Slashdot Mirror


Has 3D Video Finally Arrived?

pospisil writes to point us to an enthusiastic writeup on Tech.blorge.com about a 3D display technology just launched at the eGames Expo in Melbourne. The technology, from a company called Fountain Consulting, is set to ship in January. From the article: "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it. With a library of 500 current PC-based games titles converted to flawless 3D, and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD." There is no second source for this story. Exciting news if it pans out.

200 comments

  1. Slashdotted already by VanessaE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jeez people, not a single comment and it's already slashdotted...give the rest of us a chance!

    1. Re:Slashdotted already by Attaturk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah! I mean how the hell are we supposed to debunk vaporware if the even hype is vapor! =D

    2. Re:Slashdotted already by Millenniumman · · Score: 5, Funny

      The implications of that are fearful. Slashdotters might be starting to read the articles before commenting!

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    3. Re:Slashdotted already by k3vlar · · Score: 1

      How can implications be fearful? Oh, you meant fearsome...

      --
      Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
    4. Re:Slashdotted already by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Did you ever RTFA?

    5. Re:Slashdotted already by freakmn · · Score: 2, Funny

      It isn't slashdotted. However, you do need a 3D monitor to view it. Pretty sweet to see, I think. Don't you have a 3D viewscreen? And you dare to tread in news for nerds. Any respectable nerd would have at least 3. I know I have 7. Some people...

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    6. Re:Slashdotted already by Sillygates · · Score: 1

      Yah, not even the mirrors [mirrordot] have it! Funky!

      --
      I fear the Y2038 bug
    7. Re:Slashdotted already by somersault · · Score: 1

      Uh... fearful as in, full of fear? Causing a lot of fear anyway. Pretty common usage. According to this page http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn one of the meanings of fearful is the same as that of fearsome. Blah blah blah. It was a good joke he made.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Slashdotted already by imdx80 · · Score: 1

      Your running the old type that need screens, i've got a Affleck2007 the screen has been removed

    9. Re:Slashdotted already by JasonTik · · Score: 1

      This is horrible news. We must take action immediately. I recommend we slashdot the articles immediately upon their appearance, so they cannot be read.

  2. Uh oh by Salvance · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd truly hate to see what the adult entertainment industry would do with this one ... sure, there'd be some gems, but how many plots would revolve around having the stars "reach out and grab you" over and over.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:Uh oh by 0racle · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You could, you know, not buy the stuff if you're worried what porn might be made with it.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Uh oh by gaijin99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He wasn't worried about porn being made with it, he was worried about bad repetitive porn being made with it.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    3. Re:Uh oh by Krakhan · · Score: 1

      Ya, but that would require him to withdraw from the internet entirely. So I don't think that will happen, since he's posting on slashdot after all!

    4. Re:Uh oh by Xolom · · Score: 3, Funny

      since when do pornos need plots?
      they'd be better off without the awful acting and poor dialogue
      hours of fun, pure sex, no plot

      the "reach out and grab you" idea sounds like something off the 100 worst porn titles of all time list (http://members.shaw.ca/stayasyouare/tohwpmt.html

    5. Re:Uh oh by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      >they'd be better off without the awful acting and poor dialogue
      >hours of fun, pure sex, no plot

      Friday night at University! (for econ. majors)

    6. Re:Uh oh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I think I'd rather like to see with the adult entertainment industry would do with this one.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Uh oh by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      there's non-repetative porn? URL?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    8. Re:Uh oh by Cylix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, I have some exciting non-repetitive porn for you...

      Feast your eyes on this....

      A half-man half-goat raping an entire campus sorority of devil worshiping pre-med ninjas!

      The action never stops!

      Oh, you already saw that one before....

      Well, I've got nothing.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    9. Re:Uh oh by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      i'm just salivating over the idea of adult entertainment, i bet it could shine some new light on the best of the web: goatse, mr hands, eel soup and tubgirl.

    10. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, intercourse is all about repetitive motions...

    11. Re:Uh oh by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      With 3D porn you're kind of missing the point if you think it's the actors who'll do the reaching and grabbing.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. The site is down, but I found this link by siddesu · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:The site is down, but I found this link by pospisil · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article is also available at the Australian edition of TECH.BLORGE.com: http://www.freeaccess.com.au/Structure:%20/2006/11 /19/forget-hdtv-the-future-is-3dtv/.

  4. 3D TV by gadzook33 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical. Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something.

    1. Re:3D TV by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.

      So am I. It's probably some stuff based on a vague shape "recognition" and the Z-axis data is "extrapolated" depending on the shape of the "recognized" area, in other words I guess it can give results but pretty bogus results. Still I guess it might do it for a lot of average joes, I'd be surprised if we ever saw "2D television converted in 3D" being ever widely adopted, sounds like a useless gadget.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:3D TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if it will be analagous to the "color TV conversion kits" our parents' generation saw.

    3. Re:3D TV by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1
      Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something

      Dude, Wonkavision has been around since '64.
      --
      +0 Meh
    4. Re:3D TV by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.

      I was once skeptical of many things too. Then I received the word from The Creator of the Universe, The Total Mind and Total Energy of All. With the divine secrets revealed in the sacred text, I replaced the polluting engine in my car with a Magnogen Motor...uh, well...I'm in the process of replacing it. I can't seem to get the damn thing to work right, but I'm sure that's my fault.

      In any case, now I know that anything is possible, even the transmission of your so-called "chocolate".

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    5. Re:3D TV by Fallorn · · Score: 1

      I experimented with a set of 3d shutter glasses some couple of years ago, and they too had the ability to convert 2d video to 3d, It seems the way they did that was by comparing frames to determine movement of individual pixels ( a cue to depth perception that I should know the name of but my psych professor is no doubt dying a little inside instead ) and by comparing relative movement of the pixels it determines the depth of the pixels.
      It wasnt perfect, but It actually wasnt half bad, and depending on the video being watched, really quite fun.
      Furthermore the glasses interpreted 3d at the driver level, and was able to convert some games to 3d ( i remember Painkiller was especially impressive for this for some reason )
      So while I dont see anything really new here, Im really curious to see what advances the technology has made, if any.

    6. Re:3D TV by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      3D games would be a completely different technology -- you have the 3D info there, all you have to do is render a second copy at a slightly offset angle, and then show both in your display mechanism. Or better yet, do two renderings, each offset from the "proper" one, left and right, by a little bit. The game need not ever know about it, as this can be done at the driver/3D card level.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. It's not slashdotted... by NeonGoat · · Score: 5, Funny

    You need a 3D monitor to view the site.

    1. Re:It's not slashdotted... by huckda · · Score: 1

      that's just funny ... my bet is everyone's monitor is 3 Dimensional ...

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    2. Re:It's not slashdotted... by benplaut · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thank goodness I didn't buy a flatscreen!

    3. Re:It's not slashdotted... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      my bet is everyone's monitor is 3 Dimensional

      Mine is four dimensional, because it has a clock in it. At least that's how the guy down at the store explained it.

    4. Re:It's not slashdotted... by huckda · · Score: 1

      DOH! My clock is only visible when the monitor is connected to a computer ;(

      can I get 3.5-D ??

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
  6. Yawn. YAAWWWNNN by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

    Here is a link to the "OMG JUST A COUPLE MORE DAYS UNTIL RELEASE" website that Tony's taken out for his company.

    http://www.3dvisual.com.au/

    The glasses look like the same old headache-inducing crap that no one wants to wear while watching TV.

    1. Re:Yawn. YAAWWWNNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The 3D logo looks like a pair of boobs covering a grin.

    2. Re:Yawn. YAAWWWNNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching TV (for extended periods) induces headaches as it is. Small price to pay? I think that's self-evident.

  7. My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... ends here:

    "and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD."

    How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

    Will this be bundled with the Phantom? Launch alongside DNF?

    1. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      different colors can be assigned different depths, much like the 3d glasses that came with your crayon set a decade ago.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    2. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by SupremeOverlord · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, on a scene where the camera is panning, you could have one eye see one or two frames ahead of the other. It would look like both eyes seeing it from different perspectives.

