3D Monitor

3-D eh? by Agent+Green · 2004-08-10 06:11 · Score: 4, Funny

How is this going to work with my one good eye?

--
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us

Re:3-D eh? by Kenja · 2004-08-10 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

"How is this going to work with my one good eye?"
Well, you move your head from side to side sixty times a second to see the 3D image.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:3-D eh? by scherbi · 2004-08-10 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously, I *have* only one functional eye. The brain uses, IIRC, about 6 different methods to sense 3-D, and only about half of them require two eyes. Having lost vision in my left eye at the age of ten,I believe my brain did some significant compensation to rely on the available methods. This system will not work for me, as it uses only one of the methods, one that requires two eyes.

Could a display be developed that exploited only non-two-eye-3d-perception methods?
Re:3-D eh? by Steve+Franklin · 2004-08-10 07:16 · Score: 2, Funny

How do you think us stutterers feel about the coming verbal computer interface?

--
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Re:3-D eh? by Ziviyr · 2004-08-10 07:57 · Score: 1

Your monitor is already 3-D then? Cool!

--

Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Re:3-D eh? by Carnildo · 2004-08-10 08:00 · Score: 1

As I understand it, standard 2D displays of 3D scenes already make use of all of the non-stereo 3D perception methods.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Re:3-D eh? by sheppos · 2004-08-10 09:48 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about the seriousness of this post, but personally I only have good vision in my left eye - it doesn't stop me driving or doing anything else, such as playing doom3 but I (pun intended) hope these things don't take off. Obviously I'm in a huge minority and am not the target for these things.... still, i'd hate to be left behind and stuck with a screen reader or similar....
Re:3-D eh? by AxelBoldt · 2004-08-10 11:47 · Score: 1

As I understand it, standard 2D displays of 3D scenes already make use of all of the non-stereo 3D perception methods.
No. In the real world, you can figure out how far something is away by paying attention to how much you have to bend your eye's lens to see the thing in focus. You need only one eye to do that. On a 2D display it won't work. The other one-eyed technique that works in the real world but not on 2D displays is to move your head slightly.
A possible monitor that supports all modes of 3D detection would work like this: rather than have a raster of pixels, each sending the same light in all directions, you need a raster of "sheaves" of lightrays. For each point of the display and each direction, the graphics card would determine the color of the corresponding lightray. Such a monitor would be indistinguishable from a window.

Notebook Version by Klar · 2004-08-10 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is this the same technology that has been around on Sharp 3D Notebook LCD's since last year and just brought to the desktop market, or are there any hardware advances?

--
Boxing Equipment Reviews

Re:Notebook Version by chaosmage42 · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative

i believe this is the same. the difference is that sharp didnt build the whole computer, this has to work off your videocard, be compatible with your system.

--

done
Re:Notebook Version by DarthStrydre · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

While I have not seen one of these monitors operational, it sounds like the technology is something thats been around for quite awhile, albeit in cheap children's toys and advertisements. The toy images are non-holographic where there is what looks like a linear fresnel lens adhered to a specially printed paper. These are able to give multiple images if you move your head, and some are intended to simulate 3D, depending on the shape of the lensing and printing on the paper.

If this is the case, then the sweet spot for these monitors may be quite limited to a certain distance, and angle, but this does not limit the coolness factor.

This is just conjecture, however, based on their claim of using parallax.
Re:Notebook Version by feyhunde · 2004-08-10 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Yep. And it is crap.
I used one and you must keep you head at a very certain position from the screen for it to work. Not to mention the stereo drivers for the Nvidia 6800 don't work with it. Or that the frame rate takes a hit in 3-D mode.
Want a real one? Planar Systems has a stereo system that does require polarized glasses, but works despite moving your head and at full speed. They have a machine at Siggraph playing UT 2004 right now. You read more at
http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Technology/index. html

--
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Re:Notebook Version by itwerx · 2004-08-10 06:35 · Score: 1

Planar Systems has a stereo system... You read more at http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Technology/index. html

Sounds nice but the link goes to a page touting their tech but which has no reference to 3D displays!
Grr, mumble, mumble...
Anybody got a more useful link?
Re:Notebook Version by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:46 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Innovation/docs/d s-planar-stereo-mirror.pdf Here is the PDF has info on it.
Re:Notebook Version by Stripe7 · 2004-08-10 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have the DTI3D-2018XLQ monitor. It works by creating zones of view. You keep your head placed so that each eye is in a different zone. As a result you see a different image with each eye and get a 3D effect. You cannot read fine text id 3D mode. The only game I had where I could read the text was the Star Wars Racer game. First time I played Never Winter Nights with the monitor I got killed by fire giants in a forest glade because I was too busy admiring the view.
this is a link to how the technology works.
http://www.dti3d.com/About/dti_technology.htm
Re:Notebook Version by chrispl · 2004-08-10 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

I have seen the new screens and the Sharp 3D laptop last year. The new ones seem to improve the 3D effect by having the parallax lenses arranged in a "Chessboard" configuration over each pixel instead of just vertical lines. The 3D effect is undeniably striking but still kind of fuzzy. It is a little like viewing the image through a screen door. The "sweet spot" seems a bit better but is still small.

On another note when are we going to stop hearing about these 3D screens like they are new? This is the 3rd front page story I have seen on it.

--
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
Re:Notebook Version by itwerx · 2004-08-10 08:30 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link! Mod parent up!
That's a delightfully elegant solution to the problems discussed, (albeit funky looking).
Also looks pretty easily duplicated at home with some generic LCD monitors, geared axles and a hacked video driver. Sweet! :)
Re:Notebook Version by qbwiz · 2004-08-10 10:12 · Score: 1

Looks like you'd need differently-polarized LCD monitors-one horizontally, and one vertically. You could place the monitors themselves differently - horizontally and vertically - but that would reduce the usable screen space.

--
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Re:Notebook Version by AxelBoldt · 2004-08-10 11:59 · Score: 1

Planar Systems has a stereo system that does require polarized glasses
How stupid is that? A monitor that sends out two polarized signals, and a pair of glasses that separate the two signals? Why not simply do away with the monitor and use a 3d headset that feeds different images to the different eyes. The headset also has a motion sensor, so you can turn your head all the way, not just 10 degrees.
Re:Notebook Version by Anonymous+Writer · 2004-08-10 20:44 · Score: 1

The toy images are non-holographic where there is what looks like a linear fresnel lens adhered to a specially printed paper. These are able to give multiple images if you move your head, and some are intended to simulate 3D, depending on the shape of the lensing and printing on the paper.

They are called Lenticular prints. They can either be used to portray 3d images, or 2D images that move when you shift positions. These guys do large format prints using that technology. They have even done work for Apple. They can make billboards by piecing together larger prints.

Gamers? by Gr33nNight · 2004-08-10 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Gamers, what about reviewers of *ahem* adult entertainment material?

Any pictures of it? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2004-08-10 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I want to see the 3D in action.

--

Technoli

Re:Any pictures of it? by darth_MALL · 2004-08-10 06:14 · Score: 1, Redundant

Wouldn't you need a 3-d display to actually see it in action? :)
Re:Any pictures of it? by chaosmage42 · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 1

you cant see it in a picture because it works by delivering different images to each eye.

--

done
Re:Any pictures of it? by darth_MALL · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 1

Sorry, my humor detector is busted today. Is it still Monday?
Re:Any pictures of it? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2004-08-10 06:22 · Score: 1

No, you're fine. chaosmage42 needs to have his humor recognition settings adjusted though.

--

Technoli
Re:Any pictures of it? by chaosmage42 · 2004-08-10 06:25 · Score: 1

yea, sorry, im tired, it's monday like darth said

--

done
Re:Any pictures of it? by tssm0n0 · 2004-08-10 06:27 · Score: 1

you cant see it in a picture because it works by delivering different images to each eye.

So what you're saying is that we'd need to see TWO pictures of it?
Re:Any pictures of it? by chaosmage42 · 2004-08-10 06:29 · Score: 1

well, yes, but i tried that, and ended up crosseyed for a few minutes.

--

done
Re:Any pictures of it? by FrostedWheat · 2004-08-10 06:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Here ya go, from Sharp's website.

I dunno about you, but I'm convinced!
Re:Any pictures of it? by lucabrasi999 · 2004-08-10 06:45 · Score: 1

Sorry, my humor detector is busted today.
That's easy to fix. Reboot it.
Re:Any pictures of it? by gfxguy · 2004-08-10 07:24 · Score: 1

You work for MS tech support, too?

