Slashdot Mirror
No Glasses Needed For TI's New 3D Display
adeelarshad82 writes "At the MWC, TI showed off a tablet-sized device with a 3D display that doesn't require glasses, running on an existing TI OMAP3 chipset. The 3D demo showed images and video in 3D by using a standard 120-Hz LCD with a special overlay film from 3M that can direct images either towards your left or right eye. By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image. The 3D picture can be created using a handheld with dual 3-megapixel cameras and an 800-MHz TI OMAP 3630 chipset."
This might just blow my mind, I have to RTFA.
Does this technology have a reasonable viewing angle?
Not only viewing angle but how is the viewing distance? Does it work at any distance or just a narrow range?
Great, now if only they could find a way to require no glasses on the person watching it.
The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate... Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.
Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?
Since I already wear glasses, I don't really care about those 3D viewers since its a pain to have to remove my glasses, put on contacts just to turn around and put on another pair of glasses. Removing the middleman here would be a step in the right direction since I'm not alone with having to already wear glasses and not everyone can/has contacts.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
very nice, for a hand-held device; not very practical for living-room. You have to sit directly in front of it to see in 3D.
But on a device that small, not so great. It sounds like the overlay TFA mentions is like the static 3-D images that have been around forever. If so, it wouldn't work on a large screen across the room, or if you weren't right in front of it.
As to "no glasses needed", most folks over 40 are going to need glasses to see anything that small whether 3D or 2D.
I want the polaroid technology, the glasses are light and cheap, require no batteries or electronics, with realistic colors. It would be hard to do with a plasma or LCD, but I think it could be done.
Free Martian Whores!
It's a handheld device, not a TV-sized device. You don't need nearly as a big of a viewing angle for a handheld.
Which technology is it? The only two "no-glasses" technologies so far are lenticular and parallax.
Their next graphing calculator is going to make some awesome graphs!
I'm so glad they included a 2D picture of the 3D-ness in action.
The greasy fingerprints were a nice touch too.
The viewing angle isn't 5 degrees, though.. it's a good bit larger than that.
The major problem is that the overlay (lenticular lenses) don't direct individual images -to your eyes- - such systems would be vastly more expensive and have whole other issues - they simply direct underlying pixels into different directions. If your left eye happens to be in the area where the left image is being directed, and your right eye in the area where the right image is being directed.. congratulations!
Now move your head an inch to the left/right. Now your right eye is seeing the left image and your left eye is seeing the right image. ouch.
Try half an inch.. each eye gets a portion of both images. ungh.
In other words.. there's sweet spots to sit in, and if you don't sit in one of those sweet spots, you're going to get conflicting sensory input.
So 1 user at a time isn't strictly true - if the person next to you sits in one of the other sweet spots, they'll be fine as well.
Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080). The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.
There's far more disadvantages, including 2D quality (another display handles that partially by activating a liquid much like an LCD liquid in order to somewhat destroy the lenticular effect), but basically... Lenticular 3D is still crap.
Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems; it's their best bet for viewing stereographic 3D without glasses *right now* until we can perfect the whole realtime holographic plate thing and get some decent color reproduction off of those as well... -and- have it be affordable.
( barring any even more zany systems such as helical 3D displays which are more intended for volumetric displays than stereographic 3D etc. etc. )
You seem to have to be exactly in line with the device, so I guess there can be only one watching it at a time? (acrobatics doesn't count)
There were 5 reasonably large (22''?) screens using this tech, or similar, in the metro station in Amsterdam CS over the holiday period. Just showing adverts, but rather impressive despite that. ;-), just add compiz.
There were definite 'sweet spots' for the 3d effect, and the whole image jumped if you changed the viewing angle by more than a few degrees; but it cheered me up because I saw the future of the flat-panel monitor being demo'd
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
For the next generation of 3D calculators.
The problem with all of these is that of brightness. If you're sending data to one eye at a time, the other eye sees darkness. It's like wearing 50% tint sunglasses.