      I admit that this would be a very limited and not very good way to get 3D, but it's the only way I can think to do it.

      --

      ---- "A programmer is a person who solves a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand."

    3. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      If that were all that is needed to upconvert any 2D images to 3D, we'd all be watching all shows with those goofy glasses on.

      Simply putting the glasses on doesn't change the fact that what you're watching was fimled from only one perspective at a time. No stereoscopic photography = no stereoscopic picture.

    4. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's 3D data. As for the ACTUAL plausibility of the concept, I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye. Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Coryoth · · Score: 1
      How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

      Well I did some hunting and the company website has this to say under "How does the Vortex works":

      By wearing 3D glasses you can turn many standard HDTV,plasma TVs, projector DLPs, CRTs on market today into a 3D displays. You can adjust the depth of 3D to your own comfort level without any confusing programming but simply clicking a button with the Vortex. The Vortex works either like a standard Windows based PC with mouse and keyboard or a gaming council with a video game controller. The Vortex takes the hassle out of making 3D work so you can easily enjoy 3D to its fullest.

      so I'm guessing it "works" rather like this, or perhaps this or... well you get the idea. I've seen email business proposals from Nigeria that are more trustworthy and convincing than what this company is offering.
    6. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Except that what I cut and pasted isn't talking about getting 3D from a 2D display but rather from 2D content, the "pre-recorded DVDs" mentioned in what I cut and pasted. That's saying that I could toss in Toy Story and this technology will magically make it 3D.

      Getting 3D off of a 2D display is easy enough; the most common way people have tried to do it on PCs is the past is with flicker glasses (the screen rapidly alternates between left and right eye information, while you wear glasses with LCD lenses that alternate between making the left and right lens opaque). But with PC games you have 3D information to work with, the same information your video card is crunching to begin with to curn out those polygons. But to say you can get this not from a game but from a movie is just plain fanciful, almost as fanciful as their claims to be including 150 games with the hardware.

    7. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point, which is that yes, the whole thing is indeed complete bullshit - and they didn't even do a very good of trying hide it: their website and description of "how it works" is laughable. The least they could do is provide some pseudoscience explanation with a lot of big words in it, but they can't even manage that much.

    8. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult."

      So's quantum tunneling a person through a wall.

      What we're talking about here is a fairly complicated function of the human brain. Considering the difficulty and expense involved in getting a computer that can handle walking, why should I believe that anything short of big iron can figure out how to do this, let alone on the fly?

    9. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      Hold a small object and toss it back and forth from one hand to the other. Trivial, right?

      Now try it with one eye closed.

    10. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still trivial. Were you trying to reinforce the parent's point?

    11. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Joe+Random · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye
      Humans compensate for this in several ways. One is to move the head slightly side-to-side. This parallax information can help you in determining distance. Here's an example. Note that this requires extra information, so it's not useful in the case of upsampling 2D to 3D.

      Another method is to notice when one object occludes another. That could possibly be automated, but you'd need some very sophisticated image recognition and tracking technology. Possibly some pre-processing, too, to avoid objects suddenly "jumping" along the z axis as their size changes force their calculated distances to be modified.

      There's also the fact that we tend to know the relative sizes of various common objects, and comparing that to their perceived sizes can give rough distance information. That would require image recognition technology of a degree that we don't currently have, though.

      So it looks like occlusion is probably the only method that could glean 3D info from a 2D source with any degree of accuracy, and I can't imagine that that's be very accurate or, indeed, always possible. Plus, I suspect the results would look like a pop-up book, with different portions of the image represented as flat objects on different planes rather than 3D objects.
    12. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Dude, awesome link. I've been looking for a massively overpriced water blender forever.

      Swi

    13. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Omega+Blue · · Score: 1

      Well, depth perception generally involves the use of both eyes - that's why we have two.

      You may also notice that there is a difference between the real thing and an image of the real thing.

    14. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by 2short · · Score: 1

      OK, I did that. Why didn't you?

    15. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by TodMinuit · · Score: 1

      Well, depth perception generally involves the use of both eyes - that's why we have two.

      I thought it was in case you poke one out, you still have a backup.

      --
      I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    16. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Theoretically, on a scene where the camera is panning, you could have one eye see one or two frames
      > ahead of the other. It would look like both eyes seeing it from different perspectives.

      This does work, as long as the camera is panning perpendicular to the scene, and nothing in the scene is moving too much over those few frames.

      I know a guy who made a stero pair this way, from video of Celine Dion singing that Titanic song. They said it couldn't be done, but he proved them wrong! Hahaha!

    17. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So long as I follow the object with one eye, still trivial, although I admit it became rather trivial with both eyes closed after only about a dozen passes. Sight is not the only source of information on the path of the object.

      Human stereoscopic vision is optimized for the handling things we have in our hands. They are adjuncts to our opposable thumbs more than anything else. Fine control, close up. For tying the head on the spear shaft, not for throwing the spear.

      How many eyes does the sniper hold to his scope?

      The power of our sterescopic vision fades dramtically after only a few feet and peters out all together at about 30.

      I'm looking at a talking head on 2D TV right now. I could accurately model this head in 3D clay (at least to the extent that I'm capable of the raw act) from that 2D image - because most our depth perception does not come from out stereoscopic vision.

      KFG

    18. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      You don't juggle, do you?

    19. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by mad_minstrel · · Score: 1

      Ugh... No. You do lose all depth perseption with one eye closed. It's only because you have a lot of knowledge about objects around you that you can place them pretty accurately in 3d space with one eye closed. A screen however has no knowledge about the world whatsoever, and even if it did, the processing power isn't there. You could make it work if you were only processing, say, colored balls and cylinders. For that you'd need to supply the software with the basic characretistics of balls and cylinders in some fashion, which is doable. But we're talking about real life objects here. So it's painfully obvious you can't extrapolate 3d data from 2d. At least not without lots and lots of additional data.

      --
      May the source be with you.
    20. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

      "Smart" algorithms can make some pretty good guesses based on the same kind of information that the mpeg compression algorithms use to create motion vectors. Yes, the motion vectors in mpeg are 2D in the plane of the screen, but add in some smarts to recognize "objects" that get bigger (approaching) and smaller (receding) and you've got enough info to do some pseudo 3D. If you can recognize rotation then you can do some really nice fake-3D.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

      In still scenes you can't. In moving scenes however, it is quite easy to extract the relative depth of moving objects by measuring their relative speed. Try googling for 'optic flow'. And since most 'movies' consist of moving scenes, it is possible to give them a sense of depth by this technology. It is of course impossible to change the POV, because you cannot know how the back of the actor looks like.

      --Blerik

    22. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Dutch_Cap · · Score: 1

      I thought it was because two eyes are more attractive to the opposite sex.

    23. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1
      The Vortex works either like a standard Windows based PC with mouse and keyboard or a gaming council with a video game controller.

      I don't know; having a gaming council whilst I game seems a bit embarrassing. Maybe they'll remove the crowd watching over you in a later version; it won't go over too well, I bet, and most people would sacrifice their 3D graphics for privacy.

    24. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      Alright, so having a lifetime of experience with this subject compels me to comment. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception is pretty in depth. (Wow, I totally did write that before I realized the pun) I developed a cataract in my left lens at 6 months old. At the time, lens transplant surgery was not approved for those under the age of 60. As a result, my brain never learned to utilize that eye. More importantly, it never learned binocular vision. Hence, unless there are some staggering improvements in neurosurgery, I will always be without it. Of course, having never had the experience I don't really miss it. I assure you, however, that I can tell how far away something is. In reality the only part of depth perception that depends on binocular vision is your brain's own special version of triangulation. All of the other visual cues are more than enough for the brain to process depth. Lets play table tennis sometime and I'll prove my point. All that being said: I think that 3d gaming would be conceivable in a program that used 3d models for everything on screen. I don't think I have to tell the Slashdot community how unlikely this is. Or why. And even if it does happen, I'll still be up a creek unless they display it in a way that doesn't require tricking binocular vision. P.S.- I have a problem: When trying to picture how this would work, all I conjure is my Troll running through the Hinterlands.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    25. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my guess is it would have something to do with camera focus.