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Any pictures of it? by good-n-nappy · 2004-08-10 07:38 · Score: 1

That reminds me of those stupid Olympics commercials where they advertise the high definition broadcast. Why do I need a new TV and a special broadcast, I can see the high definition just fine on my regular TV?

--
Never underestimate the power of fiber.
Re:Any pictures of it? by errxn · 2004-08-10 09:19 · Score: 1

Or even better than that, I love it when they run commercials for HDTV-enabled sets on regular TV and show the picture.

I don't know about you, but the HD picture on that set on my TV screen sure doesn't look any better than my regular TV!

--
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Re:Any pictures of it? by Jesus_666 · 2004-08-10 10:24 · Score: 1

Don't let Microsoft see this! If they find out how to make their ads as convincing as that image Linux is toast!

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)

what's the difference? by GFXsoftUsr · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

How does this compare to exsisting autostereographic monitors? Is producing the devise cheaply the hurdle or is it software that will push it?

Just like any innovative technology by doombob · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The first thing it will be used for is the pornography industry.

Re:Just like any innovative technology by Patersmith · 2004-08-10 06:26 · Score: 1

hmmmm...I wonder if that will be true when the long-sought-after Smell-o-Vision comes to fruition.
Re:Just like any innovative technology by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:35 · Score: 1, Funny

You can do that now - put a fish under the keyboard.
Re:Just like any innovative technology by Neduz · 2004-08-10 07:19 · Score: 1

AFAIK most 3D displaying technologies are used in design tasks such as car design. Buying such screen just to see naked women on pop up your screen sound a little sad to me.

--
This is one lame signature, please read the message above instead.
Re:Just like any innovative technology by DrCash · 2004-08-10 07:23 · Score: 1

3-D visualization has been used in a lot more areas than porn for several years. It's widely used in the the biological, chemical and drug design industries, and in a myriad of other scientific and engineering functions as well. It's about time the technology comes up to speed for allowing us to upgrade to LCD panel displays (versus those old CRTs that we only kept around for the 3-D).

Fourth post plus by daquake · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 1

Anyone look at one of these displays yet? Any comments or ratings on its usefulness/ effectiveness?

--
Be True, Unbeliever

Re:Fourth post plus by iocat · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

I saw it at ComicCon! Or maybe it was E3. But I think it was ComicCon. Anyway, it was kind of nifty, but you had to be right in front of it for it to work well. I have pretty shitty depth perception to begin with (although I can see those Magic Eye things great... go figure), but it was neat. It was hard to imaging a great application though, because it felt like looking at one of those little lenticular things, and it was kind of an effort for me to keep the 3D in view. The monitors (a laptop and a PC monitor) were just showing stills, not moving images, so I can't evaluate that, and also they were on a table and I was standing, so I was not at all at an optimum viewing angle (I had to crouch down, which is not a super sustainable posture at which to evaluate a monitor).

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

Nothing new by wyldeone · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 2

This isn't anything new. It's been around for quite awhile in fact, being made by the X3D coporation.

--
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.

It's about time!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 5, Funny

The world has been deprived of 3d goatse for too long.

Re:It's about time!! by TerminalInsanity · 2004-08-10 06:16 · Score: 1

correct! so donate to the goatse guy and help him develop and buy a 3d camera

Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Strong+Arm+Coat · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Leela: "Hold still: I don't have good depth perception!"

Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by stratjakt · 2004-08-10 06:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Fry and Leela see the 3D Movie on the robot planet.

Fry: The 3D is amazing..

Leela shifts the glasses over her eye from red to blue and back again..

Leela: Mine's not working

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 06:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Funny, yes, but true for me. I was cross-eyed at birth, and in the course of my surgeries, I lost stereoscopic vision. I have vision in both of my eyes, but it isn't in 3d. All of my 3D vision is from learned depth cues and unconscious motions.
The upside, of course, is that Doom, Half-Life, and any other FPS is more fun for me.

Holograms are effectively 3d for me - I can see the change when I move my head. But the Magic Eye posters and anything with red-blue glasses doesn't work at all.

So I always keep a watch out for these 3D monitors and any new 3D tech to see if it'll work for me - I'd love to see something that actually did change depending on what angle you viewed it.
It doesn't look like this one will do the trick - it still depends on stereoscopic effects.

Oh - neat party trick I gained from this, though, is that I can change my dominant eye at will. Quite fun - and useful, since I'm nearsighted in only one eye.

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh - neat party trick I gained from this, though, is that I can change my dominant eye at will.

Sounds like your parties are a real blast!
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by dustman · 2004-08-10 07:01 · Score: 1

What do you mean, "you can change your dominant eye at will"...

Are you saying you can move your eyes independently of each other?

I always wanted to be able to do that...
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by shirai · 2004-08-10 07:10 · Score: 1

What would you say to a game of Tennis?

Sorry, I couldn't help it. One of my old friends had something similar and had a helluva time figuring out where the ball was.

--
Sunny
Be my Friend
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by rnelsonee · 2004-08-10 07:21 · Score: 1

I was born cross-eyed as well. From what my eye doctor told me when I was younger, my brain supposedly stopped using one of my eyes to avoid seeing double vision, and since then the eye has gone to 20/300 due to non-use. So yeah, those red-blue 3D things do nothing for me. It's also why I was never great at games like tennis or baseball (and now, unfortunately, golf, since I lose eye contact with the ball during my swing). But same as you, my brain has gotten better at calculating depth perception, so given a real-life 2D interface, I'm good and discerning where objects are.
Just thought I'd share. OH, and at least you have both your eyes - if my good one gets poked, I'm f-ed for life...
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Pig+Hogger · 2004-08-10 07:23 · Score: 1

I was cross-eyed at birth, and in the course of my surgeries, I lost stereoscopic vision. I have vision in both of my eyes, but it isn't in 3d.
Do you remember 3D vision?
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by NecrosisLabs · 2004-08-10 07:23 · Score: 1

I'm in an almost identical situation to the person you responded too. Almost any game invloving hurtling spheroids is a nightmare. Through school I thought my name what "Whiff". I always find it fascinating when I get a glimpse of binocular 3-d. There is a painting by Constance Troyon at the Art Institute of Chicago which manages to do it, and I am hypnotized by the painting every time I see it (you can see it here, it's called the Marsh..)
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by DaLiNKz · 2004-08-10 07:28 · Score: 1

I aswell was born with eye problems. Young my eye decided to curve inward, causing me to use my left eye over my right eye. Even with surgery and the attempt to teach my brain to use my right eye over the left one a bit, it in the end failed. I have 20/20 in that eye, and 20/15 in my left eye. It really does suck to lack depth perception (or should I say, lack the ability to percieve depth like a normal-eyed person). Maybe it is why I like computers, since it doesn't take much depth to use a 2d interface..

Anyone know if there is a way we can teach our brains how to do it properly? My brain does use my right eye slightly, as if i'm tracking something without looking at it, my brain switches to the other eye when it moves out of my left eyes view without a hitch. There must be something.. any links?

--
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by peculiarmethod · 2004-08-10 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

nope. he means he can change his brains focus between the two eyes. camera 1, camera 2. i can do the same thing, and i also have one near sighted eye. interestingly enough, i also see differnt hues of colors between the two eyes, so when i pick a different eye to focus on, i get slightly redder purples, or greener blues, etc. strange how cones and rods work.

pm

--
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by MindStalker · 2004-08-10 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative

No its just that your vision generally has one ey the is dominant. Try putting your finger infront of you, close one eye. Your view of your finger may move significantly, or the blurry second finger may just go away. The eye that doesn't see the finger move is your dominant eye, and the other one is less dominant and is more there for depth perception.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by rainman_bc · 2004-08-10 07:46 · Score: 1

I have the same condition. I lost my stereoscopic vision too. I failed all the depth tests when getting my drivers license. Like you, I use depth cues and and unconcious stuff. It sucks that you can't do some stuff like fly a plane or whatever.

Thing is, I just went to Disneyland recently, and the 3d technology has improved and I can see it now for some reason. The red / blue crap doesn't work, and the 3d posters don't either, but I can now see 3d in movies like A bug's life (IMHO an awesome 3d experience). I never used to be able to see those either....

When my opthalmologist asks me to touch the 3d insect, my finger still goes right to the book every time.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by peragrin · 2004-08-10 08:05 · Score: 1

I have the same probelm, though not as severe. Myleft is massivelly dommiant, but I still only need slight corrective glasses.

What's really cool though is my periphial vision is awesome. if something moves(even shades of black) I react to it. I have learned to let my body react to certian stimuli.

