sigmoid colon or gallbladder gives out, or duodenum rots through.

      Depth perception has everything to do with angles, not eyes. You could have 1 eye with 2 lenses set apart and proper ocular nerve connections and brain pathways, and get an accurate pciture. You could have no eyes and stay perceive depth by the number of other senses. Depth perception deals with sampling of sense, not optical reception.

      If that wasn't true, bats would starve.

    13. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what's helping with your peripheral vision is that it isn't precise to begin with --
      up to about 20 degrees off-center, your eyesight is very finely tunes (~1 arc-sec, irrc), but after that, it falls of quickly.

      Your brain makes up for the lack of clarity by making your peripheral vision very sensitive to motion (and prompting you to instinctively dart your eyes that way).

      Last tidbit - your brain is a very complex and effective image processor-- a drag racer retired because he kept detaching his retinas during braking, and he complained that there were a lot of black spots in his vision. An interviewer asked him 2 years later about it, and he said his vision had returned. Obviously not, but your brain keeps a "memory" if what was in place when you last looked there, and pieces together the information (same reason you have to work to "see" your blindspots).

      FWIW...

    14. Re:Depth Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of points:

      1) Do youy honestly believe the first time someone asked/mentioned that a TV looks like a window to them was on SLASHDOT?

      2) Carnivores, i.e. hunters have better depth perception to gauge the distance to their prey. While true I am an omnivore, our front set eyes shows that we are hunters (but we are also gatherers).

      3) Um yeah the blind can perceive depth, as long as they are not def also (an affliction I was born with btw).

      4) Depth perception has to do with parallax, not angles, but I think you are confusing the two.

      I was not trying to berate someone who was handicapped, I was berating someone whom I believed was lying about a handicap (either that he had it or it's affect) for the sake of creating a discussion on Slashdot.

  54. Outside In vs. Inside Out by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

    One problem I forsee with trying to make 3D movies is that devices similar to this crystal ball display objects to the user as an Outside In perspective, rather than a conventional display or flat 3D display. What I mean is that currently the viewers of a movie are usually, INSIDE the scene looking OUT, whereas the crystal ball is a scene where the viewer is OUTSIDE looking IN. Only objects directly in the field of view are modelled; it is impossible to show backgrounds in the crystal ball. In other words, Lucas wouldn't be able to create impressive pod racing scenes because all we would see is whichever pod is directly in the sphere of display, and MAYBE some ground speeding by when they get within feet of the surface and the soil enters the sphere that is modelled. Until a 3D background can somehow be displayed behind the objects modelled, the crystal sphere is only good for scenes with actors conversing or fighting within the confines of the spherical scene. The crystall ball builds up 3D models using true point sources of light that are in FRONT of the screen, whereas 3D panels trick the human eye into seeing virtual points of light somewhere behind the screen. It's just like real and virtual images created by lenses and mirrors: you can project real images into 3D space, but you can't see the background, whereas you can see the background of virtual images but you cant project the image of the object in focus into real space.

  55. search... by dlupyan · · Score: 1

    do a google search on "volumetric displays"

  56. Air Traffic Control by Davoid · · Score: 1

    I saw a similar setup to this back in the mid 80's and, as I recall, they were going to use it for air traffic control. Possibly be useful in the combat control center of an aircraft carrier also.

    Very cool idea but not really new.

    -DU-...etc...

    --
    "Don't sweat the technique."
    1. Re:Air Traffic Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first invention like this was in the 1960s. It was using a spiral in an evacuated tube as the imaging element.

  57. And it works with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait to see the Blue Sphere of Death. :)

    But seriously, what a cool gadget.

    Paul

    1. Re:And it works with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't wait to see the Blue Sphere of Death."

      Blueballs of Death.

    2. Re:And it works with Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass. It runs on Linux.

  58. Crazy! by Thaidog · · Score: 1

    That thing is too cool... I've seen models like this for about 2 years now, but nothing with the quality this gives... cool.

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  59. Mod parent up by Animats · · Score: 1
    Yes, this was on Slashdot in 2002, 2001, and 2000.

    It goes in the dustbin of TV history, along with all the other ideas that involve scanning with moving parts. (There's a really good collection of these at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, incidentally.)

    1. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and in those previous posts, they hadn't even built a prototype. It was vapourware. Now it's real.

    2. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong!
      They had a prototype in 2001, and a product for which they were seeking customers in 2002. Apparently they're still seeking customers for that overpriced toy.

  60. Re:Ahh... I can finally gaze into my crystal ball. by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I see your future... and its full of spam!"

  61. super size? by s0rbix · · Score: 1

    i would be interested to know if anyone has planned to create an oversized version of the volumetric 3d display? it would much much more usefull, and to make it couldnt you just scale up the technology?