If you are looking for a display to do flicker 3D, make sure you get one with a really really bright backlight.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Those who don't want to 'look ridiculous with one of those stupid glasses' on, though, should get Lenticular systems
I'll take option C; Don't buy into this 3D junk at all. As long as the experience is "reduced picture quality and convenience in exchange for a vague sense of depth", I don't see how it can be reasonably called an upgrade.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Use contact lenses or have eye surgery to correct your vision. An easy fix!
The nVidia 3D vision's only real weakness is that it darkens the screen because of the LCD shutters. Otherwise, it's exactly the same picture quality at native resolution, and I've found it to be fully worth the money.
There are systems, designed around cameras that track eye movement, designed to correct for this. But it's expensive, complicated, and can only be done for one user. There are several patents dating back to the nineties about this, the concept there but the engineering nowhere near advanced enough to implement them.
Taking human vision into consideration it will actually be easier to present a traditional 3 dimensional object, wherein you can view it like a real world object, as opposed to a 3 dimensional "window" with specific images meant for each eye. We'll be seeing Star Trek like holograms before we reliably see Avatar in 3d without glasses.
I doubt that's the solution their using (unless you know for sure). The problem is, the distance between the eyes varies by person. It's impossible to calibrate when manufactured to work for everyone.
Besides, the article says that they half the refresh rate here, not the resolution. Sounds different, but might be related.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Half your resolution lost, however (they have to either alternate rows or columns.. 1920x1080 becoming 1920x540 or 960x1080). The human visual system can fill in the blanks from the other eye's perception, but that's just literally plugging holes.
Untrue, FTFS: "By flickering two images very quickly, running at 60 frames per second rather than the usual 30, the display transmits a different picture to each eye, creating a simulated 3D image."
So you loose half your framerate instead of resolution.
The price for no-glasses is holding yourself very very still. Hopefully these devices will dispel the hatred of 3-D glasses, when complainers realize the alternatives are worse.
I'm not trying to whine here, but 3D viewing, no matter how it is accomplished, still requires that you view the imagine with two eyes. I only see with one eye, and cannot view 3D content in 3D with glasses or in a "sweet spot." I've never felt _that_ deprived before, but I am starting to get a little worried at the recent cultural interest in 3D. Anything that is designed for 3D looks like crap if you don't view it using both eyes. I hope that (good) content still remains available in 2D for those of us that cannot appreciate 3D.
I'll say it. This is what the movie industry needs to deal with those pesky pirates. What wooden legged, one eyed pirate is going to steal a 3d film that requires two good eyes :)
Wow, I didn't know I could literally plug holes just by partially blocking one eye's vision. I'll have to remember that next time I have some hold plugging to do; could save a lot of time.
...and to make up for losing half of your framerate, they double the original framerate to 60hz.
So, what, I can swallow it? Does it somehow project light onto my retinas? Oh, they mean like a computer tablet that you can draw on? Like those wacom ones that range from the size of a gerbil to that of a small house cat? Judging by the photo it looks roughly the size of a piece of string.
light source as reported here: http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/3m-announces-autostereoscopic-3d-gaming-for-mobiles-641343 Perhaps the 3M Scotch Optical Lighting Film combined with a lenticular film? http://www.3m.com/product/information/Optical-Lighting-Film.html Unless the LED light source direction can be changed then the geometry is fixed and very sensitive to the viewing position and viewing distance.
No pun intended, but any shutter-style technique will fail. Too many people suffer ill effects -- headache, nausea, dizziness, etc. The same can happen with polarization techniques but to a far lesser degree.
You’re mixing up terms there.
stereographic 3D
This would mean: two volumes (you know a volume has 3 dimensions).
“3D display” is correct for the helical and some holographic systems.
Everything else is still just a 2D plane acting as a screen, in 3D space (which is why you can’t focus on blurry areas, or rotate them at will, while watching). So it’s still essentially 2D. Just stereo instead of mono. (It’s an unfortunate thing, that “stereo” is mostly reserved for audio.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It's not a typical lenticular display, exactly.