Example, I was at the driving range the other day. I am still new so I was slowing my swing down to gain practice. I Sliced the golf Ball nearly 85 degrees It bounced off of a wooden post arced up and over where my shoulder was. I caught the whole flight stepped back and caught the ball in mid flight. I can react that fast by letting my eye(s) do the hard work.

Now I have another unique probelm when playing sports. I am left eye dommiant, while right handed. Making Baseball a royal pain.

One other side effect, in tense quick situations I have discovered I only use one Eye leading to jerky motion of everything. I guess processing two different eyes into 3D takes extra brain power that I don't have for that instance??? where can i install some more cache??

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Enigma_Man · 2004-08-10 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I get the slightly different color effect too. Mine are red-left, and green-right (very slight tinting for either eye). I also have developed the skills to switch which eye is dominant at the moment but I never use it (both my eyes see clearly equally well). I always notice it when my brain auto-switches the dominant eye though, everything will either red or green shift :D

Learn something every day :)

-Jesse

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:14 · Score: 1

Yeah - I get the same thing, especially after driving. One of my eyes has a better blue response than the other... it was a little disturbing at first, before I realized what was up.

I don't have prescription sunglasses, so I just drive with regular sunglasses - unlike when I'm wearing corrective lenses, I have to consciously switch to my left eye when looking up at the rearview mirror. Otherwise, by default, I'll look up there with my nearsighted (right) eye, because it's closer. :)

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:16 · Score: 1

Yep - but my brain learned to just put the two images next to each other, instead of overlaying them.

So my vision looks kinda like the binoculars view they use on TV:

CO

where (in the pictured case) the O is my dominant right eye, and the C is just what the left eye adds on.

It's exactly how you see, except there's no 3D overlap.

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by dustman · 2004-08-10 08:22 · Score: 1

OK.

How do you use the ability to switch dominant eyes as a party trick?
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:28 · Score: 1

Nope - I had my first surgery when I was 15 months or so, and another when I was 5 or 6.
Though I do still have the plush Garfield they gave me - the doctor put a matching eye patch on him to make me feel better. :)

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by rnelsonee · 2004-08-10 08:31 · Score: 1

Hmm... I took flying lessons without a problem (same problem, see my previous post)... but I never got my license. I suppose I wouldn't have gotten it? I assume you've already checked this stuff out, but if not, try to make sure you're definitely not allowed to fly recreationally, otherwise you might be missing an opportunity. I mean, you can't be a fighter pilot or anything (I already checked that one out since I grew up by the Naval Acadamy and wanted to go there for college).
And yeah, some 3D IMAX films kind-of work for me. It's not perfect, and usually give me a headache, but it looks more real than a standard 2D interface.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:31 · Score: 1

Fascinating - I may have to go sometime. I wonder if that would work for me.
Any idea what the new tech is?

I haven't been to the opthamologist for about 4 years now... there's been no need. I do need new glasses, though - that's going to be the main reason I end up there.

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:35 · Score: 1

Well, it's not necessarily a good party trick, just neat (especially to me). :)

It weirds people out a bit, because my eyes shift slightly, left-to-right, or right-to-left.
Also, I think my focus changes slightly - the eye that had been looking straight at you is now looking kinda "through" you.

--
0x0D 0x0A
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by rainman_bc · 2004-08-10 08:41 · Score: 1

No clue if it's new tech honestly, i just assumed.

However, I think my good eye is just catching up to my bad one, and I'm slowly starting to get it back lol...

It sounds stupid to most people, but for me, someone who had never been able to see a 3d movie before, it definately scored marks in the ultra-coolness factor!

That was the best one for my eyes. The muppetvision didn't work so well - I was at the back. Saw a couple things, but no where near as good as bug's life. We sat in the second row. It could have been positioning, or whatever too... Dunno, but it was the first time in my life I could see a 3d image.

Usually, on a driving test you get the four circles and need to say which one is closest. I could see one that was offset a bit for a second, and that was about it.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by rainman_bc · 2004-08-10 08:43 · Score: 1

It was the commercial licnese that was out of the question actually. That's what I really want to get.

I might be able to do recreational.

Yeah, I wanted to be a fighter pilot too. Happened about the time I saw Top Gun and Iron Eagle :)

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Enigma_Man · 2004-08-10 08:50 · Score: 1

Now that I think about it, I'll bet the developed ability to switch the dominant eye is based on having slightly different vision in each eye (whether it be direction, color, or focus). Visual feedback is perfect for learning stupid human tricks like this.

-Jesse

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Geoff-with-a-G · 2004-08-10 09:08 · Score: 1

That's odd, my first thought was of a Futurama reference too, but I came up with:

Zoidberg: They said I probably shouldn't be a surgeon

Professor: The poo-poo'ed my electric-frankfurter!

Leela: They said I probably shouldn't fly, with just one eye

Bender: I am Bender, please insert girder.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Jagaast · 2004-08-10 09:44 · Score: 1

This is crazy fascinating.. I never realized about the dominant eye, which I do have, kind of.. Is there any large tangible benefit I can now extract from this knowledge?
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by sheppos · 2004-08-10 09:53 · Score: 1

Camera 1 Camera 2 Camera 3... Oh Yeah!
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by peculiarmethod · 2004-08-10 09:55 · Score: 1

not unless you have lots of secrets you need to encrypt into visual images. and then, anyone else who see's more reds or greens or whatever, could read it. but you would encrypt it by placing a bunch of colored dots, mixed red and green, maybe throw some black in there.. and put the dominant color for you into the shapes of letters, making words.. but not connecting them. Anyone with 'regular vision' will just see a mess of colored dots everywhere.. where-as you will see the patterns which make up the words, encrypting what info you'd like to keep secret. from the normal people.

hmm.. there ya go.. fun extraction of knowledge, but rather useless.

oh, and if anyone wants to test out whether they have this skill.. simply go outside during a clear day, look up at the sky while on your back.. focus on a field of blue sky.. and switch closing eyes.. paying close attention to the colors. if you have this genetic or learned trait, you will notice.. trust me. :)

pm

--
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by sqrt(2) · 2004-08-10 10:04 · Score: 1

That's episode 2ACV11 - How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back. I loved that musical number they did at the end.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Jesus_666 · 2004-08-10 10:17 · Score: 1

I have the color-shift too, but I can't tell which eye is dominant - if I look with both eyes I get different colors than with either the left or the right eye. Also, every time I tried to determine my dominant eye I ended up finding out that my nose's bridge is my dominant eye.
OTOH my perception is quite different from the norm, due to my extreme shortsightedness, which might be why the tricks you use to find out which eye is dominant don't work. But at least I get funky red-blue halos around everything in high-brightness conditions.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by ballpoint · 2004-08-10 10:21 · Score: 1

Same here. One of my eyes has an ever so slightly yellower tint.

As to choosing the dominant eye, I can switch at will between both eyes, and I do this even automatically when reading a wide 23" monitor from left to right. Yet I have perfect 3D vision, and have no trouble looking cross-eyed at side by side 3D (near) or anaglyphs (far).

I'm still trying to move my eyes independently. So far I can rotate one eye slightly around the Z-axis, giving two images that are not offset, but rotated relatively to each other.

The funny thing is that when I try to explain all this to others (laymen...), they just stare back. They say that if they just cross their eyes they immediately get a headache. Pussies.

--
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by skraps · 2004-08-10 11:39 · Score: 1

I'm still trying to move my eyes independently.
Try alternating between cross-eyed and looking to the far left or far right. As you make the transition between those two states, you can start to get a feel for independent movement. For example, you can easily have one eye looking forward while the other looks at your nose.
That's about the closest I have come to it.. any other tricks would be interesting to hear about.

--
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by Sondek · 2004-08-10 11:44 · Score: 2, Informative

This probably is not a function of rods and cones. It might be caused by the chromatic aberation of your eye. Like a prism blue light is bent more than red light by the eye. Because of this the optimal power for your lens different for different color light. And since the eyes have different refractive powers it causes each eye to have a different color with a better focus.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by ballpoint · 2004-08-10 12:11 · Score: 1

That's how I tried too. Scares the hell out of kids, but it hasn't helped my experiments. Another approach is in order, but I haven't found out which - yet. I am 100% sure it IS possible.