    1. Re:super size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with 3Gbit of RAM in this thing, I think it will be a while before they can scale it up much

  62. Oh Look (was Re:HoloGenesis) by terkozer · · Score: 2, Informative
    ... it's that guy who constantly claims to be Nintendo's head of research. I thought he had taken off!

    I don't want to waste a lot of time pointing this out, but take a little Smell-O-Vision by Sega jaunt for yourself .

    Sure sounds good though, doesn't he?
    --

    1. Re:Oh Look (was Re:HoloGenesis) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that feeding a troll just encourages him?

  63. 3-D: the third D stands for deadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Careful -- there is a chance of being spined to death by the deadly spines on the spiny, spiny spining disk.

    1. Re:3-D: the third D stands for deadly by rifter · · Score: 1

      Tron, is that you?

  64. Re:Comment and mirror by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

    like most advanced technologies, it starts out at a monstrous price and has little application.

    Take the computer for instance. Not that long ago (during a time many /.ers might remember), no one would have assumed that computers would ever become affordable for everyone, or become powerful and small. Look at us now. with only 5 pounds of silicon and plastic, I have a computer that's thousands fold more powerful than the original computer.
    Same idea applies here. Someone will find a use for it, and be able to afford it (military or medical most likely). Then the technology will develop, and the price will become affordable for all.

    History teaches us many things, this is one of them.

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
  65. Stuck on how it works by rzbx · · Score: 1

    I understand how the old card trick using strings and pictures on two sides works, but how exactly does this work?
    I have some ideas on ways to do this, but I would like to know how they accomplished it.
    I always imagined using lasers to do this, by finding laser beams that reflect light in all directions when intersecting occurs. Does anyone know of any lasers/beams that cause refraction when intersecting? If those exist, then the only problem seems finding a way to move the lasers fast enough and correctly positioned to intersect.

    --
    Question everything.
    1. Re:Stuck on how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bounce the light off a spinning thing inside the sphere. (Spinning, so it can point in all directions.)

      Or, from the FAQ on the web site linked to in the post:

      How does the Perspecta display actually create 3D imagery?

      First, your 3D data is processed in real-time by the Perspecta software. For example, if you're using SolidWorks to design the world's fastest skateboard, Perspecta will echo the 3D imagery over to the display. Or, if you're using the Perspecta SDK to simulate fluid flow through a sports car engine, you use a group of functions to send colored lines and triangles to the display.

      This 3D information about skateboards or engines zooms over a SCSI cable to the Perspecta display.

      First, the data is crunched by the Spatial Rendering Kernel. A lot of this work is done in Perspecta's embedded graphics electronics.

      Then, the proprietary optics creates 3D imagery that hovers inside a transparent sphere. Basically, the 3D information is put into a format that is similar to thin slices of an apple around its core. Next, a high-speed digital projector shines these "slices" onto a special screen that spins at approximately 730 rpm. Therefore, you can place imagery at locations which have true (x,y,z) coordinates. The result is a convincing, interactive, colorful 3D image that can be seen from any angle in the room.

    2. Re:Stuck on how it works by rzbx · · Score: 1

      I thought that might have been it, just was not sure. Thanks!

      --
      Question everything.
    3. Re:Stuck on how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The light particles shine up from the bottom and the spinning paddle deflects them into your eye.. exactly like ping-pong.

  66. ooh by CmdrMooCow · · Score: 1

    I want one!
    Look at the size of that thing. How do you carry it around?

    and only for a mere US $39,999!

    Could this have a use (once price drops) for light shows?

  67. Maxim had this product a while ago. by OdieGiblet · · Score: 1

    Maxim actually bought this exact product probably a year or so ago. It was $30,000 and the CEO was very proud to have a 3rd representation of a boob on his desk.

    1. Re:Maxim had this product a while ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were the 1st and second boob representations done with?

  68. Don't use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    All the palantiri have not been accounted for.

    There could be a flaming eyeball at the other end!

  69. some maths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > Volume comprised of 198 2-D slices (1.1 slices / degree) - Approximately 768 x 768 pixel slice resolution - 24 Hz volume refresh

    Has anyone pondered what sort of display hardware they must be using to project on to the spinning section? 198 slices @ 24Hz volume refresh must mean that it's drawing 4,752 frames per second.. impressive...

  70. "Monitor" by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    I don't think that it will take market from "normal" monitors, at least where text is important. Also reflection would be a killer thing there. I see it more used as a secondary display, maybe this time 3D graphic card will have well put their name.

  71. MOD PARENT UP!! by CrocOS · · Score: 1

    Semi-off-topic, but too true =)

    --

    I should really get around to creating a sig.... Nah - too lazy =)
  72. It has some fundamental flaws.... by hawkstone · · Score: 1

    Not sure on the price -- something like tens of thousands. But that's not suprising, not outrageous for a new technology geared toward governments and research bodies, and not really a flaw.