    26. Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the camera is moving then it seems like one could extract some parallax info.

  8. Interesting by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Informative

    If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable. For people who can't see it here, http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&do_pdf=1&id=7242, is a link to a PDF version of the text. I'm curious as to whether or not laptops will be able to use this technology. Pretty sure it's no but I can always hope they'll make something available...

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    1. Re:Interesting by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Informative
      If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable.

      Well yes, it must be reputable: I mean it was posted to the front page of Slashdot. I presume it works by using 25x compression encrypted with quasar one time pads powered by free energy, or possibly quantum physics disproving cold fusion from blacklight power. Or, well, something like that. And ultimately that's a very limited sampling (based on what I could remember, or find with a few minutes searching) of the pure pseudoscientific bullshit slashdot so eagerly posts.
    2. Re:Interesting by huckda · · Score: 1

      yay..nice research...or do you just keep those old topics' links on file?

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered how experienced slashdotters could pull in great links to prove their point and make the other guy look like a bumbling, uninformed idiot. That doesn't necessarily describe the grandparent, but I've seen it happen many a time.

    4. Re:Interesting by jiggerdot · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap!

      The last two stories (from '05 and '99) actually mention the SAME person and the same company! In 99 he claimed to have found a unified thory of everything, and in 2005, he invented a fuel source ~1000 times more efficient then current fuels...

      It also looks like in the 6 intervening years, he STILL hasn't managed to graduate from med school...

      --
      "can't run, can't hide...oh well, return 0"
  9. Sure.. by andy753421 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television" I hear their also adding a feature to 'zoom' and 'enhance' grainy pixelated feeds into high quality 1080p as well.

    1. Re:Sure.. by neuro.slug · · Score: 1

      I think they're also adding Enemy-Of-The-State-o-vision, so you can rotate a person in a video capture completely around and see the contents of a messenger bag! It's 3D-eriffic! I can't wait!

    2. Re:Sure.. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, they'll probably just do a CSI-style "reverse algorithmic" that'll just clean it right up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Sure.. by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not that far fetched. There are all sorts of cues you can use to tell depth and then you can extrapolate an "off by 5 degrees" image; slightly stretch some pixels and shrink others for one eye, and the other way round for the other eye, will make one eye seem to see more of one side, and the other see more of the other.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEQELp0uqA (jump to around 2:30 to see example)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA (more examples)

      And these use a single picture to work from. If you have a moving picture, you have even more information to work with. There may be small artifacts of cause, but these could easily blend out when applying to a moving picture.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Sure.. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television" I hear their also adding a feature to 'zoom' and 'enhance' grainy pixelated feeds into high quality 1080p as well.

      Can't wait to see this in action on the next season of CSI!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Sure.. by despik · · Score: 1
      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    6. Re:Sure.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Listen, if you do not know what you're talking about, then why don't you simply refrain from commenting? It's quite baffling to see a big part of the /. crowd go "It's impossible to get 3D info from a 2D stream!". Go educate yourself. There are algorithms available that are able to do some pretty good guessing as far as extracting 3D from 2D images is concerned. It is based on a combination of motion vectors, parallax recognition, scaling effects and luminance. Sure, it doesn't work all the time (we're still dealing with 2D in essence), but some of these algorithms deliver some pretty impressive 3D streams (and having worked with these algorithms myself, I actually DO know what I'm talking about).

    7. Re:Sure.. by HonoredMule · · Score: 1

      In the future, All image and 3D data will be stored in a single pixel. Complex (therefore believable) algorithms will extrapolate/interpolate all past, present, and future works of man.

      Believe it baby.

      It'll be just like dark matter, one pound of which weighs over 1 million tons.

    8. Re:Sure.. by HonoredMule · · Score: 1

      That argument will wash when a series of algorithms exist whose effectiveness at inferring 3D data can actually hold a candle light to what the human brain does automatically and subconsciously...for free, and in real time.

  10. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This just in: perpetual motion machine doesn't stop; gives off extra energy!"

    There is no second source for this story. Exciting news if it pans out.

    From the article snippet: "even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television"

    Come on, don't bullshit me.

  11. From the Department of Redundancy Department... by IronTeardrop · · Score: 2, Funny
    "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it."
    Well, thank goodness for that.
    1. Re:From the Department of Redundancy Department... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This one fooled me for a while too, but it is not actually redundant, only poorly worded. Perhaps it should read:

      "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just SET to revolutionize 3D forever [in the future], they have [already] revolutionized it [in the present]."

    2. Re:From the Department of Redundancy Department... by MartinB · · Score: 1
      The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it.
      Can we assume that to deliver the full 3d effect, this is a Total Perspective Vortex?
      --

      The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

  12. Bah humbug by blackpaw · · Score: 1

    Definitely in the "If it sounds too good to be true ..." area. Jeeze guys, could you exercise a little critical thinking before fan boying all over it?

    1. Re:Bah humbug by lostngone · · Score: 0

      WHAT he said it didn't suck, Must me a fanboi! Please, just because someone says something doesn't totally suck doesn't make them a fanboi.

    2. Re:Bah humbug by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I see very little "fan boying" (that's one horrible verb) over these news actually, as is to be expected from the critical minded geeks on Slashdot. ;)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Bah humbug by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the article poster - it should never have made its way to front page.

      But yes, slash dotters seem suitably critical of it.

    4. Re:Bah humbug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now granted you clearly didn't read any of the posts for this thread before responding generically to all of them, which indicates you are a real slashdotter - but just for the record I so far I haven't seen a single person on this thread Not make fun of it.

  13. /.'d by neuro.slug · · Score: 4, Funny
    Maybe when we have this new OMGWTF 3D technology, this text will look so 1337 I won't care:

    Error establishing a database connection

    This either means that the username and password information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the database server at localhost. This could mean your host's database server is down.
    • Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
    • Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
    • Are you sure that the database server is running?
    • [this really should be here] Did your page just get pwned by Slashdot?

    If you're unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your host. If you still need help you can always visit the WordPress Support Forums.
  14. Others are already doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  15. Article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget high-definition, the future is in high-def 3D

    eGames Expo Melbourne Australia: I've seen the future, and it's in 3D. This technology has threatened to sweep the world many times over the past few years. But new US technology, developed in Silicon Valley and exclusively launched worldwide at the eGames Expo in Melbourne prior to its global launch on January 1, 2007, blows all the misconceptions away and finally launches the true era of high-def 3D for movies, games, TV and more.

    Remember having to wear those red and blue glasses to watch 3D movies at the cinema? 3D was big for a time in the early days, but predictions that everything would be filmed and displayed in 3D simply haven't eventuated beyond the IMAX theatre and early adopter computer users who have downloaded 3D drivers for their NVIDIA graphics cards.

    Now a new 3D technology called the Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it. With a library of 500 current PC based games titles converted to flawless 3D, and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD.

    Besides making their own modifications to existing high-end NVIDIA cards and putting it into their own PC systems, which will sell pre-loaded with 150 top PC games, Windows XP (with Vista to come) and a special interface that can be controlled from a games console controller (in addition to being easily controlled by a standard keyboard and mouse), Fountain Consulting also aim to sell a pack for US $150 that allows anyone with the same hardware to modify their own system to make it 3D compatible.

    The number of people that already have the high-end equipment required is huge, as true gamers are not only growing in number, but always want the best technology to deliver the highest quality gaming experience, so sales of the upgrade kit are likely to be huge.

    But if you just want to buy a ready made system, the Vortex Home Entertainment System computers with all the 3D capabilities demonstrated at the show will be on sale in 2007, in different configurations. They had their systems on display powering the 3D displays, with gamers eagerly playing titles such as Star Wars Battlefront II, the latest Quake and many, many others. The eGames Expo show is still on for one more day - Sunday the 19th at the eGames Expo held in the Melbourne Exhibition Centre as I write, so if you want to see it for yourself, come on down and check it out.