--
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by heikiki · 2004-08-10 12:43 · Score: 1

I also see different hues of colour between eyes. When I first noticed this, it raised many question of a philosophical / ontological nature: it appears I cannot trust my own eyes to preceive reality; anyone else may see everything entirely different than I do (your green may be my red); and this may well extend beyond colours, to ANY sensory perception. And as I think we construct reality from our sensory input, this means we cannot be sure of anything; communication is illusionary or at best coincidental; and 2 + 2 /= 4.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by cheese_wallet · 2004-08-10 15:16 · Score: 2, Funny

"The funny thing is that when I try to explain all this to others (laymen...), they just stare back."

That could be because you are so far behind the curve on self exploration that they just have no response. The whole eye crossing thing and independent eye movement is passe. The big thing now is independent nostril flaring.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by galen · 2004-08-10 15:53 · Score: 1

Indeed. For additional digression of memory/perception from reality check out the September 1997 issue of Scientific American. It contains an article about false memories. I think that's the article I'm remembering, but I can't be sure. It's the most promising in my quick search results.

I'm also reminded of the Hindu concept of an illusory reality, the veils of Maya.

In any case, it's an interesting puzzle to tumble over in one's head.

~~Galen~~
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by mooniejohnson · 2004-08-10 17:25 · Score: 1

Oddly enough, same thing with me. I'm legally blind in one eye, and not in the other. So I change my dominant eye quite often to get a better view of things. Unfortunately, it's disquieting to people to see my eyes move around like they do when I'm focusing on someone's face.

--

Elmo knows where you live!
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by lachlan76 · 2004-08-10 21:22 · Score: 1

Interesting, but for me it moves with both eyes.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by MindStalker · 2004-08-11 00:36 · Score: 1

Well yea, but which one moves less.
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by lachlan76 · 2004-08-11 00:42 · Score: 1

Left. I'm really disappointed, because I wanted the right eye to win ;)
Re:Obligatory Futurama reference ... by OrangeTrafficCone · 2004-08-11 02:13 · Score: 1

My wife is in a similar boat, but hers is such that her eyes focus out of phase from each other. 3-D movie glasses are useless, as her mind gets the red, then the blue, then the red, et cetera, and is unable to combine to two images into simulated 3-D. Burned $8 at the theater for Spy Kids 3-D (well, it was more like $24 plus snacks, 'cause the movie sucked).

Another stupid IE site... by ackthpt · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought at first I'd need the 3D monitor to view the article correctly. In Firebird the text is all down the right side, like a margin.

That aside. It would have been nice to see even a 2D picture of this monitor at work.

I suppose Id will have to release a special Doom 3D for those with l33t enough bank balances to afford one. Talk about getting into the game...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Nice . . but no. by OverlordQ · 2004-08-10 06:13 · Score: 5, Informative

. . . but this could be the gamers new dream toy.

I think you mean wet dream. But hey, if you wanna drop $1500 on a LCD (yay dead pixels) monitor so you can 'be better at video games', kudos to you.

Oh btw, it has a 25ms response time, not quite high-end gaming material.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.

Re:Nice . . but no. by Ark42 · 2004-08-10 06:18 · Score: 1

Not to mention 25ms response time (thats equal to 40Hz refresh, or 40 fps max)
Its like having mouse trails enabled in windows, only its permanently enabled in hardware, and for everything that moves, not just the mouse!

--
Morphing Software
Re:Nice . . but no. by gphinch · 2004-08-10 06:41 · Score: 1

hey i dropped $2000 on a display and it doesn't have any dead pixels. Tho I'm no better at video games, I can run Doom 3 at 1920x1200 at 3 fps!

--
in bed.
Re:Nice . . but no. by freakmn · 2004-08-10 07:15 · Score: 1

Well, if you drop 20 $100 bills, it won't even dent it, but I bet it would have a lot of dead pixels if you dropped $2000 in pennies on it.

Let's see, a penny weighs ~2.5 grams * 20000 = 50000 grams, converted by google to 110.231131 pounds. Yeah, that would do a bit of damage!

--
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
Re:Nice . . but no. by Jesus_666 · 2004-08-10 10:31 · Score: 1

hey i dropped $2000 on a display and it doesn't have any dead pixels. Tho I'm no better at video games, I can run Doom 3 at 1920x1200 at 3 fps!

So your new display has a response time of 333.33 ms?

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Nice . . but no. by freakmn · 2004-08-10 10:39 · Score: 1

A slight math error... $2000 is 200000 pennies, totalling 1102 lbs. Strangely enough, $1 of pennies is 0.551155655 pounds (weight), and $1 US is worth 0.54366 British Pound, nearly an even exchange rate.

--
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.

Article short on detail... spec sheet here by Dave21212 · 2004-08-10 06:14 · Score: 5, Informative

The article was a bit short on detail... the spec sheet is here (thanks Google)

It's 15", 1024x768

--
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin

Re:Article short on detail... spec sheet here by eomnimedia · 2004-08-10 06:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, it's 1024x768x38DD

Good news for the adult industry by Amberlock · 2004-08-10 06:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Talk about really getting into the game. Some people already have enough problems with reality.

eye strain by sosuke · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 1

is there any idea if this could cause headaches and such? or what about what software it would be compatible with?

Re:eye strain by lucabrasi999 · 2004-08-10 06:33 · Score: 1

what software it would be compatible with?
Well, I hear it works great with SAP. Having your debits and credits appear in 3D would really be a great help all those Enron-types that work in your accounting office.

Re:Still need two good eyes? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Not as much as it sucks to be blind in two eyes.. Or hell, to not be blind at all, and have to get 3D fat porn popup ads on one of these monitors.. eek!

Bundle from HELL! by felonious · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 1

$1499 street price for a 15"....on that note I'll take 2 or 3. I know new tech is more expensive but how many units can you realistically expect to sell at that price?

I'm thinking it could cause some sort of "brain fart" and Sharp will be sued out of existence.

What would be really cool is if they bundled this with the tooth shaped keyboard from one of yesterday's stories. Better yet throw the Phantom console into the bundle to make it triple-craptastic:)

--
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.

Re:Bundle from HELL! by Lehk228 · 2004-08-10 06:22 · Score: 1

except the #D monitor and the tooth keyboard actually exist

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Bundle from HELL! by dasmegabyte · 2004-08-10 06:35 · Score: 1

but how many units can you realistically expect to sell at that price?

My guess is they'll sell out of the initial run of a few thousand units very quickly. Then they'll lower the price for the next run.

It's called "economics." There's a side called supply, and a side called demand. If the demand at a certain price level -- say, $1499 -- is high enough to sell a significant amount of the supply, you'd be a fool to price it any cheaper. If the demand is insufficient, well you can always lower the price later.

I'm fairly sure you can't sue companies for selling things for what people are willing to pay.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Bundle from HELL! by yjchung · 2004-08-10 06:54 · Score: 1

Like the article says, its aimed at professional markets such as medical fields. I know plenty of OBs who'd jump at this to add to their 4D ultrasound machine because it'll definitely bring them more patients who are wanting to see their babies in 3d. Besides, ever wonder why your medical bills are so high?
Re:Bundle from HELL! by Jesus_666 · 2004-08-10 10:34 · Score: 1

Besides, ever wonder why your medical bills are so high?

Because the doc needs a new putter?

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Bundle from HELL! by suckmysav · 2004-08-10 14:57 · Score: 1

"The price will trickle down to us consumer types. This is the future of LCD."

Exactly. I had the same argument with a pimply-faced hi-fi shop assistant about 5 years back regarding Plasma Screens. The store had it's first plasma screen on display with a highlyu exciting price tag that said "Only $20,000!" (thats Australian dollars BTW). I commented to the youth regarding my expectation that plasma screens should be in the affordable price range in a bout 5 years. "Oh no" he opined "They will always be this expensive. He went on to explain that 'they' had been making Plasmas for years and years already for use in TV studios and such and that they hadn't gotten any cheaper ergo he claimed that this 'trend' (as it were) would remain unchanged as the units were introduced into consumer land.

Today, an equivalent or better plasma unit can be found for as little as $3,000.

--
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

as demoed by andr0meda · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 3, Informative

on Siggraph2003, and here

--
With great power comes great electricity bills.

Once More Alice? by grunt107 · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 1

How would this play with the Looking Glass project?

Could the restoring panes come flying out at the user?

Would it help with depth of image recognition?

Sun might wanna call up Sharp...

What a day! by knix · 2004-08-10 06:15 · Score: 4, Funny

First you can order your 3D keyboard, and now you can buy a 3D monitor. Along with the instructions on how to make a 3D mouse that were posted a few weeks ago, you could have a pretty interesting setup. All you might need is some sort of 3D printer, like one of those prototyping machines.