    But the resolution is 768x768 per slice, and about 200 slices. The resolution varies with distance from the center, there is no such thing as occlusion, it has a very limited number of colors, and the flicker varies based on distance from the center.

    For some applications, these are not problems. However, the complete lack of occlusion (hidden surface removal) is the one that's going to hurt the most, and what more than anything else kept us from buying one.

    1. Re:It has some fundamental flaws.... by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      uh, dude. What was the res on the first CRTs. What about colors? This thing isn't mature yet, but i'd sure want one.

    2. Re:It has some fundamental flaws.... by hawkstone · · Score: 1

      uh, dude. What was the res on the first CRTs. What about colors? This thing isn't mature yet, but i'd sure want one.

      Oh, I completely agree. I think the angular resolution does need to be improved as well as the number of colors. But as I said, these are not the the big problem -- the big one is the lack of occlusion. And that's the one that essentially cannot be improved with incremental improvements to the technology; it's a fundamental problem with the way the images are generated.

      For example, suppose you want a 3D model of an airplane. To get a good view from all 360 degrees, all sides of the model must be drawn. But that means if you look at the plane from the front, you will always see the back at the same time.

      It's reminiscent of a CAD wireframe model when hidden surface removal has been turned off.

      Nevertheless, one hell of a cool toy. Just not sure I'm ready to drop $30k for one....

    3. Re:It has some fundamental flaws.... by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      Actually, that could be solved just by having a rotate button on the software. it'd save you the trouble of moving around the object and wouldn't have your problem.

    4. Re:It has some fundamental flaws.... by hawkstone · · Score: 1

      True, but one of the big draws for this kind of device (and the reason that companies are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for it) is that it encourages and allows collaboration between multiple users.

      If you're going to sit in one spot and look at the thing with only one pair of eyes, there's an easier solution: 3D goggles. It doesn't give you the same optical field depth that helps alleviate eye strain , but it does have more colors, more resolution, higher refresh rate, and full occlusion.

  73. I am actually quite surprised.... by madmarcel · · Score: 1

    at the lack of references to pr0n in the posts I've seen so far...

    Frankly I am quite dissappointed! The trolls must be having a day off...(syeah right!)

    I can see the advertising now:
    "Amazing fantastic new 3D ball monitor with 3D-o-vision? Now you can have jerks all around!"

    <<runs away and hides>>

  74. Quake quake quake... by clambake · · Score: 1

    ...quake quake quake quake!

    1. Re:Quake quake quake... by prestidigital · · Score: 1
  75. Too small. by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

    It's just too squinchy. And there's the foggy spot where the axis of rotation is.

    Just for the coolness factor and large-scale effect, the pin display in X-Men wins for me.

    One of my friends tried to make one for their senior project. It was pretty slow...they had to use linear steppers and they were too bulky to put very close together. I told them they should have spent their time researching voice coils. But they did have a little 16 pin matrix, which read patterns off a CompactFlash card and cycled through them.

    --
    ...
  76. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Few /.'ers you mean. After all, most /.'ers are trying to start after school computer clubs.

  77. Aha! by cpn2000 · · Score: 1

    Just what Miss Cleo needs!

    --
    All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be ... Dark side of the moon
  78. Not in Holleywood by ThomasFlip · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Holleywood will never adopt this technology, maybe however the military would. To store a complete 3d movie with even semi-realistic images, it would require thousands of terabytes of storage. Movies would also never come out in theaters (Therefore eliminating that market potential) unless the public would be interested in walking around a dome room bumping into each other and scrambling to get a good view.

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    1. Re:Not in Holleywood by prestidigital · · Score: 1

      I can see TV going this way. As for the military, you can safely bet that the military helped develop the technology (i.e., through a research grant).

    2. Re:Not in Holleywood by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Theatre in the round. It exists.

  79. not new by zejackal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This isn't really new stuff. Back in my freshman year of college I got interested in volumetric displays. I came up with some ideas and found out that someone had already done it. I forget his name, but he was a polish scientist working for the navy making volumentric displays for submarines. My first idea, and also this gentlemen's was to use a spining helical surface that rotated through 180 degrees and iluminate it with laser beams deflected from a spinning mirror. That was 10 years ago... and he had working models.

    Not wanting to work out another solution only to find someone had beaten me too it, I decided to do a little research and see what else was out there. I found a woman, I also forget her name but you'll have to excuse me because I haven't looked at this stuff in quite a while, who was using rare earth element doped fluoride glass to produce volumetric displays. Her work involved utilizing IR lasers. When the two beams intersected in the glass they caused a point to illuminate. A raster or vector scan of the volume could produce three dimensional images. This work was paralleled by a man in Japan, again... can't remember his name.

    After finding out about the rare earth doped fluoride glass processes I had to figure out another one. I did, it's really cool, and so far no-one else has put forth a similar design. However, I could never fund the work myself (I was a starving student), and then I began working for a big company with whom I have one of those "anything you think of is ours" clauses in my contract, so I can't work on it now either.

