Acer To Launch 3D Notebook In October?

An anonymous reader writes "Acer is planning to announce a 3D notebook computer by end of October. If Acer indeed comes out with a 3D laptop then it'll be the world's first manufacturer to do so. The most interesting thing about Acer's machine is that it requires no special glasses. The 15.6-inch notebook features built-in software which can convert regular 2D movies to 3D and directly support 3D movies." Update: 06/08 23:18 GMT by T : According to the linked story, the no-glasses version is still in the works; the current iteration does still require special glasses.

Comments

Been done.

[0100010001010011]

CSI already has these. I know because I saw it on TV. They were also able to get High Res photos out of a .5MB security camera and spin it around in 3D.

Re:Been done.

[cliffjumper222]

Actually, it is real - Sharp made them years ago - no glasses required, so if Acer indeed comes out with a 3D laptop then it'll be the world's second manufacturer to do so. Sharp even got to a second generation of them. Here's a link: http://www.physorg.com/news3296.html. It was so successful you can't buy them anymore. The problem was lack of content and you needed to hold you head in the hot-zone of 3D-ness. Even if Acer manages to release a decent 3D screen, and we start watching the latest 3D movies on it, I think they'll have a tough time overcoming the puppet theater effect on such a small screen. It's not such a problem in a huge cinema, but would be in this case.

Re:Been done.

[Monsieur_F]

Err, 3D without glasses has been done before and is still a hot topic these days.

Look for "autostereoscopic" screens. (despite the name, actually more than 2 pictures are used to generate the 3D effect, more like 8 pictures)

Sharp already commercialized a 3D laptop some years ago.

WTH is a 3D Laptop???

[Itninja]

Are all the other laptops on the market existing in only two dimensions? I am pretty sure all laptops are currently three dimensional.

Re:WTH is a 3D Laptop???

[sexconker]

That doesn't make it 4 dimensional.
It has to span multiple points along the time axis to be dimensional in that regard.

Re:WTH is a 3D Laptop???

[PopeRatzo]

I would love a 2 - dimensional laptop. I envision something like a sheet of paper that accepts input from my fingertips or from a stylus or from a virtual keyboard.

Don't even worry about being able to fold it or roll it. If I can just slip it into a folder among sheets of regular paper.

Yes, I know that a sheet of paper is still 3D, but I've been waiting for the electronic "paper" for like 15 years now. I remember when I worked for a university as a director of computing and went out to Cupertino for a week. This is back when Apple was still interested in the educational market, so they took real good care of us, put us up in a nice bed and breakfast. But no hookers, damn it.

Anyway, they had some spooky Apple hardware developer talk to us about the things they were planning and told us we'd definitely have electronic paper by "2001". I always thought that guy might have been on 'shrooms or something equally entheogenic. When I asked him about the Newton, he developed a slight, but noticeable eye-twitch. My guess is that today that very hardware developer is working at a Potbelly's sandwich shop after completing court-ordered rehab.

Anyway, if anybody from Apple is reading this: Stop fooling around with the fucking iPhones and get me my iPaper! Or ePaper, or whatever you want to call it.

"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[John Hasler]

Bullshit.

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[moon3]

and also converts 3D to 4D. Amazing!

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[Vuojo]

Exactly. These "3D" systems have been coming for decades and in the end they have been total crap. I believe when I see one with my own eyes.

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[PhantomHarlock]

I have seen a demo of realtime conversion - it actually works, but only about 80% good. Occasionally you'll see some problems. I saw a demo at NAB in April at Samsung's booth that blew my mind because it was actually that good, but it's still nothing compared to real stereoscopic capture. Basically it looks like a series of parallax planes, a step down from the real thing. But shockingly, it DOES work. My best guess is that it takes into account a variety of factors including haze and color, detail, dimensions and inference from motion.

I consider it to be a gimmick that distracts from real 3D content. It's -very- clever, but it is no substitute for real stereoscopic content.

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[John Hasler]

> Why not?

Because the information isn't there.

> We already have software that converts stereo music to true surround sound.

No we don't. The information isn't there.

> Extracting parallax information and converting movies to 3D should be easy.