Re:What a day! by noidentity · 2004-08-10 06:58 · Score: 2, Funny

First you can order your 3D keyboard, and now you can buy a 3D monitor. Along with the instructions on how to make a 3D mouse that were posted a few weeks ago, you could have a pretty interesting setup. All you might need is some sort of 3D printer, like one of those prototyping machines.

Wow, this "3D" stuff is really catching on. Next thing you know, they'll be making "3D" toothbrushes and maybe even vehicles! I just hope they don't go to far.
Re:What a day! by gfxguy · 2004-08-10 07:30 · Score: 1

I have all of those things... in fact, all of my physical posessions exist in 3D... my keyboard, mouse, and monitor already have height, depth, and width... I don't understand what all the kerfufle is about.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:What a day! by howlatthemoon · 2004-08-10 07:36 · Score: 1

Well it just so happens I am in the process of ordering one of those 3D printers, so I think I have a good reason to order on of these toys for "research" purposes.

Also, I can have a presenter station for my 3D projector system. I'll be able to stand up front manipulate and manipulate the scene without looking over my shoulder, or wearing the silly googles. Just what I needed.

Sign me up for 2!
Re:What a day! by Capt'n+Hector · 2004-08-10 12:14 · Score: 1

Don't forget the 3D OS!

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-08-10 06:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Still need two good eyes? by OrangeTide · 2004-08-10 06:18 · Score: 1

Think of the money you save not buying expensive 3D displays.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Re:Already been posted.... by sharkdba · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Am I the only one getting some /. deja vu here?

No.
Sharp announces 3D laptop
PC Magazine Review's Sharp's 3D Notebook

The only difference, they talked about laptops. Now apparently it's on the desktops. But since they're talking about 3D Monitors it shouldn't matter...

--
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.

Re:Already been posted.... by Donoho · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 1

Been here, done this still cool

--
Michalangelo Progr

Re:Already been posted.... by w1r3sp33d · 2004-08-10 06:19 · Score: 1

whats that?

Re:.. how it works.. by kneecarrot · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 1

Screenshot? Where?

--

I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.

What happens. . . by smooth+wombat · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

when you use this 3-D monitor to view 3-D representations of web statistics? Do you dive into a Hawking Hole?

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:What happens. . . by Meostro · 2004-08-10 07:02 · Score: 1

No, but you might see the cone of ignorance...

(for the ignorant, this should explain it)

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Gamers? by ad0gg · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 5, Funny

As long as its female only porn. None of this mixed stuff. Its bad enough trying to ignore men in 2D, I sure as hell don't want to see a large penis flying towards me.

--

Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

We can do both by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 1

The next Leisure Suit Larry game is going to be in 3D.

--

Technoli

Hmmm by Aggrazel · 2004-08-10 06:20 · Score: 1

Now all we need is Ben Affleck to reverse engineer this and create a better display, without the monitor.

AFLACK! AFLACK!

Re:Hmmm by Daagar · 2004-08-10 09:10 · Score: 1

So long as we can wipe our memories of him afterwards.

Doom3 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny

A new mod for Doom3 utilizing this monitor will enable you to see total darkness in 3D!

Re:Doom3 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:36 · Score: 1, Funny

You will also be able to shine a real flashlight into the monitor to see more, but, for some reason, you will not be able to use the mouse at the same time.

Sweet... by wmaker · 2004-08-10 06:22 · Score: 1

3d porn for the naked eye.

--

What is slashdot?

Would've been nice to link to... by GillBates0 · 2004-08-10 06:22 · Score: 4, Informative

the numerous articles on 3D displays that have made it to /. over the past few months (including Sharp's 3D laptop):

More 3D displays to come
Future of Visual Gadgets Rolled Out
PC Magazine Reviews Sharp's 3D Notebook
Sharp to Sell 3D laptop for $3299

and many more right here.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Maybe, maybe, maybe... by stratjakt · 2004-08-10 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

ATi will get off their asses and add stereoscopic rendering to their drivers. Until then, this is useless to ATi owners, since as far as I can tell it relies on left and right framebuffers, like the shutter glasses do.

There's been quite a bit of griping on rage3d.com over this issue, and ATi's unwillingness to do anything about it.

Gaming would be hit or miss, some games look awesome with the glasses, some dont. Graphics hacks which look great on a 2D monitor look lame in 3D.

Picture a driving game, where roadside signs fly past you.. Rather than properly rendering them in 3D, they're just sprites that expand as they're "closer". Rendered in real 3D, they look like some screwed up floating box that expands and shrinks..

Basically, for the game to look right, everything has to be rendered in 3D. Which is less of a problem these days, with the power that's in the average PC.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Maybe, maybe, maybe... by feyhunde · 2004-08-10 06:30 · Score: 1

Nvidia has working drivers for the 6800
At Siggraph there is a display from Planar Systems using the card to drive their stereo approach. They are playing UT 2004 on it at 75Hz. Looks damn good. The 3D objects rendered are just fine, while text maps don't always look as good in some games. The machine Planar has, has its own page. http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Technology/index. html

--
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Re:Maybe, maybe, maybe... by damium · 2004-08-10 08:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Picture a driving game, where roadside signs fly past you.. Rather than properly rendering them in 3D, they're just sprites that expand as they're "closer". Rendered in real 3D, they look like some screwed up floating box that expands and shrinks..

This would depend entirely on how the sprite display was programmed. If it went through a transform to expand and skew properly (Strictly a 2D transform) there would be little or no difference in a 2D vs. 3D dislplay. Granted this takes more work than a simple makeLargerAsViewerNears(); but it is quite simple.
Also with the graphics of today it is better and sometimes faster to make the object a simple static 3D object so that it is better optimized.
Re:Maybe, maybe, maybe... by gabebear · 2004-08-10 08:48 · Score: 1

It seems ATI's Linux drivers support stereo, and you can always buy a driver from XIG with stereo support for almost any ATI card. You also have VRizer which will take many Linux OpenGL games and add stereoscopic support(Neverball in a Cave has to be great!). I do believe Windows users are SOL though.
Also,has anyone ever used a Synthagram monitor? The adverts make them look awesome, and it's only $500 more than this one.

Screw by Apreche · 2004-08-10 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

3d monitor? big whoop. Wont be useful for me.

What I want to see is a 3d hologram platform/table. That would revolutionize display technology forever. We could play Star Wars chess. We could watch sporting events like baseball, hockey and football while really seeing the entire field. And think of the video games you could play on it... oh yeah.

Also cool would be a display that shows a different picture depending on the angle of viewing. With just one television in the room you can have one person watching a dvd, another playing a video game and yet another channel surfing. Depending on where you are in relation to the screen in the room changes what you see, and everyone gets their own remote. Far superior to buying multiple displays.

A 3d display like this one really isn't that revolutionary or useful for me.

--
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!

Re:Screw by azav · 2004-08-10 06:37 · Score: 1

There is a company in Massachusetts (that's Mass a chu setts, not Mass uh two setts) that are already making them.

Currently, they exist within a sphere.

At the Wired NextFest, there was a flat surface with a cityscape floating in 3d on top of it.

So you don't want a 3d monitor but you want a 3d table?

Put the monitor horizontally and place a sheet of glass over it.

Looks like a 3d monitor just may be of use to you after all.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Re:Screw by pclminion · 2004-08-10 06:53 · Score: 1

What I want to see is a 3d hologram platform/table.
Why bother making a physical image when you can just inject visual data directly into the brain? I wager we'll figure out how to do that before we figure out how to make a true 3D projection.
Re:Screw by mobby_6kl · 2004-08-10 07:01 · Score: 1

Huh, and I thought it was Mass-uh-chew-sits...

Anyway, an AC below already gave a link to the offical site (Actuality Systems) they do have a gallery, but there are some more images here, the text is in russian but there are about 15 pictures of this device.
Re:Screw by pchasco · 2004-08-10 08:13 · Score: 1

OMG! Table dances on demand. I'm going to start saving now.
Re:Screw by chadjg · 2004-08-10 09:27 · Score: 1

You mean like this?

Ok, it's not direct injection, but it's pretty close. Throw in some motion tracking markers on the common tables and process for position information and you have a heck of a 3D, somewhat communal interactive display.

These are non trivial problems, but I don't see any show stoppers except for the a high dork-o-meter rating from the headmounted camera/laser assembly. It's not like there's many women hanging around users of these systems anyway, so it's no big deal anyway.

I just don't see keeping my head stock still in front of a 15 inch monitor for hours at a time for any reason.

--
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.