    However, I may get a chance to pursue it in the not so distant future, and man will it be cool to see it operating. Of course if I ever do get it working I will make sure that my web site has the capacity to handle the slashdot effect.

    1. Re:not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure everything you said is the truth... really, I do believe you.

    2. Re:not new by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 1

      His name was Parviz Soltan and he was Persian with an interesting accent, working at Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego. The woman was from a university in the Bay Area (Stanford, I think). I left the project at the time she was seeking funding to explore her ideas (I was the programmer that did the fun little demo of the sub driving around under the aircraft carrier).

      --
      Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    3. Re:not new by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Surely they don't own you during your freetime?

    4. Re:not new by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      My company does. I too have the "we own the IP of ANY software you develop that may be relevant to the company's business, wether during company time or private time" clause.

      My choice was to sign and be able to feed me and mine, or not sign and go out on the streets begging. Here in the UK, IT jobs for 40+ year old programmers are very sparse indeed.

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    5. Re:not new by zejackal · · Score: 1

      That's his name. I wonder what he's working on now... have to google it I suppose.

    6. Re:not new by zejackal · · Score: 1

      Technically no, but if I were to develop something that could make money, or be in any way usefull, they would claim it and I would have to prove that I used no company resource in it's developement. Proving a negative is always hard to do and inevitable they would squash me with their legal team.

    7. Re:not new by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Sounds harsh, at least to me, but then I haven't yet had much working experience so... But if I was offered a job I too would take it, even with that clause, no doubt.

  80. I can't think of a fancy subject! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

    Scsi connectors? 'Scuse me? Wouldn't something like USB 2.0 or Firewire be a more logical choice, because it doesn't require a special card and it's far more common? Also, when will we have truly 3D RTS games? Maybe something for use with Homeworld 2?

    1. Re:I can't think of a fancy subject! by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the machines this thing is likely to be hooked to, SCSI is almost guaranteed to be there. Or maybe it's because SCSI can run in synchronous mode. I dunno, just guessing.

    2. Re:I can't think of a fancy subject! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      USB2: 480 Mb/sec
      Firewire: 400 or 800 Mb/s

      SATA150: 1200 Mb/s

      SCSI160: 1280 Mb/s
      SCSI320: 2560 Mb/s

      Need I say more?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  81. True holograms : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone remember the old optical illusion where an object is placed at the bottom of a (sort of) mirrored sphere, and then a perfect image of the object can be seen above the sphere ... using this diplay and this optical illusion a real holographic display would be possible... fitted under a desk, this would look insanely cool !

    1. Re:True holograms : by prestidigital · · Score: 1

      The problem with that method was that it required a static, physical object. We had one in our last office building tucked in a dingy storage room.

    2. Re:True holograms : by sharph · · Score: 1

      Stick this thing inside it.

  82. Perspecta� 3D System: US$39,995 plus installation by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

    I think i'll wait untill it comes down in price o_O

    --
    cat /dev/urandom > .sig
  83. pr0n, pr0n, pr0n... by Petronius · · Score: 1

    ...pr0n, pr0n, pr0n!

    --
    there's no place like ~
  84. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And your reply was relevant how? All I heard was blah blah blah, I'm a troll blah blah blah.

  85. "some obvious uses for it already" by Exiler · · Score: 1

    Lets see here... obvious uses, obvious uses... Hrrrm... Number 1: Porn. Number 2: ...Fuck. Hold on, I'll think of something.

    --
    Banaaaana!
    1. Re:"some obvious uses for it already" by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "Number 1: Porn. Number 2: ...Fuck"

      Wow...now even the posts here have dupes :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  86. Yawn. Nothing new again. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    Sheeesh. More than 20 years ago, Steve Ciarcia in his Byte Magazine "Circuit Cellar" column described how to make such a system with an oscilloscope, three DACs and a photodiode on the spinning mirror.

  87. Re:Ahh... I can finally gaze into my crystal ball. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    "Damn this DSL!"

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  88. new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ummm.... an i the only one that remembers seeing this exact same thing for the same company with the same name and everything 3 or 4 years ago?

    sure, it wasnt commercially available then, but its stil probably not going to sell like hotcakes at 40k a pop.

  89. When will we get Dejac & warcraft? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    That cool game with the monsters from starwars. Why didn't they create that as a demo.
    Of course it's not "real" technology until Linux [check] and doom [comming soon?] are running on it! Oh, and it has to surf Pr0n too!
    Then it will be "real" tech!

  90. The *real* problem with 3D displays by stephentyrone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    or, rather, all the 3D display technologies I've seen so far, is that there's no "hidden line removal", so to speak. Every technology i've seen is inherently transparent, and uses some means to generate perceived light sources within a volume.