The information isn't there. What next, software to convert a still picture to a 90 minute movie?

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[Aphoxema]

It's not "true" surround sound, it doesn't mystically divine information that isn't there anymore. That is, when you turn your head you don't hear what you would have heard if you've done so with the actual source, if applicable.

So, no, it's impossible for them to have something that can guess to any believable sight what depth every part of an image it should be.

I second that call on bullshit.

Re:"convert regular 2D movies to 3D"

[selven]

If it's an animated movie, it was done in 3D anyway, so not removing the extra dimension is fairly trivial.

Finally, a laptop not from Flatland!

[techmuse]

I'm glad that they are going to be shipping 3 dimensional laptops. Those 2 dimensional laptops that I've been using are really inconvenient. The screen and the keyboard are on the same plane, and you can't push the buttons at all, because that would require a third dimension. Even worse, my 2 dimensional laptop keeps falling through infinitely thin slots, and cut my arm off once when it fell perpendicularly to the floor while my arm was in the way. It might be 2D, but it has mass after all, so it has an infinitely sharp edge. Apple made a big deal out of the Macbook Air being .25" thick at its thinnest point. That's nothing. My 2D laptop has 0 thickness!

Hype

[QuantumG]

Currently, users still need to wear stereoscopic glasses for the 3D to be effective, however, Acer is developing a model without the need for glasses, although it still has quiet a few technological obstacles to overcome, Kan noted.

So basically they're just throwing a pair of shutter glasses into the box.

Summary grossly incorrect.

[Itninja]

From TFA:

"Currently, users still need to wear stereoscopic glasses for the 3D to be effective, however, Acer is developing a model without the need for glasses, although it still has quiet a few technological obstacles to overcome, Kan noted."

Suddenly, that 'most interesting thing' isn't that interesting at all.

Re:Summary grossly incorrect.

[lastomega7]

"A few technological obstacles..."
All they have to do is get the whole 3D thing working.

Inaccurate summary

[Theaetetus]

The most interesting thing about Acer's machine is that it requires no special glasses.

Wow, that is interesting... oh, wait:

Currently, users still need to wear stereoscopic glasses for the 3D to be effective, however, Acer is developing a model without the need for glasses, although it still has quiet a few technological obstacles to overcome, Kan noted.

What's next? "The most interesting thing about Acer's machine is that it runs on a hyperdimensional fuel cell weighing only two ounces but able to supply power for six months on a single charge... (but not currently, and it has quite a few technological obstacles to overcome)."
Wishful thinking makes for a good press release, but not such a good Slashdot story.

Re:Inaccurate summary

[PPH]

but not such a good Slashdot story.

Well, it will be good. Once they get some bugs worked out.

Sharp produced a 3D laptop in 2005

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharp produced a 3D laptop in early 2005.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/115348/sharps_3d_notebook.html

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/042253

with a no-glasses display, even. I saw one at a conference expo,
it worked pretty well for molecular graphics/viz stuff. But they never
caught on.

Re:Sharp produced a 3D laptop in 2005

[Areyoukiddingme]

I knew Sharp had made the no-glasses 3D display LCD panel. Didn't know they'd made an integrated version. As I recall, they use an integrated lenticular lens sheet. Unfortunately for Sharp, they're completely and utterly clueless about how to find a tolerable price point. People might pay a premium for a native 3D display, but they sure as hell won't pay as much of a premium as Sharp asked. So they didn't sell.

Worse, it's not hard to find out what lenticular lens sheets cost. They're the same things given away for free on cereal boxes for motion effects, and the same things used in promotional materials for motion and 3D effects. "Motion" Valentine's Day cards for children to distribute at school were available for a few dollars at Walmart. Meaning they're dirt cheap per square foot. For a corporation as large as Sharp, buying the extrusion machine capable of producing them at precisely the pitch they need should have been trivial, the PET plastic cost IS trivial, and so ultimately the price point they chose was absurd. They tried to play the "over price it so people think it's worth something" game and failed.

A shame, really. Reviewers said the effect worked quite nicely, without any headache inducing effect whatsoever. A far cry from every glasses-based effect ever tried. Of course what they trade off for 3D is resolution, rather than framerate. There's always something...