Nice! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:24 · Score: 1, Funny

Check out this sweet example image.

Nothing like showing off the technology used in a 3D monitor like WordArt ;-)

Their laptop by VonGuard · 2004-08-10 06:25 · Score: 1

Sharp put out a 3D laptop earlier this year. It was complete shite, and gave you a headache after about five minutes of use.

This is NOT the 3D display from Paycheck.

There are two technologies that MUST vanish: digital scent replication, and flicker-goggle-esque 3D effects. Both are complete wastes of money, time, and electrons.

--
Don't Crease the Weasel!

FYI only works with stereoscopic software by musikit · 2004-08-10 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative

from the PDF spec:
If your software supports stereoscopic viewing with 3D glasses, then it will
probably work with the LL-151-3D monitor. This is because the graphics cards
manufacturers who support stereo with glasses have updated their drivers to
support the Sharp 3D display technology. To ensure the most up to date
compatibility, check www.sharp3d.com for the most up to date list of graphics
cards and driver software supporting the LL-151-3D monitor.
Note that the LL-151-3D monitor will only display 3D images when the
software is written to create stereoscopic display output. The LL-151-3D
display will not automatically convert standard graphics output to stereoscopic
output.
Also stereoscopic viewing is only supported at a resolution of 1024x768. 3D
visualization will not work correctly if the display resolution is set to any other
value.

Actually, 3d games have no problem already.... by Rahga · 2004-08-10 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Most of the games out there that use OpenGL or DirectX can rely on stereographic support from video card drivers and such. This is already used with 3D glasses, and I doubt there's any need to change much of that when switching to a monitor.

only for toys? by earthstar · 2004-08-10 06:31 · Score: 1

The technology was devised for high end medical instuments and such but this could be the gamers new dream toy!

Porn on 3D display would be great to....ppl will go mad and try to squeeze!

--

Why does yahoo do this

there is a demestration of 3d on their website. by cipher+uk · 2004-08-10 06:32 · Score: 2, Informative

the wonders of 3d

then theres some details on the technology.

Is Sun Excited? by n9uxu8 · 2004-08-10 06:38 · Score: 1

They now have a reason to be hawking the 3D JDS environment. With a functional 3D monitor, the system would actually have some merit. Dave

'full speed'? by MarcoAtWork · 2004-08-10 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

hmmmm, I fail to see how this could run at 'full speed' given that for every 3d technology (save volumetric displays obv) you need to compute twice as many scenes (left eye & right eye independently) in order to be able to display things correctly, which will end up possibly halving your framerate... although, given that UT2004 is much more CPU limited than video-limited, maybe in this particular case the performance hit is much less than that.

--
-- the cake is a lie

Re:'full speed'? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative

By full speed I meant the display speed rather then system performance. Most 3D displays are like Sharp's and end up having the frame rate than can be shown halved when it switchs to 3D do to display requirements. Not the power to drive it, but the actual speed at which the LCD and react gets halved, sending games to 30 Hz in many cases. Shutter glasses do that, and you need to have insane frame rates to keep them normal. Most of these display sacfrice frame rate to get the pseudo 3-D.
As for Planar's system (Better link here http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Innovation/docs/d s-planar-stereo-mirror.pdf) It's the card and cpu that could slow it down rather then the physical limits of the technology. Running a Nvidia 6800 card with stereo drivers allows system to work just fine in Stereo mode. Nvidia has been working on Stereo options for a few years now and the cards don't suffer performance problems. I am not a software engineer but I understand they figured out a way to not need to double the power to calculate the image for two differant screens but use only a bit more power.

Now all we need... by BitwizeGHC · 2004-08-10 06:44 · Score: 1

... is for Affleck!!! to reverse engineer the monitor and build one -- that doesn't even need a monitor. (To grok the reference see: Paycheck)

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!

Re:Now all we need... by Jacer · 2004-08-10 07:07 · Score: 1

Why on Earth would you tell people to watch that movie?

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage

This is nothing by DanielMarkham · 2004-08-10 06:46 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm waiting for the first 4-D monitor!

Then I can see how this DOOM level is going to end before I spend all that time playing it.

Re:This is nothing by tehcyder · 2004-08-10 22:17 · Score: 1

Then I can see how this DOOM level is going to end before I spend all that time playing it.
It will end either by you killing all the monsters or all the monsters killing you.
At a guess.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

All monitors are 3D by Eudial · 2004-08-10 06:46 · Score: 1

Dimension 1, X: check
Dimension 2, Y: check
Dimension 3, Z: nope
Dimension 4, T(ime): check (monitors are not static)

1+1+0+1 = 3.

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!

Re:Gamers? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-08-10 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Several years ago at the Northwestern they showed a 70s porno film in 3D. I think it starred John Holmes. I showed up to see it, but so did a thousand other people at a 500 seat lecture hall.

Can they convert the old red/blue 3D films into this new technology?

-B

fixed link by feyhunde · 2004-08-10 06:49 · Score: 1

http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Innovation/docs/d s-planar-stereo-mirror.pdf

--
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.

Re:Gamers? by hellfire · 2004-08-10 06:53 · Score: 1

Your obviously ignoring 50% of the population. While I would say most women aren't big on porn, those that are... lets just say some of them might like their porn big ;)

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Re:Gamers? by Kenja · 2004-08-10 06:55 · Score: 1

Well I used to work in the stereoscopic 3D hardware arena and about 75% of the stuff out there is/was for "adult" stuff (cause there's nothing more adult then searching around for the klenex while wearing a 3D headset). Lets just say that 2D porn is tacky enough, the low quality 3D stuff out three will put you off sex for weeks (my GF at the time was allways pissed after I would return from adultdex).

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

WTH! by GoMMiX · 2004-08-10 06:55 · Score: 1

Only a 15" available!?

Hey, when I'm surfing my pr0n in 3D I want to see BIGuns'!

2D vs 3D ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny

You sure that isn't a breast enhancement commercial?

This saves me a lot of money! by Picass0 · 2004-08-10 06:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I closed my right eye and moved my head back and forth as fast as I could, and now Slashdot seems to be floating in front of my monitor!

I also am having cold shakes and I think I may have suffered a stroke. So this method isn't perfect but it could agggghhhhh....

Re:This saves me a lot of money! by sharkey · 2004-08-10 07:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, and meditate on how there is always something worse out there.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:This saves me a lot of money! by dolmen.fr · 2004-08-10 21:52 · Score: 1

You don't need a 3D monitor: you are already reading Slashdot in 3D!

Re:Gamers? by pclminion · 2004-08-10 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow dude, are you really so insecure about your sexuality that you can't stand seeing male actors in porn?

3D hurts my eyes by hellfire · 2004-08-10 07:00 · Score: 1

I need a brief education on the latest 3D technology.

One of the biggest personal complaints I have about 3D is the images. They hurt my eyes because I never seem to properly focus on the images. Things seemed doubled up and/or blurry. There is a 3D muppet ride in orlando (I forget if its MGM or Epcot), the star trek experience "The borg attack" in vegas, and the terminator ride at universal studios. Those and that Spy Kids 3D movie. All of these never look like I have things properly focused.

BTW, I have better than 20/20 vision and have never used glasses or contacts. My Depth perception is just fine.

My point is, Have I been that unlucky in getting glasses or are there people out there who have problems focusing with 3D? Does it only happen to 3D with glasses? This is one thing that no one seems to address in any article I've ever seen. Are my eyes just wacky or are there more people out there? Is there information on this phenomenon and are these monitor makers studying it?

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Re:3D hurts my eyes by Jacer · 2004-08-10 07:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you're having a problem view 3D images, you could be stereoblind. It's very rare to have it, and most people don't realize they do because stereoblindness doesn't affect things like image perception, nor is it useful at 100+ feet. It's typically only caused by infantile strabismus. If you're that interested, tell your optomotrist to check you for it next time you go in. They quit checking it routinely because there isn't anything they can do about it. Sorry, I was a Psychology major and was really interested in perception.

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage

right out of Paycheck by DuckWing · 2004-08-10 07:03 · Score: 1

It seems the funky computer display they show at the beginning of the movie, Paycheck (with Ben Afleck) isn't too far off then?

--
-- DuckWing

Re:Still need two good eyes? by pclminion · 2004-08-10 07:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

It really sucks being blind in one eye sometimes.

I would think it would be easier to create 3D display technology for one-eyed individuals than for people with two eyes.