    Unfortunately, the human optical system isn't really built to deal with this on a regular basis; we expect *most* things to be at least somewhat opaque, and have a considerably easier time processing visual information that adheres to those expectations. So what's really needed is a way to not only change the color of a voxel, but also it's opacity; basically an "alpha channel". (You can't just do old school hidden line (surface) removal because you don't know where the observer is).

    Clearly, this is impossible with any of the spinning disc/helicoid techniques; with some of the other ideas (like crystal activated by non-visible-wavelength, etc) it seems like it should be possible; use one wavelength to produce light, another to turn pixels opaque. Make the interior of an "object" opaque, illuminate the boundary, and you've got a display that's much easier for the human visual system to process.

    Prediction: until this happens, no real 3-D displays except for highly specific industry applications.

  91. Corporations are *singular*, damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actuality Systems have issued a press release..."

    Why do people here refer to corporations as plural entities? Drives me nuts. Only here, nowhere else. 'Microsoft have announced this...' 'NVidia are working on...' Damnit, people.

    1. Re:Corporations are *singular*, damnit by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      It's not just here, everywhere I go, and in 90% of news stories that mistake is made.

  92. Re goatse, goatse, goatse! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    err, never mind...

  93. I disagree; occlusion is possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, spinning-screen displays are capable of viewer position-dependent effects, such as occlusion. The spinning screen isn't the point - it's the screen. In order to make an arbitrary light field (through piecewise approximation), you need to be able to control both the amplitude AND the trajectory of each "ray bundle." If you use a screen that is not a diffuser, but something with beam-steering capabilities, you can do occlusion. For instance, see US Pat. 6,487,020.

    patent link

    -gregg

  94. Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you asked nicely... ok, nobody asks me nothing, you could have been rude as well :-(

    When "I" (and I suspect most of the humans) look thru a window we can perceive 3D-ness (?sp) in a range up to about 20-30 meters (about 70-100 feet, I guess).

    Not everybody has a perfect vision and thus this limit could vary a lot (I have miopy).

    At a great distance (e.g., when driving and seeing objects at 800m or half a mile), the picture is 2D for everybody, I suppose.

    Now, regarding your question, that depends on what apparent distance the depicted objects appear to be on the TV.

    For close images, where differences would stand out between TV and an image thru a window, everybody sees the TV image from the original perpective of the filming camera; the very same cues you use are probably employed by all of us, since we should have two different views from differently positioned cameras in order to achieve a real 3D perception.

    This is done, as you might know, in 3D cinema.

    Now, as you may know or not, most of what we perceive really happens in the brain and _not_ in the eyes... images in the eyes are upside-down, the eye must vibrate at 10Hz approx. to make things visible (a frog's eye won't do this, so it needs moving food like flies), objects are detected only in their edges and the brain does a quick flood-painting inside polygons... and all this is why babies must learn to see, also.

    All this is to mean that we perceive TV images based on our learned experience of seeing real 3D objects. If you were born with only one-eye vision, it only marvells me that you can still have an useful #D perception.

    Other than this, we're on the same boat, pal: it's 2D TV for us all, including you.

    1. Re:Here we go... by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      We were taught in flight school that the human eyes due to their being only a couple of inches apart could resolve images as 3D out to about 45 feet after that it was experience that let us estimate distances Don't know if its true but seems logical

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    2. Re:Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That's the reason... "parallax" angles gets near 90 or something like that.

      IIRC, mariners can use special devices with mirrors which enable them to artificially increase eye separation. I wonder if this gives a deeper sense of 3D.

      BTW, my figures were only an estimate from my own personal experience; your number (45 feet), if based on a larger sample -- i.e. not figured by the course's author ;-) -- should be a better reference.

  95. Re:Comment and mirror by ChemicalSpider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think, as it was mentioned earlier, this has amazing applications for the science and engineering communities. Ever try visualizing a three dimensional mathematical function in your head? Except for most simple functions, this can be near impossible for all but a very few gifted people.
    Chemists, Engineers, Physicists, etc, will all be able to see three dimensional functions with this new monitor without having to be exceptionally gifted at math. True, there are computer programs that can represent three dimensional functions extremely well on a computer screen... but they're still just a projection onto a 2D-surface.

    This will also help Chemists in viewing complicated chemical models of protein chains, or reactions, whatever else.

    I can think of a million reasons for having this around that maybe the average consumer won't have a use for, but the scientific community at large will have hundreds of uses for. And as the price comes down, then popularity among consumers, who may not have a driving need it for it, will increase.

    I bet it will catch on quickly in research institutions, engineering firms, and universities and slowly trickle into business and consumer applications (games on a large version of this would be awesome). Reminds me of computers.

  96. It must be one-sided! by AuraSeer · · Score: 1

    If it's a projection onto a spinning screen, you'll only be able to see it from one side. Stand on the side opposite the projector, and the screen will be between you and the image; the display will look blank.

