Slashdot Mirror


IBM Develops New 3D TV Technology

neutron_p writes "IBM has recently announced a new and affordable 3D video system that works with normal DLP (Digital Light Processing) televisions. IBM demonstrated the new system on a 50-inch, flat-screen Texas Instruments rear-projection digital television at the 22nd annual Flat Information Displays conference held in San Francisco this month. This "black box" device can be connected to any DLP projector or television via the common VESA 3 pin stereo connector. Exact details concerning the 3D technology - still unnamed - were not forthcoming, but the company spokesperson said it was compatible with OpenGL and Direct Draw, which is definitely aimed at software developers who make 3D games."

3 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. One reason to like IBM by Jeng · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Quote:
    IBM tends to develop cutting edge technology and then license it to third party manufactures rather than build and sell finished products. This strategy allows them to keep pouring funds in to basic research and cutting edge technology. It also permits wide dissemination of it's technologies throughout the industry increasing chances for permanent adoption over competing technologies.

    An IP based business that actually trys to use its head.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  2. Direct Draw != 3D by BlueMonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't DirectDraw the 2D graphics component of DirectX 7.0 and earlier. In DirectX 8 it was replaced with Direct3D which (as the name would suggest) would be more suited to 3D development that DirectDraw was. And as I understand it, Direct3D is so encompassing that Microsoft dropped DirectDraw and now expects Direct3D to handle all 2D and 3D graphics. So why on earth did the article choose to use the term Direct Draw (with a space no less)?

  3. Difficulties with this by jtdubs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your left and right eyes can't always see the same set of objects.

    If you use occluders and occluder volumes, then you run the risk of missing objects that were occluded from the view-point of the primary eye, but are not from the view-point of the secondary eye. So, you have to perform occlusion tests per eye or not use occluders at all.

    You also run the obvious problem of objects "popping" in from the sides of your vision. There will be a moment when an object approaches from the side, into your peripheral vision, that the object is only visible from one eye. If this is your secondary eye, then I guess you'll miss it. When it is finally visible from your primary eye, it will suddenly "pop" into view. This problem can be fixed by performing your visibility tests from neither eye, but from an in-between eye with the view frustum scaled up to encompass both eye's frustums.

    I just wanted to point out that this wasn't as easy as your made it sound. You can't just draw the primary eye, remember what objects you drew, and then draw them again from the secondary eye. Atleast, you can't do that if you want accurate results.

    Justin Dubs