    It's also compatible with existing high-definition TVs and projectors - all you need is a pair of 3D glasses from any manufacturer - the Vortex has been designed to seamlessly work with them all. It also works with any of the new 3D televisions from Sharp, Panasonic, LG, Samsung and others, where you don't need any glasses at all.

    You really need to see a demo of the system playing the latest games, in 3D, with a pair of standard 3D glasses (similar to those handed out at IMAX or Real D cinemas), to truly appreciate how much better your favorite game looks in 3D. The depth, the explosions, the action and the detail is enhanced to a new 3D level.

    I was also shown some video clips of a football match, a home video of someone driving their car (with a standard video camera bolted onto one of the seats to capture the vision as you're driving down the road) and some TV commercials that were all effortlessly converted into 3D. Watching a football match on 3D on a huge 70-inch projected screen, using a standard video projector is so good, it simulates the feeling of being there more than anything I've ever experienced.

    So, who is the creator of this amazing new 3D technology, what led to it's development, and what is the website to find out more information? The story is quite amazing, click on the next button below to find out!

    The CEO and Founder of Fountain Consulting, Tony Welch, is a visionary 27 year old who has an amazing story to tell. His grandfather was a pho

    1. Re:Article text by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a steaming pile of BS right here.:

      "You really need to see a demo of the system playing the latest games, in 3D, with a pair of standard 3D glasses (similar to those handed out at IMAX or Real D cinemas)"

      Those IMAX glasses are designed to work with polarized 3D sources. The lenses are designed to only let one orientation of polarized light in, call it 0 or 90 degrees. One lens is rotated 90 degrees to the other, so each eye sees a separate polarization. Two projectors are used, each projecting different polarizations.

      So basically, this company has apparently figured out to get your existing monitor or TV to magically display two orientations of polarized light, simultaneously! And the best part is, they are modifying the graphics card, not the display, to do it!

      This whole article smells like an elaborate troll.

    2. Re:Article text by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they use an LCD-based polarizer and only one projector. It lowers the perceived frame rate, but it's cheaper and easier than trying to line images from two projectors up perfectly.

    3. Re:Article text by x2A · · Score: 1

      Go look up the word "similar". You'll notice it's similar, but not identical, to the word "identical".

      Once you understand what the word "similar" means, and how it is different to the word "identical", re-read the sentence you call BS on.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Article text by kernelpanicked · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not sure why you're calling BS or why you got modded up for it. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Wes Craven's: New Nightmare was released on VHS with a set of modified 3D glasses, and yes it worked.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
  16. How many does this make? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Revolutionary 3D systems are anounced about as often as Bigfoot sightings and pan out about as often. I'll believe it when I see one.

    1. Re:How many does this make? by matthewcraig · · Score: 1

      Why are the answers to every Slashdot story ending posed as a question always, "NO." ?
      I would really like a story filter that removed any title with the "?" character.

    2. Re:How many does this make? by kestryn · · Score: 1

      ... and see one in Best Buy with Panasonic on the label, for that matter...

    3. Re:How many does this make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had Revolutionary 3D system's love-child! News at 11.

    4. Re:How many does this make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      about as often as Bigfoot sightings and pan out about as often. I'll believe it when I see one.

      Dude, theirs been a movie of one like 4evar.

  17. Sure it works! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Expect any 2D to 3D conversion to work about as well as those B&W to colour conversion filters you could get back in the 50s and 60s. The tecnology they used was called "faith".

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Sure it works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once we have 3D video, are we going to get bad 3D conversions of old movies coming out like the bad colorization we've seen for B&W movies?

    2. Re:Sure it works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can convert B&W to pseudocolor. This works very well for things like pictures of sealife, distant galaxies, microscopy slides, etc.

      It fails miserably when applied to everyday images: you get landscape with pink grass, blue-skinned children building a red sand castle, etc. It still looks cool though.

  18. Yes, by Sizzlebeast · · Score: 1

    But does it run linux in 3d? ;)

  19. In the year 2000 by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    "Smellevision replaces television: Carl Stalling sez, 'It will never work!'"

  20. Meh by jbengt · · Score: 1

    It's stereoscopic, not really 3D. Shouldn't be too hard for a new game, if assume the viewing equipment. But how do they convert existing TV?

    1. Re:Meh by solitas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically it's "stereographic" since the eyes are really viewing two flat images - you can't move your head to see 'around' the object. "Stereoscopic" is the way your eyes function when viewing real three-dimensional objects.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    2. Re:Meh by mpaulsen · · Score: 3, Funny

      I only have one working eye, you insensitive clod. None of those 3-D things work for me.

    3. Re:Meh by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      I have two, but my left eye is and always has been so much weaker than my right that my brain mostly discards the information from it.

      The only "3D" display tech I've tried is the anaglyph mode in Nanosaur II, and while it was kinda cool, all the "3D" was for me was a tiny shimmering on the left side of objects. It was neat, because I see that in real life, but it really didn't matter that much, especially because of the red/cyan separation. I've been wanting to try a different tech some time. *sigh*

      "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man sees all."

      -:sigma.SB

      disclaimer: this was posted while I was asleep

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    4. Re:Meh by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Leela complaining how her 3d glasses didn't work when they were all at the theater on the "Robot Planet". Gotta love the rubbery human monsters in the movie. If anyone doesn't know what show I am referring to, you shouldn't be reading Slashdot.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Meh by GNious · · Score: 1

      May I suggest this?
      ColorCode3D
      Is not anaglyph, and renders colors a lot better IMO.

      Still has the problems with the Dominant Eye issue, though.

      /G

    6. Re:Meh by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      The glasses stuff doesn't work for me because I have monocular vision :-( But there is a tech that might work http://3dscreen.ramboll.dk/ has anybody seen this in the flesh? It looks great, I keep trying to work out how they do it?

      Yep I submitted this to /. over a week ago and it was rejected, obviously to technical for the readership.

    7. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, according to a couple of dictionaries, you're wrong.
      Stereographic has to do with depicting 3D objects on a plane, like a regular projection onto a plane.
      Stereoscopic has to do with 3D vision or processes or devices for giving the illusion of depth from 2D images, like the illusion of 3D by using two 2D images and special glasses.
      Of course, the dictionaries could be missing some technical jargon usage, but I doubt it in this case.

  21. If they claimed it for games only it might be real by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's straightforward to do this for 3D games, because the system has real depth information. Just use shutter glasses and render alternate frames with the viewpoint shifted by one eye separation distance. That's easy, and looks good if the system can render upwards of 70 fps.

    But any scheme for converting existing 2D content to "3D" will probably fall somewhere between "looks stupid" and "generates splitting headaches".

    Stereo vision doesn't do anything useful for objects more than a few meters away. It's most useful for close work, which is rare in games. It's more useful for mechanical CAD, medical imaging data, and similar stuff you need to view close up. Which is why 3D movies, TV, games, etc. never really caught on.

  22. Install a bullshit meter next to each story. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    There are too many stories that amount to nothing more than psudeo-scientific marketing spam, as you have so succinctly pointed out the summary is enough to debunk them.

    Slashdot Bullsit Meter (SBM): I propose each story be displayed next to a thin vertical SBM, users can vote with either a lightbulb icon at the top or a steaming bullshit icon at the bottom. The benifit of a bullshit meter is that it would make reading the summary as redundant as reading TFA. Further, if you could sort stories by BS rating, you could pick out the best regardless of size. Of course this doesn't mean that there will be anything worth reading on slashdot but at least you could find that out faster.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Install a bullshit meter next to each story. by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.

      A slashdot bullshit meter would in fact be, bullshit.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Install a bullshit meter next to each story. by Mike89 · · Score: 1
      Why was this modded up?
      Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.
      You realise the article was Slashdotted before the first post, right? How can you say we don't understand it when no one (including yourself) has even read it.
    3. Re:Install a bullshit meter next to each story. by x2A · · Score: 1

      "How can you say we don't understand it when no one (including yourself) has even read it"

      Firstly, I had read it, by following another link, before I posted, so you're wrong there.