    That's why the movies only show the display from a 90-degree angle, instead of travelling all the way around it.

    1. Re:It must be one-sided! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, unless, of course, you spin it really fast. Then p.o.v. takes over and you see things on any side. The guy holding the spinning card sees the same thing on his side!

  97. They are cool... by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

    ... and starting at $34,999 Im sure they will sell millions of them..

    --
    My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  98. Re:Comment and mirror by MbM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a reason why all the examples they show are wireframe.

    The device is just a spinning disc with lights, the disc is transparent so all you end up seeing are the lights apparently floating in a 3d plane. None of the points of light are going to be able to block eachother to display solid surfaces -- if you try to display a solid cube then each surface of the cube will be translucent and you'll end up seeing all sides of the cube atonce.

    Without being able to display solid surfaces you're pretty limited the applications for it.

    --
    - MbM
  99. What they left out.... by MoeMoe · · Score: 1

    Not quite ready for Hollywood, but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already...


    By that of course they mean viewing a pic of Pam Anderson from all sides...

    --
    Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
    A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
  100. 3 button by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    Granted I have some rage issues, but doesn't it just piss you off when you middle click on winshit in M$IE only to get some damn scrolling icon instead of pasting text!!!!!!!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:3 button by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit SHEENmaster:

      Granted I have some rage issues, but doesn't it just piss you off when you middle click on winshit in M$IE only to get some damn scrolling icon instead of pasting text!!!!!!!

      Or look like an idiot trying to paste something after just highlighting it. I'm waiting for some kid to helpfully explain ``^C to copy'' to me when I have to use the NT/MSIE terminals at the library...

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  101. how it works by zymano · · Score: 1
  102. OLEDs by sharph · · Score: 0, Troll

    I remember reading somthing on /. about OLEDs (organic light emitting diodes) and how sony or sharp or sombody is developing them. You could make this a lot smaller, put a lot of OLEDs on a clear surface, have it spin around a lot, and sell it for a lot cheaper.

    Unfortunatly it seems they have a patent. Another good technoligy prevented from being further developed.... sigh.

  103. Re:Comment and mirror by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    I think I saw this in byte around 92 or 93. Any one recall? My collection got thrown out during a move

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  104. Re:Comment and mirror by GnarlyNome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about Air Traffic Controllers they need 3D displays as much or more than anybody

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  105. Re:Comment and mirror by GnarlyNome · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Oh it's you again Grow up

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  106. The obvious? by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

    "Not quite ready for Hollywood, but the scientific and engineering communities have some obvious uses for it already..."

    Porn?

  107. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's finally going on sale, eh?

    *snore*

  108. Dennis Quaid ? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    Dennis Quaid in 3D? I knew there was a reason that I missed that flick.

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  109. Uhh, that is a real guy by ahecht · · Score: 1

    Uhh, that is a real guy behind the glass. The smoke is a projection superimposed on the scene using the "pepper's ghost" effect (which is also used to make him vanish at the end). Google it if you must.

    1. Re:Uhh, that is a real guy by Hast · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pretty interesting. I found a good description (and how to do it yourself) here.

  110. An Interesting Take On That For Movies by owlicks58 · · Score: 1

    I think a better option for "3D" movies is a project I saw some people working on once. They rigged a contraption that could film from 360 degrees at once... so you could watch a movie from the main shot, but at any time scroll to behind to see what's goin on behind you. It could be really cool if pulled off right. Imagine an interactive movie with surround sound where you'd hear a blast behind you and be able to scroll back there to see what the hell happened.

    --
    -Alex
    1. Re:An Interesting Take On That For Movies by swb · · Score: 1

      They had something like this at Epcot when I was there in the 1980s. A number of the country exhibits had these short movies that were filmed with a camera rig that had several cameras built around a common axis. It was pretty amusing, and the films generally took advantage of it (helicopter-borne shots, lots of movement). You got a real sense of vertigo on some shots and action.

      It would make for an interesting movie, especially an action one with a lot of movement and angles. Although too much swivelling in your chair would be distracting.

  111. Remind anyone of theSega Hologram Arcade Game? by Stubtify · · Score: 1
    Damn I remember how hard that game sucked but how dope is was that it was in "3d." Couldn't help but remember it when I saw these new monitors.

    here's a link in case you care to remember: Hologram Time Traveler Review

  112. Re:Comment and mirror by BESTouff · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, you could always do hidden surfaces removal .. err, wait

  113. Re:Very exciting, cyclops depth perception by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

    Does the curvature of the eye create depth perception? I've only thought of the concept briefly, but for some reason i get the idea that one-eyed folks get more depth perception than shadows/size(experience/memory) alone could provide, and of course that goes double for two eye folk.

  114. This object has been discussed before on ./ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This object has been discussed before on

    Slashdot
    .