For people with two functioning eyes there are three major depth cues: stereovision, focus, and attenuation. With one eye you still have focus and attenuation, but no stereovision. (You also have parallax as the eye is moving, but this isn't as helpful.) So a one-eyed person doesn't rely on stereovision at all to gauge depth.

Notice that it is only the stereovision which is hard to simulate with a display device -- software could be written to simulate focal blur and distance attenuation, and since these are the only depth cues available to people with a single eye, this should be a pretty convincing representation of a 3D scene.

Re:Half Life 2 by mailtomomo · 2004-08-10 07:05 · Score: 1, Funny

WOW thats nuts imagine a bullets from CS coming out of you moniter wow..
If you can see bullets moving, then the refresh rate won't be high enough ... ;)

I don't think it looks very good. by TiggertheMad · 2004-08-10 07:06 · Score: 1

I looked up some screen shots of the 3-d effects on google, and they don't look any different than the rest of the images on my computer...

(Obligatory label of "Humor" to keep the modpoint wielding "Troll" hunting luddites at bay.)

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

VR helmets by MSBob · 2004-08-10 07:09 · Score: 1

Why isn't anybody pursuing 3D helmets anymore. Way back in 1994 when companies like 3DMaxx started building first consumer level VR helmets I had high hopes for the technology. Having had a chance to try a very high end VR helmet (>$15,000USD in 1994) I was very excited about the future of VR. Alas, a decade later everyone seems to have pretty much given up on the VR helmet idea. To me however, the potential of a helmet (especially in the entertainment space) is soo much greater than any 3D display unless such displays get into insane screen sizes.

So whatever happened to venerable VR helmet?

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Re:VR helmets by sleighb0y · 2004-08-10 08:46 · Score: 1

So how many times did you watch Lawnmower Man?
Re:VR helmets by cr0sh · 2004-08-10 11:37 · Score: 1

HMD's are still being built and designed - jump over to Kaiser Electro-Optics to see recent designs (well, actual products if you have the cash) that will make you drool.
Unfortunately, then as now, the tradeoff is still field-of-view (FOV) vs. resolution. Increase one, decrease the other. Furthermore, if you seek to increase the FOV while maintaining "focus at infinity" (which is essential for reducing - but not eliminating - eyestraing), the type and quality of the optics are raised (no simple fresnel lenses) - leading to higher costs. If you want to keep the resolution nice, you need to have high-resolution displays (LCDs, mainly, to keep weight down - but I expect OLEDs to replace these in the future), that also have to be really tiny (to keep nose and general weight down) - 1" or less diagonal.
There also isn't an application yet that has people wanting to jump to using HMD's, with all of their issues (simulation sickness, low resolution, tracking resolution, eye fatigue, etc). If more gamers could experience DOOM 3 or something in a fully immersive environment (with a large FOV and great resolution, coupled with head/body tracking and hand/gun tracking) - they would give their left...ahem...so to speak to have the system at home.
Currently, if you want to get into VR with an HMD, you will have to cobble together your own, or buy one used (I have managed to snag two different pro-level HMDs from Ebay in the past 3 years for under $500.00 each). Head and hand tracking are a completely different story - very difficult to do on a low budget - if you wanted to spend a little money (sub-$3000.00) - a Polhemus system with two sensors would be the way to start...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Re:VR helmets by MSBob · 2004-08-10 11:55 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info... didn't know about the FoV/resolution tradeoff. Good to know SOMEONE is still interested in making HMDs happen.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:VR helmets by cr0sh · 2004-08-10 12:43 · Score: 1

If you ever want an interesting project, look into LEEP optics. These were a special set of optics and lenses that performed a manner of lossless "optical compression" on images - that is, used one way with a camera, they could record a fairly high resolution image. When the optics were used to view the image, the image would appear with the original resolution, plus a very large FOV (for perspective, immersion begins at approximately 60 degrees H x 45 degrees V - LEEP optics were in the 100-120 degree H range, never saw what the vertical range was).
A company back in the early to mid-1990s, I believe they were called Fakespace, made a boom mounted HMD-like device which used the optics, and software that pre-warped the images sent to LCD or CRT displays in the HMD, where the optics would distort it back for the user. The boom acted as a tracking system, too (FWIW, boom mounted trackers are cheap, and easy to construct for homebrew use, plus they have near-zero lag - the difficult part is the software to determine orientation and position of the user endpoint, usually mounted to the HMD).
I never got a chance to try out the system, though, so I don't really have any personal views on it, but if it was true, that would have been a sweet HMD.
The price was never mentioned in any literature I have come across (always "call for pricing", meaning if you had a question, it was out of your price range) - but the LEEP optics set was noted in several areas to have cost around $10,000+ (just the lenses, mind you!)...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

Fixed link by feyhunde · 2004-08-10 07:12 · Score: 1

http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Innovation/docs/d s-planar-stereo-mirror.pdf

--
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.

No slouching! by Bohnanza · 2004-08-10 07:12 · Score: 1

When centered in front of the display, each eye receives the correct visual information for the brain to process.

We have to sit rigidly in front of the monitor's centerline? That sounds like it would be fun for about 10 minutes.

--

-----

Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

Re:No slouching! by pandrijeczko · 2004-08-10 08:27 · Score: 3, Funny

We have to sit rigidly in front of the monitor's centerline?
Don't be such a silly billy!
For $150 you buy a Sharp XL52 Head Mount for the monitor. Strap the chrome and black cage over your head and attach the screen to the two rods that permanently fix the screen at 9" from your eyes but keep it aligned with any head movements.
Of course, you then have the problem of weak neck muscles...
...which is why for $160, you can by the Sharp YP28 Neck Brace. Stap the chrome and black cage around your neck and using the two straps attach it to your shoulders to lock your neck permanently in position but fully supported by your shoulders.
For those with weak lower backs, for $200, there is the Sharp ZD12 Back Brace. Strap the chrome and black corset around your waste and...
etc.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Re:Gamers? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-10 07:14 · Score: 1, Funny

I can't speak for the parent, but for me personally it's not insecurity about my sexuality, but rather not wanting to see other guys getting some while I'm not.

Re:Gamers? by Pig+Hogger · 2004-08-10 07:26 · Score: 2

I sure as hell don't want to see a large penis flying towards me.

Why is that? Are you afraid that if you see a big erect penis right by your face you will be tempted to suck it???

3D Phbbt. I have a 4D by gosand · 2004-08-10 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I had a 4D monitor once. Or I will have.

.
(wait for it...)

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Where are the obligatory... by pjt48108 · 2004-08-10 07:31 · Score: 1

Screen shots?

Har har har....

Ok.. Now, back to Cubeland...

--
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!

More 3D displays already available by Dodger73 · 2004-08-10 07:37 · Score: 1

There's a list at stereo3d.com. Now all we need is decent resolution and a decent price tag ;)

Re:What about refresh rate? by NerveGas · 2004-08-10 07:38 · Score: 1

There are a number of LCDs that perform acceptably for games, they're just a lot more expensive than the "regular" LCDs. And, of course, you still get stuck with other LCD restrictions.

Like you, I still prefer my behemoth, desk-covering 21" CRT over any LCD.

steve

--
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.

Re:Still need two good eyes? by SkywalkerOS8 · 2004-08-10 07:39 · Score: 1

Have you really thought about focus? Hold your finger out and focus on the wall behind it. Your finger is out of focus. Now focus on your finger and the wall is out of focus. While that blurring effect, known as depth of field, is possible to simulate in a computer, there is no way to tell the computer what to focus on by just using your eye muscles. That's where the illusion would break down. All we need is for someone to invent an eyeball lens scanner that can detect what your eye is focused on. If they do, I CLAIM PRIOR ART!! ;-) Unfortunately the physics are even trickier than that. Example, the computer renders a far off mountain. Your screen is only a foot or two away. How do you get your eye to focus on something a "virtual" mile away? Your eye can't. If it tries, the screen (and the picture of the mountain) will get blurry the same way your finger gets blurry when you focus on the far wall.

CEBIT 2001 by ShivanDragon · 2004-08-10 08:16 · Score: 1

I saw a 3D monitor without glasses @ CEBIT 2001. Maybe even in 2000, but the people I talked to were German. But that monitor had sortof an eyetracker on top of the screen to adjust the projection angles (you get the picture) for better 3D effect. I thought it was pretty convincing, but not really in a spectacular way.

--
Poowpoowpo

Here's a potential future concept by ayahner · 2004-08-10 08:25 · Score: 1

Assume that each individual pixel can "focus" their display at a point.

Use the same concept that tracks eye-movement to decide where to focus pixels, and the same with another set of interlaced pixels.