      Secondly... WTF?!! Is that meant to be sarcasm? Of CAUSE I can say ppl don't understand it if they haven't read it.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  23. I saw it at eGames Expo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's not that good. Seriously. I mean yeah, it's cool, you look at it and think WTF?? That stuff looks like its sticking out of the screen like I'm wearing 3D glasses, but I'm not wearing 3D glasses! But after a while you think "geez that's blurry", and you soon notice that it suffers from the same problem as early LCD screens; move a little to either side and the screen goes all dark.

    It's a promising start though, I look forward to what they can come up in a few years once all the problems have been worked out. And when they've got a better demo than the Team America DVD!

  24. Don't worry disbelivers. by BaronSprite · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ben Affleck will take this apart and make a better one in about 5 minutes.

  25. oh yeah? by SuperStretchy · · Score: 1

    Well I got cellophane glasses out of a cereal box that work just fine! Results are debatable, but Alyx sure looks fine in Red/Blue.

  26. flicker++ by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    haha americans, for once I can say I was there... and it sucked. perhaps it'd be useful if you want to induce epileptic fits in people, but honestly, the "3D Video" stall was really lame. people would pick up the glasses, look for a while wondering why nothing happened, then someone would point out then needed to be infront of the little sensor/projector thing. so they'd move in front of it, and think to themselves "wow, this looks like crap and is giving me a headache" and put the glasses back down. total turnaround time of about a minute.

    --
    TIAEAE!
    1. Re:flicker++ by homebrandcola · · Score: 1

      I was also there. This is nothing new. It uses LCD glasses that shut off each eye in turn, and the screen (in this case it was a projector) displays what the left eye sees, then the right eye .... you get the idea. It kind of looks 3D, and adds a convincing motion blur that makes it look like the TV is vibrating, but I got a head ache because I can see the flicker. Worse than looking at an old CRT with a refresh rate of 60hz.

      I remember seeing this same thing about 10 years ago at a 'Big Boy's Toys Expo' (at the same location in Melbourne). Then they were demoing the 'latest Tomb Raider', now they are demoing Doom3. Strangely, this is one technology that seems to have gotten more expensive over time. I remembered I could have bought the system for well under $100AU (then).

    2. Re:flicker++ by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      yeah, to be completely honest I didnt even realise it was supposed to be some fancy new technology while I was at the show. I just thought that about 10 years had passed and someone had decided it was time to try and flog off 3d cards with stupid 3d glasses again.

      --
      TIAEAE!
  27. How many does this make?-Three! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'll believe it when I see one."

    The problem is not everyone can see 3D. Remember those magic eye books?

  28. what a disappointed load of shit by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    enough said, lets move on.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  29. Not as good as it sounds by zik · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was at the eGames expo on Friday and tried out the 3d display. My thought was "Oh, someone's still doing the LCD shutter glasses?". It was just the same old technology from years ago as far as I could see. The only new thing was that they'd made a clever driver which hooked into DirectX so existing games could be used in 3d.

    Sorry guys, there was no 2d->3d conversion at all.

    1. Re:Not as good as it sounds by cananian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's pretty simple to take the Z buffer from any OpenGL/DirectX game and make a quasi-3d display from it. The technology to do 2d->3d live conversion exists (it depends on camera tracking to provide different views and thus an estimate of depth) but would be a much bigger technical challenge (and much more likely to not work well in practice).

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  30. Um... by midkay · · Score: 1

    "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it."

    Right. That makes total sense. The power of article submission moderation has prevailed!

  31. AWESOME! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

    as soon as they make it work with a console, I can have reason to dodge back and forth in Unreal Tournament 2004 when it's 4v1 and all I've got is a biosludge gun! It'd seriously be sweet if they added sensors that could detect you, which of course they have (you know, the black suits with white ping pong ball thingies) Ever since DDR and now the new tilt controllers, gamers are going to be moving around like crazy, especially with the development of 3D display technology. I would totally go for a sword fighting VR setup without a dumb helmet weighing me down.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  32. Dog damn it! by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    They had to come out with this just after I got my 60" HDTV. It's so EXPENSIVE staying current!

    j/k

  33. That sounds very close, actually by cgenman · · Score: 2, Informative

    3D from single photos has been available for a little while, mostly working with geometric content lines to establish likely 3d patterns, then mapping the image onto that pattern. It's possible that they're using color and focus clues as well, though I don't know about that part.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA
    It's a pretty impressive technology. If you could do the analysis 60 times per second, you could have a convincing system for single-perspective 3D in most circumstances.

    I wish I could remember the names of the companies, but I know there are "traditional" 3D screen display manufacturers working on upsampling using the additional depth cues of between-frame camera movements, which the above example did not take advantage of.

  34. 3D != 3D by scovetta · · Score: 1

    As many other posters have pointed out, this is not real 3D. If it were, I would be able to move to the side and look *behind* the characters in the show. Such information simply isn't there, and can't be faked. They can play games like with the colored glasses, but that's about it.

    Now, if they could convert some of these movies to make them GOOD, that would be something.

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Not unreasonable... by cgenman · · Score: 1

    The Sega Master System sold 3D games with shutter glasses. The system actually worked really well except for objects close to the screen, as you'd get rather severe image separation if you were at all too close to the screen or if your television was bigger than they had expected.

    The Virtual Boy also provided real stereoscopic 3D images, though the instruction manual mentions on 5 of 7 pages that it will probably make you nauseous. And they weren't kidding.

    On the other hand, work from Carnegie Mellon earlier this year showed that it is possible to create reasonably usable 3d images from a single 2D snapshot, assuming your snapshot contains sufficiently geometric imagery for the system to make guesses about the form. With the additional depth cues of a moving camera, and limiting the 3D to the location where the image was shot, the final 3D image could come out rather well, albeit using large strokes rather than fine brushes.

    And admittedly, that's where 3D shines. Small geometric details are lost to most 3D... that's why normal maps are sufficient for most geometric details rather than full modeling, because the parallax effects are far more minor than the large color changes. Likewise, on platforms like the Virtal Boy or shutter glasses on your PC, the difference between a left-eye image and a right-eye image is so fine that using flat cardboard cutouts for each eye would be sufficient, assuming the cutouts were of good enough internal representation to make you think you see the additional depth. Just like you don't need to model the depth in a character's eye when a nice textured normal map would suffice, you wouldn't need to render the image at that level of 3D detail for a stationary dual eye image. Just make shure the person-shaped blob aligns in front of the building-shaped blob at roughly where you would expect it to assuming that the ground was flat. That's all most people would be able to discern anyway.

  37. Re:smell TV by jftitan · · Score: 1

    batter chances than Smell-O-Vision

      Man the first foot commercial... and its all over!

    --
    "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
  38. FAKE by dailynerd · · Score: 1

    This is fake, and here is why: The same author wrote an article at iTWire. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7242/52/ Where he refernced: Vortex Home Entertainment System (as the system) and http://www.fountainconsulting.com/products.htm (as the company) The list of Exhibitors from the egamesexpo in australia: http://blog.egamesexpo.com.au/static.php?page=exhi bitors Hmm... not listed as an Exhibitor

  39. Problems with gaming by smileytshirt · · Score: 1
    These types of glasses have been around for a long time now. But the main sticking points with games remain:

    • You get half the FPS (each frame needs to be rendered once for each eye)
    • Motion sickness is often a problem
    • Games can appear blurred
    • Edges of screen cannot be rendered properly in 3D (you get images only one eye can see)
    • Only 3D aspects of games are supported. Dialog boxes, text, HUDs all will not work properly unless they are drawn as part of the 3D model (which they usually never are)
    They would be a novelty for a few minutes, but no self respecting gamer would use them.
    --
    www.shortman.com.au - top shorted stocks on the ASX
    1. Re:Problems with gaming by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Actually I work in a VR lab at my university and I take issue with a couple of your comments... namely:

      Motion sickness is often a problem

      Yeah, but that could be solved (at least somewhat) with some of the cheap head-tracking alternatives on the market currently...