  115. Deathstar... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    well its about damn time. How do you think i am supposed to shoot a torpedo down that 1 meter square hole without an acurate 3d model of the Deathstar's ventillation systems!!?

  116. Tetris by TMacPhail · · Score: 1

    That is the most expensive (US$39,995) hardware for playing tetris that I have ever seen. But, oh I wish I could try it out. I think I'll take a look at the software anyways...

  117. Whoah there by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    1000 hour projection lamp life... monitored by internal software... replacement lamps can only be obtained from Actuality Systems...

    http://www.actuality-systems.com/publications/Pers pecta_v1_1_Actuality.pdf
    page 15...
    >The expected projection lamp lifetime is 1000 hours of operation. The lamp operation time is monitored by the internal software and reported to the user on the display screen after power up.
    >For safety reasons, the display will cease to operate after the lamp has been in operation for 1000 hours. At this point, the user will need to replace the lamp.
    >A replacement lamp may only be obtained from Actuality Systems.

    1000 hours is a ridiculously short time. And what's to bet that anyone who develops a hack to extend or disable this "feature" will have the DMCA chucked at him/her. And what about third party bulbs??? Probably find the bulb format and connector is unique and protected by a patent...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  118. Re:Very exciting, cyclops depth perception by Hast · · Score: 1

    No there's no depth perception in one eye.

    However if you move your head around then you are creating "multiple views" of the same area. Your brain can transform this into one 3D model. (As can computers.) Doing this for moving objects is of course a lot harder, but the human brain is very good at stuff like this.

    Also at a higher level you have a lot of knowledge about objects. You know how big a car is supposed to be eg. So if you see a car then you can guess how far away it is by it's percived size.

    And as has been pointed out shadows provide a lot of information as well.

    Basically there is no way for one eye to directly percieve depth. But the brain is very good at making up for this.

  119. Gaming joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh - It'd be cool to see Populous playing on one of these.

  120. Actually it is 360-degree viewable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perspecta can actually be seen a full 360 degrees around, and about 270 sweeping through the vertical. The reason is that the screen material has really good (i.e. "nearly Lambertian") transmissive and reflective angle parameters.

    Someone here was wondering why the QuicktimeVR movies only go about 90 degrees. That's because it was difficult to take those shots... we had to set up a camera in many different locations. In reality, you can walk all the way around it.

  121. Old Video Game by OH-58aKiowa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wasn't there a 3d video game in the mid 80s that used a crystal ball for the monitor? It featured (I'm sure I'm not making this up) a cowboy who travels through time shooting things. It didn't require any skill, you just had to know when to jump, duck or shoot. The arcade I saw this in had it against a wall so you couldn't really appreciate the 3d quality. In the same vein as the 'naked Princess' it had a miniskirked girl who travelled boy orb and told you why the cowboy was travelling through time.

  122. Re:Comment and mirror by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll go one further: its damn helpfull for everyone who does 3d modeling. Engineers, gamedevelopers, biologists, whatever; if they've 3d-modeled on a 2d screen, they know that the 2d representation of a 3d object can be pretty distorive. Especially when you're looking at one angle for a while, especially while prototyping.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  123. Re:Comment and mirror by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh---did you look at the sugar molecule? Or any of the other pics? This thing runs on voxels...it does do solids.

    As for your explanation as to how this thing works...it's woefully lacking and even misleading. The thing displays a full slice every degree or so. It creates the illusion of solidness the exact same way moving pictures are faked: the slices change for every angle of rotation and with an rpm of 760, you get multiple slices per angle per minute.

    A quick view of the sugar molecule movie shows how this does work for solids.

    (btw, I saw the movies a couple of years back [2001 I beleive], so maybe they're not there anymore).

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  124. cost by Dizzo · · Score: 1

    Anyone look at the price? This thing is a steal at only: US$39,995 plus installation

    Forget about that new car...i'm getting a crystal ball.

  125. Varifocal and Rotating Mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another case of something old - being seen by some "youngster" here on /. and thinking it's new - without any research into the topic. The IKONAS Frame Buffer was being used to display 3D images on rotating mirrors - over 20 years ago at UNC - to visualize molecules... It also was used to drive varifocal mirrors, dual displays with cross polarized screens, single displays with rotating shutter glasses, dual miniscreens on glasses (in darkened room with LED tipped antenna so that head position could be determined from cameras around the room)... this is back when a 512x512x32 bit frame buffer was well over $100k !

    Nothing new here... it's the wheel being reinvented...

  126. Re:Comment and mirror by IPFreely · · Score: 3, Informative
    Um, No. Actually, you missed the point.

    Whether the image is solid, wireframe or just points, you will be able to see through it. The way you solve this in 3D projection to 2D surface is to use hidden surface removel methods to not draw the obscured surfaces, Z-buffer being the most common for 3D accelerated cards on PCs.