It's too bad "HD" flat-panel TVs have utterly destroyed the computer flat panel market. Manufacturers find it much more lucrative to crank out tons of crap-resolution TVs than to try to produce high resolution computer monitors anymore. If not for TVs, production processes might have pushed past the 30" widescreen at 2560x1600 resolution, getting us ready for built-in stereoscopic displays. Instead, average resolution has declined, crippling any idea to spend pixels for stereo.

CSI technicians...

[denzacar]

Is there anything they can't do?

Re:CSI technicians...

[davester666]

Stopping David Caruso from doing his stupid pose in EVERY SINGLE SCENE?

Re:CSI technicians...

[thatskinnyguy]

Act their way out of a paper bag?

Re:CSI technicians...

[bami]

Yes they did, They have these new fancy VB6 GUI's that can simultaneously track IP's and tighten up graphics.

Actius RD3D in 2004

[Ecuador]

And you are talking about the second generation. The Actius RD3D was released a year earlier. So, this Acer is not the first 3D laptop in the sense that it exists in 3 dimensions, it is not the first 3D laptop in the sense of having a 3D capable display, maybe there is another usage of the term 3D?

Re:Actius RD3D in 2004

[Allicorn]

Absolutely! "First ever" my foot!

The Sharp Actius RD3D, which has been available for more than 5 years, has a spectacularly cool lenticular display that produces a pretty convincing and definitely bright & colorful illusion of 3D without the need for any accoutrements.

Turns out it's not a great laptop in and of itself - pitiful battery life - too heavy - and a few users I've known just don't seem to "get" the 3d effect.

Nonetheless - summary and TFA are completely wrong.

Er... and as for software which converts movies into 3d on the fly... haha! Gag of the day right there.

Hmm... Possibly something like...

[denzacar]

Fotowoosh?

Highly unlikely that it could work in a way acceptable for viewing movies. Cardboard cutouts instead of actual 3D at best...

Re:Cue Mind Numbing Headache and Eye Strain in

[sexconker]

I rented the Virtual Boy when it came out, and played it all that (long, Thanksgiving) weekend. I do not recall it shutting off and making me take a break. I do remember there were warnings about taking a break, which I completely ignored.

The VB was awesome. Too damned bad it was monochrome. The price (and weight) were just way too much at the time for them to go full color. And now that they already have the failure on record, there's no chance in hell they'll pursue a full color version anytime in the near future.

While the system was a failure and most of the games were shitty, the visual effect was actually pretty fucking cool, and remains one of the best implementations of 3D I've seen. I never had any problems with headaches / eye strain / etc., either.

Glasses or Not: Both 'suck', so go with glasses

[Animaether]

Okay.. so on one hand, you've got...
- red/green red/cyan red/blue
- polarized
- shutter
- chromadepth
- etc. ...glasses. Nobody likes these, because you have to wear them.

On the other hand, you've got..
- lenticular
- uhm. nope, that's pretty much it. ...displays. Which most people don't like either, as you practically have to sit in a single spot to make it work well. There -are- displays where you can view from a few more angles (any 'tween' angles show ghosting), but always at a loss of (horizontal) resolution, as more and more images get displayed at the same time.

This only counts -stereographic- 3D methods. So a bunch of panels behind eachother (medical imaging-look, and your laptop would be as thick as a printed encyclopedia..), or displays that track where your face is so as to show a different viewpoint (doesn't give depth cues except for the illusion when you move your head side to side like some sort of pigeon on drugs), don't count.

Neither of the above 2 methods are very appealing, but if I had to take my pick, I'll take glasses *any* time. Combined with the head tracker, all the more awesome. Displays that don't take glasses simply aren't there yet for any extended use.

( See an older post of mine for various other '3d display' methods; though I'm sure wikipedia's got 'm all covered, too )

Re:Glasses or Not: Both 'suck', so go with glasses

[Animaether]

Yes, but keep in mind that the lenticular cover is typically permanent (if it's not, you have to *very carefully* re-align any time you put it back over the screen).. which means your resolution is cut in half at best (say, every even vertical column of pixels for the left eye, every odd vertical column for the right eye). And even if you don't move your head very much, go find a lenticular display or even just one of those little cards that came in cereal boxes or whatever.. the smallest movement can cause ghosting at best, or flipping at worst. What I mean by 'the smallest movement' is, roughly, half the distance between your eyes at the ideal distance (yes, every lenticular display also has an ideal distance). I'm sure you'll agree, that's not a lot of distance at all.