      Games can appear blurred

      That's usually a problem of refresh rate, not the technology itself. Your monitor should be set at a minimum of 120Hz to get good results. I've seen some exotic displays that can have refresh rates in excess of 1000Hz, but that's usually for multiple-user systems. Actually the "blurring" effect can be beneficial in many cases, since your eyes use the two images as something like natural super-sampling, so you get an anti-aliasing effect without wasting any clock cycles on it. YMMV though.

      Edges of screen cannot be rendered properly in 3D (you get images only one eye can see)

      There's always parts of the scene one eye can see and the other can't. Touch the left side of your nose and close your left eye. Tada! You can't see your finger. :) In this case the monitor is acting like a window into the virtual world. Head tracking is immensely helpful here.

      Only 3D aspects of games are supported. Dialog boxes, text, HUDs all will not work properly unless they are drawn as part of the 3D model (which they usually never are)

      Huh? Billboarded UI features are generally drawn right on the display surface, meaning they will work just fine in stereoscopic 3D rendering. That's how we do our menus in the geology vis app I've been working on. They just look like they're sitting right on the monitor surface, which is often desirable.

      no self respecting gamer would use them.

      Eh? Where do you get off saying that? Maybe they won't increase your frag count in Halo or whatever, but I can think of a few types of games where a lack of depth perception is incredibly frustrating. I think puzzle gamers and platform gamers would welcome depth perception, as well as a few other genres. I think your definition of a "gamer" is a little to narrow.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  40. YouTube Video by Ididerus · · Score: 1

    Not sure if this is the same thing (sites out so can't check), but here is a video of something similar off of YouTube. Looks pretty authentic to me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdY98GH7sQ

    --
    I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
    1. Re:YouTube Video by Ididerus · · Score: 1

      Guess Slashdot never picked this story up, ran on engadget 11/02.

      Here's the link: http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/02/cheoptics360-th e-future-of-3d-video-is-here/

      --
      I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
    2. Re:YouTube Video by yosofun · · Score: 1

      doesn't look like 3d tv... more like a 3d movie theatre. how'd i fit that into my dinky 10x20 city apt living room for my nxt frag fest?!

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. how does that go again? by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    hmmm. i think it goes something like: smoke and mirrors.
    i have to invest in some of them. everyone's buying it!

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  43. It really tough to say by vikaskumar2020 · · Score: 1

    IP-TV will become more interactive now. And this session has great impact on tech of 2007.

  44. always be able to spot vaporware by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    the website was created in Feb '06

    there is no physical address listed. only emails.

    the website itself is a bit shady. lots of tech speak and lots of funny looking product mockups and some sample images.

    nothing hardcore or concrete. no corporate records found.

    caveat emptor

    invest wisely

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  45. Important Differentiation by FreeRadicalX · · Score: 1

    It should be noted that "3D" video is quite different than "Holographic" video that the title of the article may bring to mind in some readers. Literally all this company has created is a way to play games and video in two different color fields on a monitor- the same way that 3D movies have stereo red and blue color fields. This means that you still have to wear the 3D glasses when you play. I hate misleading headlines. Unfortunately, this won't let you play 3D Star Wars chess just yet... But you should still be advised to let the Wookie win.

  46. Believe it or not I've seen it by Codename46 · · Score: 1

    I met Tony Welch during my senior year in high school (a year ago), when I was working part-time as a sales associate at Micro Center in suburban Dallas. He came to the store to pick up some high-end hardware, and when I asked what he was using it for he explained it to me. I even saw his 3D-projection LCD TV with my own eyes. It was in his apartment. I remember it being made by either BenQ or LG. I remember his three-legged cat as well and his wife, who was really nice. He explained how that the hardware of 3D TV's was already developed in other countries such as Japan, and that the U.S is lagging behind in this sort of technology. His company is responsible for integrating the software into the hardware innovation. I clearly remember the videos he ran from his computer to demonstrate, common commercials you frequently see on TV. He also gave a demonstration of Half-Life 2 on his 19" LCD monitor. He also took apart one of his workstations (I remember it being an Aspire X-QPack for the case) and showing me the NVidia Quadro FX5500 that was in it. I also recall the light gun he made out of a toy airsoft M4 rifle. Based on all the comments I have read here, I know you guys will be skeptical of what I just said. If it means anything at all I'll try to dig up the pics I took if I still have them. Tony Welch, a graduate from SMU with degrees in CS and EE. He is such a cool person in my eyes. Too bad I let him down (long story).

    1. Re:Believe it or not I've seen it by squeeg · · Score: 1

      That is a very interested story that you made up.

    2. Re:Believe it or not I've seen it by Codename46 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, asshole, except I didn't make it up. All you people can do is debunk him and his company. Let me be one of few people who have faith in his vision.

    3. Re:Believe it or not I've seen it by jayekub · · Score: 1

      It's actually not made up at all. I don't know the parent poster personally, but Tony's a buddy of mine that I met this summer, and I've seen his degree from SMU on his wall. He's a cool guy, and I think his ideas have a lot of potential. Not really sure why you think that's made up...

      I've seen his products and played with them a number of times, and I think there's some market for it. The press that it is getting is pretty sensationalistic. The most interesting product is the pre-configured system (not sure of the actual name). No, it's not revolutionary, but it's a great combination of existing technologies in one box. The 3d effect is pretty cool. You're basically getting the latest 3d equiptment used in industry glued to a nice PC gaming rig with a ton of games pre-installed and a decent LCD projector. They have some cool ways of getting all these items together from their respective manufacturers on the cheap and putting together a cool gaming rig. And I've definitely seen more expensive gaming PCs with less features.

      My favorite thing about the system isn't really so much the 3d effect, but the way it can be approached as a video game console. A couple weekends ago we had a bunch of buddies come over to Tony's house, cracked open a few of beers, and spent the night playing with a couple of his demo units. Everyone got a pair of shutter glasses and a wireless joypad, and we played a bunch of games, sometimes with as many as 6 players, on big projector screens. It was easily as fun as any console gaming experience. Hopefully rigs like this will encourage more PC game makers to include split screen and other modes that are good for multiple people playing on one system, something which you normally only find on consoles.

    4. Re:Believe it or not I've seen it by flnca · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. In fact, these 3D projection monitors already exist and have already been sold for a couple of years.

      In top middle of the panel (or at the edges) there is an eye motion sensor that tracks the viewer's eye movements and then adjust the view on the screen accordingly.

      For instance, have a look at This product from Philips.

      But there are also 3D projection systems that use drops of vapor that are illuminated via laser: Wired Article

      Google is your friend!

  47. ELSA 3D shutter glasses by cbdougla · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like the old ELSA 3D Revelator glasses you could use with your games. An external driver would use the Z-buffer information in the Direct X code as its "3D extrapolation" You did, in fact, see 3D effect in Direct X games. It was a bit like looking at a stereo photograph. The driver / glasses combo added definite 3D depth to the view but it was like looking at cardboard cutouts in 3D space. The problem with the glasses was that the effective refresh rate was 1/2 your actual refresh rate since the LCD shutter glasses and had to give each eye its own image.

  48. Soooo.... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    What nVidia's been doing for years then? http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d_stereo.html for more info, but I remember having a pair of these back in the GeForce 3 days. It would work with any 3D game, though how good it looked depended on the game, my guess is it had to do with how it handled the 3D data. The most impressive were (of course) the nVidia demos which could actually appear to jump out of the screen a bit.

    Looks like these days they aren't doing their own glasses, but rather have drivers that will work with 3rd party stuff.

    So sounds like this is not only nothing but hype, but it's not even original in any way.

  49. 500 games? by Matilda+the+Hun · · Score: 1
    With a library of 500 current PC-based games


    499 of which are rule variations of solitare.
    --
    Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
  50. Re:smell TV by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Would add a whole lot of fun to Goatse.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  51. It is all in the brain.... by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I remmember correctly, if the brain is used to the item you are looking at, even looking with one eye you will ahve the eprception of depth, NOT because one eye is enough, but because the rbain "remember" it. Now try the same (only 1 eye) in an unfamiliar item or environment, that the brain cannot recognize.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  52. glasses not (always) needed.. by slashmojo · · Score: 1

    "It also works with any of the new 3D televisions from Sharp, Panasonic, LG, Samsung and others, where you don't need any glasses at all."