The real innovation here is the 3M material, not the TI chips driving the display. The material requires that the image be illuminated alternately fro the right and left edges of the screen, the material deflects that light into the right and left eyes respectively. Unlike lenticular displays, there is only one viewing direction that works, but it won't diminish the spatial resolution of the display (only the temporal one.) It will work great for something like a game-boy or an iPhone. Even something as small as an iPad, though, might have problems because the difference in eye-to-screen angle from one side of the display to the other.
This slide tells you everything you need to know about the 3M film.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
http://johnnylee.net/
This is the perfect application for head tracking virtual 3d.
I used to play a PC game called Magic Carpet. It had a mode where all the game graphics were rendered in a 'magic eye' type mode. Once you got your eyes tweaked just right, it was all 3D and no glasses were required. Of course, it also looked like a box of crayons exploded.....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Until NVIDIA randomly stops supporting the drivers. I remember a while back when their stereo drivers and GPU drivers were separate downloads and had to be kept in sync, and they just stopped releasing stereo drivers when newer GPU drivers came out. Is this still the case?
I cannot see how 3D will be any more than a gimmick like it was in the 70s without some huge leap in technology, which has not occurred. There is a huge change in the way content is being delivered to people's homes with internet only programming and it would seem there would be a whole lot more opportunities in trying to make it easier for people to view it on their TV along with regular cable and broadcast programming.
They are separate downloads, but I don't think they have to be kept in sync. In any case, new 3D drivers continue to be released to patch games like Left 4 Dead 2.
I think nVidia are going to push this, it sells their overpriced shutter glasses and 120hz TVs from their partners, and it even encourages people to upgrade their GPU (3D naturally requires double the framerate). They've put a lot of effort into backwards compatibility and working with developers to get native 3D support in newer games.
Note: You can only install this driver if you have the installed the latest GeForce Graphics drivers v196.21.
I guess they started focusing on releasing new drivers since the 3D craze started up again. It also only seems to be supported on 8 series and above graphics cards, whereas they had support for the LCD shutter glasses (including brands other than NVIDIA) with older video cards a while ago.
See this thread as an example of NVIDIA dropping support for the older hardware.
After HP's "racist" notebook webcam incident, let's hope TI's one tracks everyone's eyes. OK that may have been a calibration thing, but it should have tracked that guy's face properly nonetheless. Seriously.
Dude, good idea, I see a market developing for circular polarized contact lenses... I'll even be their first customer (after the rabbit trials of course).
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
They use the tiny vertical lens prisms to deliver four different angle-views depending where your eyes are. This very similar to the 3-D or blinking image plastic pictures you get in novelty shop or crackerjack box. The lateral resolution is reduced by the number of lens angles in the system (typically four). If you move you head a lot you lose the effect temporarily. And it doesnt work when you are laying down.
This kind of table in a system might have issues delivering enough angles and screen-width together on a tablet screen. And if you rotate the screen just a little bit, you'd lose the effect.
If you could hook an interface into each optic nerve to overlay images over a person field of vision it could be a whole lot more convincing.
And it wouldn't cause people's eye to bug out. Mark my works, real 3-D display will only be acheived by tapping into the brain and bypassing the eye.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I just couldn't do the alternate winking fast enough to make them work.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Tell me more about helical 3d displays. I tried googling for it, and ironically this very slashdot post was the second hit. A lot of links to CT scanner stuff, but nothing about how an display actually works.
Scientists with white lab coats all toasting champagne in the background.
The DS is old and two screen gimmick is old, it's time for a 3D display gimmick in a hand-held video game device. I bet this will be one (of possibly multiple) things Nintendo is going to latch onto and turn into a new handheld game console.
If they were already developing a new game console, I suspect they will abort the development and shift into this, it seems like the obvious next step for Nintendo.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't know if anyone noticed this when looking at the pictures for the MWC but was the dance group for Samsung actually called “Sparkle Motion” , or was this just a “Donnie Darko” reference by the author?