    In true 3D like this, you do not necessarily know what direction the user is viewing from, so you do not know which surfaces should be obscured. When it draws the backside, you WILL be able to see it through the front side. There is nothing solid about the front side, it's just a light hanging in space.

    If the viewing direction IS known in advance (as in a prepared movie) then you could use hidden surface removel methods to alter the displayed image and remove the backside, but just from that one angle. But in general, the spherical nature of this display makes no rules about the viewing angle.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  127. Just remember... by docbrown42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I remember first seeing something like this on Star Wars when I was kid ... now it's really happening. Life imitates art. ;)

    Let the Wookie win!

    --
    Ed Wedig
    Graphic design services
    docbrown.net
  128. Wonder who owns the patent... by onlyabill · · Score: 1

    IBM demonstrated a prototype of this at least 10 years ago (I remember reading the article in an old InfoWorld). I believe it was in the mid to late 80s. Theirs only showed wire frame objects and it used a red laser. It was about the size of a hat-box, 12-15 in. across and about 8 in. high. It was WAY COOL back then...

    --
    I have to use this cause I can't afford a real sig...
  129. this was posted on slashdot before... by Nobody's+Hero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    here almost a year ago Friday May 24, @02:44PM 2002

    --
    The Only Person Willing to be Me is ME!
  130. All we need is NewTokyo to be under attack by... by Mr.+Bubbles712 · · Score: 1

    Tetsumo, Keneda, and led by AKIRA.

    I know that it isn't how the movie goes, but I'm reaching for a comment about it.

    Great flashes of elvis

    --
    Alas, poor clippy, I loath him so.
  131. what's with your sig? by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    I love Autechre.

    Don't get the hate cure part....

    1. Re:what's with your sig? by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      it's an anagram..

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  132. server logs by martinflack · · Score: 1

    I'm going to get one so I can display /var/log/messages on it.

    Then when they ask me "hey Martin is the mail server back up?" I can reply with "I dunno, let me look into my crystal ball....."

    It's not that different from what I do now...

  133. How Much $$$ by legaleagll · · Score: 1

    OK, so how much does one of these bad boys cost??? I looked through their site and saw no information regarding that aspect of the project. They are for sale, but they don't give me enough information to know if I want to buy one.

    Well, I figure that if they are not saying then it must be more than I can pay...

  134. Re:Comment and mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is perfect for displaying Princess Leia asking for help like in star wars, accept totally nude.. Sweet I want one!!

    (oh and just incase it gets slashdotted, here's a mirror of what the thing looks like)


    Sycophantic Karma Whore! You sir, are a TOOL!

  135. I think mine's broke... by bluethundr · · Score: 3, Funny



    ...because I can't see what the heck's going on in in Minas Morgul these days. My connection to Orthanc seems to be down too...

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  136. Re:Very exciting, cyclops depth perception by Midajo · · Score: 0

    It's binocular vision (having two working eyes) that allows us* to perceive depth, in much the same way that having two ears allows us* to enjoy sterophonic sound, locate the source of a sound, etc.

    One advantage to having just one working eye is that you never "see double" when you lose your focus.

    *well, most of us

  137. COOL!!! by ddimas · · Score: 1

    Thi is the coolest thing I have seen in years! And it runs on Linux!!!!

  138. THey can. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    THeres one in CT that does this, rotates like once every 10 minutes. IM afraid i cant rememeber the name of it.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  139. 3d display tech: lasers+ doped flouride glass by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I saw that woman with the rare-earth doped flouride glass at SIGGRAPH '97 or so. Just looked her up on google and found a name and familiar picture: Dr. Elizabeth Downing. Further googling turned a website for her company, 3DTL.

    There was a flurry of info about it in 1997 and not nearly as much since then. Did it go private or did it fold? Further googling describes 3DTL getting a $1.9 million NIST grant in late 1998, and a $340k grant in 1999. Not much visible info since then; I supose you could call the phone number on their website to find out more. I recall one key problem being the small size of the laser-addressable cube. There are probably problems aligning lasers as you scale up in size, but this is speculating based on 5-year old memories.

    I ran across a nice survey paper motivated by the problems with rotating displays that discusses a lot of the static volumetric displays including Dr. Downing's.

    --LP

  140. Yours Today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yours Today For Only $39,995!

  141. Complaint by sharph · · Score: 1

    it seems some newbie-moderator has modded a perfectly legit post down. its here I just want my voice to be heard

  142. Designers + Engineers by Knacklappen · · Score: 1

    Sure, but in order to be of any real use, the globe needs to be much bigger. Today, designer/engineers are using at least 21" screens and resolutions of well above 1280x1024. You are of course right about the misleading effect of 2D views, but any experienced person will rotate the model they are working on once in a while, just in order to let the brain get a refresh on how the model looks in 3D. Try it yourself: You just need to rotate the model about 10 degrees in each direction.

    --


    Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)