    So says this article..

    http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7242/52/1/0/

    Also the website you mention is actually from "a local Australian distributor", not the company making this thing which is apparently based in silicon valley.

  53. Think of the possibilities! by mercuryswitch · · Score: 1

    Think of the PORN!

    --
    Sigs are overrated.
  54. 2D to 3D, not impossible by iendedi · · Score: 1

    The idea of converting 2D to 3D is not at all impossible, it is just very processor intensive. Here is a a basic outline of how it can be done:

    (1) Using Computer Vision Systems, a software program represents the scene it is seeing with 3D polyogon/spline models. This is not an easy task, but it is doable - a combination of heuristics, neural nets, basic image processing and 3D rendering out of a database of common models, combined with a GA / hill-climbing algorithm that compares rendered models against the 2D images - with enough horsepower, such a system (assuming it has a large model database and the ability to adapt and learn organic shapes) should be able to do a reasonable job of extracting 3D scenes and animating them to choreograph a 2D video against it's internal 3D model/animation plot.

    (2) Use the 2D video as, essentially, a set of texture maps against the 3D model and render the movie.

    (3) Profit?

    We are probably 10-20 years away from such sophisticated compuer vision systems - it is really computer "imagination" systems that try to imagine a scene that matches what it sees. It will happen. But today? This thing? No way... It's pure bologne.

    --

    It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    1. Re:2D to 3D, not impossible by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Well that's a more detailed way to explain what I said, but this being said I think that no matter what you'll always get bogus results. That kind of stuff is pretty much like voice recognition, voice synthesis or text translation, will hardly ever be perfect or anywhere near that, mainly due to the kind of obstacles it meets (pretty much theorical ones). However I don't really know about the technology you're talking about, but it hardly can give more than an approximation of how things filmed really are like in 3D.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  55. MOD PARENT UP - EXACTLY CORRECT by iendedi · · Score: 1

    It can't be a coincidence... These guys are totally playing off of the idea that porn will sell their product.

    --

    It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
  56. Of course it's real! by SPQR_Julian · · Score: 1

    They do it on CSI all the time!

  57. Use weighted averages for BS meter by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.

    Well, in the case of this particular story, people are right to claim bullshit IMHO. There is no computational way of generating the 3D info out of thin air, short of having a computer powerful enough to "understand" the image and extrapolate from secondary cues.

    And for the general case, we might be able to make the bullshit meter more reliable by weighting the votes. Assign a reliability rating to each voter. Reliability of a voter increases the closer his rating (in previous opinions) is to the final rating. Occasional review by editors might be needed, especially in the early stages, in order to avoid trolls flooding the bullshit meter and skewing its perception of reality ;-)

    And bullshit ratings may be made subject to metamod (putting voter's karma in jeopardy) to further help keep people reasonable.

    1. Re:Use weighted averages for BS meter by x2A · · Score: 1

      "There is no computational way of generating the 3D info out of thin air, short of having a computer powerful enough to "understand" the image and extrapolate from secondary cues"

      You mean like the examples pointed out here?

      Like I said, many slashdotters call bullshit [...] simply because they cannot see how it would be possible.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Use weighted averages for BS meter by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Hmm, looks like that site has even difficulties with showing proper 2D images, let alone 3D.

      Call me back when they've ditched the flash

    3. Re:Use weighted averages for BS meter by x2A · · Score: 1

      Who, YouTube?!! You are kidding right? You know how many people watch clips on youtube every day - without any problem? If anybody's got a problem with it, it's you, not them. I don't think Google would have paid $1.65B for a site that couldn't even display its content.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  58. From their site by ghostcorps · · Score: 0
    http://www.fountainconsulting.com/technology.htm

    Hardware: Everything needed for systems based on 3D Auto-Stereoscopic Displays are commonly available, off the shelf, with a minimal need for technical support. The controls and systems are based on present day PC platform. The media players can be locally or remotely scaled to suite any need to support for broadcast channels, narrowcast networks, and standalone media player applications.

    Software: Virtually any of the popular 3D applications such as LightWave 3D, Maya, or 3D Studio Max, Cinema 4d, etc. can be used to create content for an ASD. Fountain has been able to appropriately set drivers and tune ASDs for over 300 industrial CG.CAD, DCC applications

    Video Production: To produce true 3D Video it is necessary to use either a High Definition camera with an alpha based range finder or multiple cameras that are recording from separate perspectives. A multi-camera configuration can be either a dual/side-by-side camera setup or a series of multiple cameras aligned on a single mount in parallel or arc format. It is possible to produce 3D video using a standard 2D camera but this requires the addition of a depth map in post-production.

    Glasses Free, Multi-Viewer Stereoscopic Display Systems: Reaching backwards to the first cave drawings, man has tried to produce images that reflect the reality of their experiences and have been limited to a 2 dimensional canvas. Photographers paved the way for film and today computer animators deliver 3D imagery that is virtually indistinguishable from reality. Current projection systems capable of producing stereo pairs for viewing require special glasses, and often deliver a less that satisfactory experience. Other approaches such as holograms, particle suspension, fog screen, dual projection, spinning cylinders, and a countless number of technologies have not been widely adopted by industry or the public. In contrast Spatial 3D Auto-Stereoscopic Displays (ASDs) create a true 3D experience and provide the worlds first opportunity for mass market appeal.

    How Auto-Stereoscopic Displays (ASDs) Work: Decades ago, audio playback developed from a single channel, mono sound system to a dual-channel, stereo sound system and eventually to multi-channel, directional Dolby Surround - Stereo sound is produced by providing two different channels of sound, left and right, to the ears of the audience. Stereo images are similarly produced.

    Like stereo sound, stereo video signal produce a left and right signal for the viewer, allowing for spatial separation. Audio formats have changed as Single channel sound progressed into Stereo sound (2 Channel) into Quadraphonic sound (4 Channel) and finally into Surround sound (6-8 Channel). Similarly video formats have changed as Single channel video progressed into Stereoscopic (2 Perspective) into Stereoscopic + Depth (2 Perspectives + 2 Depth Maps) into Multi-channel (4,6,8,9 or even 16 Perspective Views).

    Multi-channel displays produce multiple perspectives of a scene in front of the viewing audience. The scene is presented by the display in such a way that makes it viewable in stereoscopic 3d, by multiple people, from multiple locations without the need for any 3D glasses.

    Where 3D Content Comes From: True 3D content requires 3-axis in the graphical space (x-y for planar, z for depth) of real-time software that contains a total of. OpenGL and DirectX5+ applications are immediately available for integration with ASD technology. A second source of true 3D content is multiple-perspective rendered computer animation and live media that was captured with multiple live video cameras.

    Multi-perspective media, in conjunction with real-time software, provides for the most true-to-life depth impression and special effects. Additionally, specially produced multi-perspective productions allow for an endless convergence of all forms of standard 2D and 3D live actio

    --
    axis discrepancy indicates hexagons beyond control anomaly
  59. Mine ended when I went to the Philips 3D site. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/ about/Index.html ...after checking the name of his logo, "philips3d.jpg."

    and seeing a "GoDaddy" proxied registration.

    Come on, guys. Even the most cursory inspection indicates "Fountain Consulting" is phoney-baloney.

  60. I remember... by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    ...how there were a lot of text books written about virtual reality in the late 70s or so...I even remember the slogan on the back of one of them,
    "Virtual Reality will not replace television. It will eat it alive."

    Thing is...and this is what none of the academics at the time could have predicted...but "virtual reality," as it turned out, didn't happen.

    Doom did.