Also did anyone else notice the “Garmin” car looked an awful lot like Steve Urkel's first car, his “Beamer”, on “Family Matters”?
I'll believe it when I see a photo.
Curious, I didn't know nVidia supported other shutter glass brands in the past. I thought they had written the drivers and the 2D -> 3D conversion specifically for their 3D Vision shutter glasses.
Previous glasses presumably didn't use 120hz monitors? Or did they only support specific games, rather than patching all DirectX games at the driver level? Either way, it's disappointing that nVidia have abandoned early adopters of desktop 3D.
Let me check. Yup- still running at the usual 75fps.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
And here's a mod which does the exactly the same in Quake 2 too.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm not sure why anyone would care if what they were doing on a tablet was in 3D. I just can't imagine who is going to buy this.
Despite being loved by movie studios, I doubt 3D is going to catch on anyway.
I watched a few cartoons in 3D: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, The new Christmas Carol one, and the GForce 3D, and I was all gung ho about 3D, but when I saw Avatar, I realized why 3D just will never catch on:
The first ten minutes or so of Avatar made me sick, so much so, that if it had continued for the whole movie, I would have left the theatre. The rest of the movie was fine, and did not make me sick, and I realised why: In the beginning they are using the camera focus to focus in on close up objects. They do this all the time in 2D movies, like when the main character walks into the room, and the camera focuses in on the gun on the floor. It lets the audience know what the character is thinking to know what the character thought was important about the visual they were presented with and which we are seeing through their eyes.
But this just doesn't work in 3D because when your eyes are presented with a 3D image they assume that they can focus in on anything because it's *really there*. When the camera focuses in on a screw floating up close, and my eyes are trying to focus on the actor's face behind the screw, but it won't focus no matter what my eyes do, it makes me ill, and oddly pissed off. When I finally submit to the cameraman's tyranny ( and it feels like that in 3D, but not in 2D ) about what I should focus on, the focus has changed again, and I'm about to puke. Now I'm supposed to be focusing in on... What the hell AM I supposed to focus on? ok, lemme deliberately scan this image for something that's not blurry, DAMMIT I'm taking these glasses off. Shit now it's all blurry! Oh, now the scene is changing! Sigh..
The rest of Avatar did not have this problem, perhaps because the camera's focus was set to infinity, or perhaps because when the focus was something other than infinity, there was some unambiguously 'most interesting' thing in the scene which I naturally focused on anyway and which happened to be in focus because the cameraperson thought it was the most interesting thing too, like a face etc.
I have a theory that the beginning of Avatar was there to make people who would have criticised it for having uninteresting cinematography shut the f--- up by making them viscerally HATE camera trickery right up front. Then people are grateful for infinite focus.
Still, I think 3D is limited in ways 2D is not. I suppose each medium has it's strengths and weaknesses. It just seems to me that 3D is going to be perfect for the worst of what is being made now, and that it means we'll be seeing more of it until people get completely sick of it and quit going to the movies at all.
...
In other words... they put the glasses on the screen.. it makes me think of the little toy they gave out in cereal boxes where you could see spider-man jumping when you would watch the plastic thingy under different angles...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know there is one slashdotter around here who will be able to tell you the whole story. I've read his posts thoroughly, and he is the reason that I'm wary of purchasing the new stereoscopic glasses (I even own one of the three 120hz monitors that are supported by the tech, and am looking at purchasing an nvidia graphics card for unrelated reasons).
If I recall correctly, it was a similar implementation to what they currently are doing, and it worked with any display that had high enough refresh rates - such as large CRTs. Eventually, support was just plain dropped, but it worked well in OpenGL, and presumably DirectX as well.
Sorry - it's a type of volumetric display where a surface (an inclined disc, or a helix, etc.) is spinning rapidly and projected onto at the right point in time to essentially project a 3D volume.
e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KaQmn2VTzs - Actuality Systems Perspecta Volumetric 3D Display
I stand corrected - it's worse! ;)
There's always applications for this and lenticular displays, but in general.. brrr.
nokarma