Focus each set at a different eye and you'll have a much cleaner image, assuming that you can make these nano-pixels small enough and close enough to fool the users eyes into not seeing the grid.

Patent Pending #8675309

SFM in seattle by Sir_Dill · 2004-08-10 08:28 · Score: 1

A little off topic but Slashdotters that live in Seattle can check out what I think is one of the best implimentations of this type of display tech at the Sci-Fi museum.

The exhibit is the spacedock which features a couple of these displays in a touchscreen configuration. It allows you to look at several popular sci-fi spaceships like an imperial star destroyer and the reddwarf.

Obligatory link http://www.sfhomeworld.org/exhibits/fantastic_voya ges/index.asp

I have seen some of the earlier "3D" displays at stores and have typically been dissapointed with the performance. The screens they use at the museum are definitely a better representation of what this type of tech can do.

First of all... by TheAwfulTruth · 2004-08-10 08:41 · Score: 1

This is ancient news/technology. It's been demonstrated at tech conventions for what... 5 years now?

Second. It really is very poor technology. "Neat" but completely unuseable. Having JUST run across this very monitor 3 weeks ago, I can tell you it has not improved over the years at all. You need to stand perfectly still at a 1/2 in wide sweetspot side to side and worse, you have to be standing at an exact distance from the monitor for the effet to work.

It would be completely useless for... well anything really. Using the standard shutter glasses for 3d viewing is far better than trying to use this monitor.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

No kidding. by pathological+liar · 2004-08-10 08:42 · Score: 1

Talk about depth perception.

Re:two eyes should produce perspective by mskfisher · 2004-08-10 08:45 · Score: 1

Nope... the surgeries were nowhere near brain cells. They relocated the muscles on my eyes so that they weren't pulling them both inward.

Here's an excerpt from a link I found:

http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/binocular_vision_re port.html

As a rule of thumb, children between age two and five are the best candidates for correction resulting in usable binocular vision.

So it would seem that I was slightly outside that range.

--
0x0D 0x0A

No need for a new monitor! by Geoff-with-a-G · 2004-08-10 09:15 · Score: 1

Just release Magic-Eye drivers!

Re:Gamers? by sqrt(2) · 2004-08-10 10:06 · Score: 1

Plus, seeing two girls go at it is super hot!

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:Gamers? by sqrt(2) · 2004-08-10 10:10 · Score: 1

Most /. readers are off sex FOR LIFE. Not by choice, that's just how it worked out.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org

Re:Gamers? by iantri · 2004-08-10 10:31 · Score: 1

I would expect this would be somewhat difficult to do, unfortunately.

If the original source is still available (unlikely.. a porno film from the 70's?), then the footage from each of the two cameras might be around.

I don't think it is possible to convert a red/blue print, however, since the two are blended together on the film. If it were black and white, it might be possible (because there would only be two colours; take everything red and seperate it from everything blue), but I'm not so sure about colour.. maybe with some artefacting..

Re:Moving the eyes independently by ballpoint · 2004-08-10 11:16 · Score: 1

Well, well, learn something new every day. I just watched in the mirror while tilting my head, and the eyes (the iris patterns) indeed try to stay horizontal, unless the angle gets too large.

I didn't know that; I thought the brain corrected for the rotation. But it explains why I'm able to rotate them at will. The muscles are there, it was just a matter of finding out how to control them.

--
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.

Adverts by IBX · 2004-08-10 11:28 · Score: 1

This will allow some impresive pop-ups. (The pest control ads will crowl at you from the monitor).

Parallax barrier - yucky by James+Turpin · 2004-08-10 11:42 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that:

This parallax barrier is fairly binary. From any particular point, you either see left-field vision or you see right-field vision. There is no holograph-like continuity.

This won't work if you have only one eye.

This will give you eye strain if you have good eye sight.

You will need to sit (or stand) with your head centered in front of the screen. Move a couple inches, and it goes 2D on you.

No parallax from moving head up/down or left/right.

In summary, this is basicly like VR goggles for people who aren't excessively near-sighted. Openning this up to far-sighted people is nice, but its no 3D revolution. Note that you are also loosing the submersiveness of the VR glasses.

I predict that this will be more valuable for scientific/medical researchers than gamers. The eye-strain issues make using this too much work for gamers.

--
Mathematics is not a crime.

I got one too... by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-08-10 12:16 · Score: 1

It's called "Render a stereo view and cross your eyes."

To be honest, I find it quite amazing. And (especially in digital photos, for some reason) the effect seems to be more pronounced than in real life. Maybe it's just me.

[shameless_plug] The stereo view is also the default of my little 3-D program on Sourceforge, Tronimation.
[/shameless_plug] I wonder how that would look in this new monitor... >:)

I saw something new in 3D displays today.... by nsxdavid · 2004-08-10 12:35 · Score: 1

I'm at SIGGRAPH, and I've seen the Sharp 3D displays before and a lot of them here again... and they really suck. You get a headache just looking at them.

BUT... I saw an display, and the scientist who developed it, that uses an entirely different technology. And it created a rock-solid 3D display. Not a stereoscopic display... a 3D image. As you moved your head left and right you saw a different perspective on the image!

It uses some sort of lense system, rather than a mask like Sharp, that directs the the images to the different yes. In the case of the model they were showing, it was 9 different images per frame. Sucks for frame-rate of a game, but for other things it was pretty sweet.

You can stare it it pretty much indefinitely and it's not sensitive to where you stand or how you move your head. There is a slight blur as you move between the different spots where you see the angles, but that's only because there are only 9 images in that particular prototype. With more images, that goes away (I am told by the inventor).

The mfg was not clear, I think it was IBM. But they might just be using IBM LCDs. I have to go back and see... I was too stunned by the image quality and forgot to see who made it. Tomorrow, I'll go back to the expo and find out. It's really oustanding!

The current model is $20,000. Useful for scientific applications and such. In five years, it should be consumer level.

But before that, they will be making full theatrical projectors. They are already working on it and have made progress. It's real 3D without glasses that doesn't make your head or eyes hurt. The only problem... someone on the left side of the theater literally sees the action from a different angle than someone on the right. So the whole process of cinematogrphy has to be rethought to take that into consideration.

--
David Whatley

Re:Already been posted.... by ivan1011001 · 2004-08-10 12:55 · Score: 1

That would be deja mu. The feeling you've heard all this bullshit before ;)

--

I was thinking of converting to paganism, but where the hell can you find sacrificial virgins these days?

5,000 dimensions by hoborocks · 2004-08-10 15:32 · Score: 1

Oh you and your puny 3 dimensions. Yes, on the moon, we have 5. ....thousand. Yes, 5 thousand. *obligatory aqua teen reference*

--
AccountKiller

Do Not Use by PingPongBoy · 2004-08-10 18:10 · Score: 1

Avoid this monitor if you value your sight. Sharp describes it as eye-popping.

--
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.

Re:Gamers? by Anonymous+Writer · 2004-08-10 20:17 · Score: 1

Gamers, what about reviewers of *ahem* adult entertainment material?

I came across a site that says it has 3D porn for use with shutter glasses, that you can use on a regular television. I've never actually seen one of them. Has anyone on /. seen it? Or rather, would anyone out there actually admit they have one and comment on it?

stereo in a window... by grey1 · 2004-08-10 20:22 · Score: 1

FWIW this is mildly interesting but I'd rather wear the "silly glasses", have decent stereo, and have the option of stereo in a window for those objects that need them, and no stereo (2D) elsewhere.

(Yes, I'm a scientist and I use SGIs; and Linux boxes. And our first stereo screen technology was a huge plate that bolted to the front of our Evans & Sutherland PS390 display...)

I've seen slightly fuzzy stereo and it makes my eyes hurt. A monitor that only one person can use which displays fuzzy stereo isn't my idea of a dream device.

--
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Re:Still need two good eyes? by SkywalkerOS8 · 2004-08-11 00:51 · Score: 1

Good idea, I hadn't thought of that.

Re:Gamers? by iantri · 2004-08-11 08:00 · Score: 1

Colour in red/blue anaglyphs is not very good.. anything in the scene that is red or blue gets a nasty flickery/strobey type effect to it. If carefully shot, however, it can still be viewed acceptably well.

To get the image for each eye back from a combined red/blue print, however, would involve somehow deblending the red and blue parts of the picture into seperate images, and this would really fuck up the colour.

AFAIK.

Re:Gamers? by tricorn · 2004-08-11 20:24 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be any worse than it looked in the theater, wearing the red/blue glasses.

210 of 272 comments (clear)