  61. I saw it. by rat_herder · · Score: 1

    Some buddies and i went to the Expo in question.. (Mostly to get some wii in action :) We saw the little tent these guys had set-up flogging a bunch of 3d related gear. I sat down and tried the 3d glases (same tech as iMaxx, with the semi-bulky glasses etc)

    However, good fried who loves his flight sims actually spoke to the rep and tried the system this article refers to. Breifly.. his summary was something like "f&*king pile of sh!t". The head tracking system was "shakey" and the guy apparently could only demonstrate teh system on the windows desktop... No games, no 3d extrapolation of live TV, etc. So i call bullshit.

    Cheers.

  62. Check out their tech specs... by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

    Oh dear me. From http://www.3dvisual.com.au/html/vortex.html

    "The Vortex System Console

    - Windows XP Platform- 7.1 20-bit Audio THX Cirtified
    - Entertainment Interface Shell- Dolby Digital-EX & DTS-ES
    - 3D Profile Settings- 24 Bit Crystalizer
    - Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, 800 MHZ FSB - 109 db SNR Playback
    - 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM- IR Remote Control
    - Data Storage BFG Nvidia 6800 GTOC
    - 2 7,200 RPM 300 GB drives- 256 MB GDDR3
    - External 16 x Dual Layer DVD RAN Drive - 370 MHz Core Clock
    - Ethernet Port- 1000 MHz Mem Clock
    - 6 LISB 2.0 & 1 Firewire 400 Port555 million verticesIsec
    - 32.0 GBIsec Mean Bandwidth"

    This is meaningless nonsense. "20-bit Audio THX Cirtified". Dear god. Plus the system and glasses look awful.

  63. Arcade game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember an arcade game back in about 1986 that had a genuine 3d display. No glasses were required. Some clever optics were employed. It was fascinating to watch but cost like 6 quarters to play a game so I never actually played but watched the rich kids play it, it was pretty cool.

    I can't seem to find any info on the web about it (try narrowing a Google search on "3d" anything).

    1. Re:Arcade game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah wait, I think this was it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_(video_ game)

      http://www.hortonaviation.com/timetrav/ttpics.html

      http://www.ggdb.com/GameByName.aspx?vid=3113

      http://www.arcadeflyers.com/?page=flyer&id=4696&im age=1

      Yup, that's the one.

      Seems it was '91 not '86 (Junior High and High school were a blur - the key word being high).

  64. Beowolf 3D cluster of this ? by AwaxSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Beowolf 3D cluster of this ?

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  65. Parrallax by mutube · · Score: 1
    How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

    A 2d scene in which the viewer is moving has 3D information available through parallax. By judging the difference in movement between objects it would be possible to get a rough idea what is in the foreground & what is in the background. Perhaps enough to do useful encoding?

    Until it stops.

  66. Oh man, that was embarrassing by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Umm.....ahhh.....err...Can you....no....errm....can you provide...ahh...ummm....a link....please?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:Oh man, that was embarrassing by 1337W422102 · · Score: 1

      You never heard of 4chan, have you?

  67. flying cars by mennucc1 · · Score: 1

    in the 60's , 70's and 80's , when it was slow news week, the common nerd/geek magazine would sport an article on flying cars; in 90's and 00's , it is 3D TV (or 3D computer screens).

  68. Re:matthew craig is a pedophile by matthewcraig · · Score: 1

    Thanks for taking the time to 'google' me, feels tingly. Where as most people have fairly unique names that are searchable, mine is so popular that you need to go ten pages deep before you find anything about the real me. Check out thematthewcraig.com for a long listing of us out there. "Protect your identity on the Internet. Change your name to Matthew Craig today!"

  69. Look it's a site that's not broken! by dieth · · Score: 1
  70. This has been around WITHOUT glasses by Necreia · · Score: 1

    http://ddd.com/index-2.html No glasses, looks 3D.

  71. interesting prototypes at SIGGRAPH by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I've been seeing good auto-steroscopic 3D displays at SIGGRAPH for over a decade. They operation on different principles, some using vertical lense systems, others using multiple depth-of-focus planes, to name a few. They all seem to be fishing for some sort of market. Some try for high-end scientific or military visualization. Others aim toward the advertisment market.

  72. Bigfoot by emil10001 · · Score: 1

    Science Friday on NPR ran a segment on Bigfoot just a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, Bigfoot is plausible as a real creature. I'm not one of those "believers" either, and I was a bit upset when I looked at the title of the podcast, but Dr. Meldrum makes a compelling argument for the existence of Bigfoot.

  73. Even little kids know you are wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially the ones who tipped their televisions forward to peep down the some woman's shirt!

    Doesn't work worth a damn!

  74. Re:If they claimed it for games only it might be r by bigpat · · Score: 1

    It's straightforward to do this for 3D games, because the system has real depth information. Just use shutter glasses and render alternate frames with the viewpoint shifted by one eye separation distance. That's easy, and looks good if the system can render upwards of 70 fps.

    Nvidia already offers stereo 3d drivers which work great with my eMagin 3d visor. As you say the games already have Z depth information to render a realistic environment, which the software just renders from a slightly offset perspective. I believe it is 30Hz from each perspective for a combined 60Hz. Though, the HUD and crosshairs could use a little work in some games, since the game creators always give them depth. But if it is distracting then they can usually be disabled if you can't get them to line up properly with the 3d background.

    The best stereo 3d effects are in games which have a lot of close at hand objects. Looking down the barrel of the gun in Call of Duty for instance is pretty darn cool. Or climbing up a ladder where the ladder looks like it has real depth. I'd say virtual objects out to about a virtual 10 feet or so, just like in the real world, are really compelling in 3d.

  75. In the land of the 3D... by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

    ... The one eyed man is up a creek

    --
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  76. Not so much... by TheMCP · · Score: 1

    3D Television and video have been not only available but cheap for some time now, and the adult industry has basically ignored it. A few adult 3D movies were made some decades ago, but they were just treated as a novelty and didn't catch on.

    For stereoscopic video to catch on, there are two major requirements:
    1) no glasses. Sharp already makes displays that meet this qualification, as does one other manufacturer (I think it's phillips but I'm not sure).
    2) Cheap. No-glasses 3D displays are not yet anything like cheap. Too bad. Once it gets to the point of "I can have that 2D display, or I can have the same size 3D display for the same price" then it will start to spread.

    1. Re:Not so much... by jdray · · Score: 1

      ...or I can have the same size 3D display for the same price" then it will start to spread.

      More likely "or I can have the same size 3D display for only a 50% premium." People are willing to pay for what they want, they just have limits to their abilities to convince themselves that the "price:cool factor" ratio is low enough to afford.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  77. Re:If they claimed it for games only it might be r by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    True. 3D is not the most important thing. Having a very large field of view is the key to making you feel you are there. Sadly, most head mounted displays have a very poor FOV, even the very expensive ones.

  78. As someone with only one working eye... by spun · · Score: 1

    Let me confirm this. Kfg is right, most of our depth perception does not come from stereoscopic vision. Parallax, color fading, bluring, occlusion and about 10-20 other systems all process visual information to provide depth perception. I can still throw a ball or a frisbee right to you, but I have a hard time playing pool and I can't thread a needle to save my life.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  79. The Pepsi Challenge. by VortexGames · · Score: 1

    If there is anyone here in the states that would like a demonstration... and holds any credibility in the industry, then you are welcome to request a demo. Our demo facility is in San Francisco Bay and we have multiple units in circulation for closed door product proofing.

    This is definately a "see it to believe it" product, we will not deny that. Once you play a game in quality, stereoscopic 3D (NOT Simulated as some articles have indicated) you will never play in 2D again. Same graphics quality as a high end gaming PC, but 3D and it's a system that actually works with PC titles off-the-shelf. For those of you that don't like the glasses, we have glasses-free 3D panels... if you have the money for it. Our 45" 3d-HDTV will be going for about $12,000US next year.

    By the way, we use the same glasses that NASA used to repair the Hubble telescope; the same glasses that scientists have been using for years...so for all of you skeptics, no, the glasses can't hurt you and thank you for the press.

    Do your homework. Almost every major display manufacturer today is presenting new era 3D television sets, we know because we've seen them all. Some of them are very impressive, others aren't. Drop us an email, and we'll answer any serious questions that any of you may have.

    vortex@fountainconsulting.com