=====

2D Movies into 3D is partially bunk - see posts up above.

=====

CG Movies *can* be made in '3D' (stereoscopic) and *are* being made in 3D. See: Beowulf, Caroline, Up, etc. Speaking of Pixar... soon to come: Toy Story 1 (and 2, I think), re-done in 3D.

Don't think it costs 'almost nothing', though.
    It effectively doubles your rendertime - at 8 hours to a day per frame for some scenes, that's something to cinsider (they probably have more than double the speed now that they did back then, but there ya go).
    But moreover, you have to plan your scenes much more carefully. You don't want thinks popping into screen for the left eye but not for the right eye. If you're doing any post-process compositing, all of your effects have to be composited into a 3D space, as any cheat of "eh, this looks about right" on a single 2D plate, when transferred to two 2D plates, can cause the effect to either float in front of where it should be, or sit behind it... both are very confusing for the brain to deal with (the latter more so).
    All this takes plenty of additional man-hours (artists, but even the tech guys who keep the farm up and running, for example). That's also partially why more and more 'CG' studios are trying to get things out of the rendering pipeline directly with as little need for post-compositing as possible. Color keying and such you can do on both plates at the same time without issue, of course.

The easiest way to get a stereo 3D movie...

[Animaether]

The easiest way to get a stereo 3D movie is actually by taking advantage of camera motion.

1. Detect camera motion
2. Detect the direction
3. Detect the velocity
4. display frame t=N for one eye
5. display frame t=+-x for the other eye, depending on 2, and x depending on 4.

If you've got the movie Swordfish, you can apply this technique to the action sequence in the beginning where a camera orbits the scene. In fact, try here*:
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2a6tw82&s=5

It's in cross-eyed stereoscopic format, so just cross your eyes, focus, and enjoy the scene in stereoscopic 3D.

It also shows (slightly) the pitfalls...
1. If there's no camera motion, this doesn't work.
2. If there's too much non-camera motion, this shows ghosting (as e.g. a person will be in place A at t=N, and place B at t=N+x)
3. If there's any post effects, they will stick out like a sore thumb if they are not accurately composited in. In that video, for example, the explosion-y bits halfway in look like they're kind of floating at a place in the scene they shouldn't be. It doesn't show so much in the original (just watch either left/right alone), but it shows up easily once made stereoscopic 3d.

It is a cute method, just not well-suited to any and all movies at all.

Other methods that might be employed are detecting fog and using the fog as a depth cue, or parent poster's method; but that will take a more hefty processor (most of the above steps can easily be derived from e.g. an mpeg processor, which already does motion estimation).

( *original material copyright Village Roadshow Pictures, Silver Pictures, NPV Entertainment and Jonathan Krane Group and Warner Bros (distributor). Broadcast by SBS Broadcasting, a subsidiary of ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG. Used only to demonstrate a 2D to stereographic 3D conversion method, for educational purposes. )

We already have that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of 3D movies are such that you know that they're awful before you see them. No time-travel necessary.

I hope...

[Anachragnome]

I hope these notebooks come with three or four spare motherboards. Judging by their previous track record, that is what it takes to keep their notebooks running beyond the warranty.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=101&threadID=243038&start=0
http://www.techspot.com/vb/all/windows/t-71394-Acer-5101-keyboard-usb-and-touchpad-are-dead.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/51337-35-keyboard-mouse-work-vista-login-screen
Google it, tons more...

Seems Acer preferred playing their customers along until the warranty ran out, then charged them for a new motherboard (that didn't fix the problem in most cases) rather then admit they had a pattern failure.

I don't care WHAT kind of product they have, from a purely moralistic point of view, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Paradigm Shift

[Scroatzilla]

This is awesome. First, notebooks. Then, netbooks.

Now, migrainebooks.