Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Glasses-Free 3D Display
An anonymous reader writes "The Microsoft Applied Sciences Group has developed a new lens that lets you watch three-dimensional content without 3D glasses. The new lens is thinner at the bottom (about 6mm) than at the top (11mm) and steers light to a viewer's eyes via LEDs along its bottom edge. The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light; the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."
The Blue Screen of Death will look awesome in 3D!
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
So this only works with one person?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Ok, I'll admit it is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about 3D that always drove me nuts were those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'
I can't be the only one who just doesn't see the point of 3D and something like 10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
It seems to me that if they can do reliable head tracking (which seems to be a requirement), then it also enables this technique which I find much more impressive than simple tweaking of focal distance.
"His name was James Damore."
Once Ben Affleck gets ahold of one of these, it's only a matter of time before another company announces a 3D screen minus the screen.
Come on, no screenshots?
Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each)
Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.
Apple: Here's our new tech. You can get-it from the Apple Store starting now.
Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ... By the time Microsoft would get this to market, there will be dozens of low-quality chinese knock-offs at 1/2-1/4 of the price but compatible with each-other and Microsoft's screens will use some kind of new and incompatible protocol.
I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Seriously, what is it like? As someone who suffers from a condition known as Strabismus, all 3D movies tend to do is make my eyes water.
All the big chains in Aus are promoting 3D TV's, I'm not looking forward to that sales conversation when I decide to upgrade my TV.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
i'll make you a deal: i'll make believe i didn't get the movie reference in your joke if you make believe you didn't make the joke, and we'll both make believe we never saw the movie. erase our memories as it were
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Woops, guess I should've RTFA. K, so it works for two people, works as 2-D for four people... useless for >4 people? We're supposed to be excited, why? Stereoscopy would work for any number of people, rather than a limited number cameras to watch a couple pairs of eyes.
You just track more than one pair of eyes. I believe the device is capable of displaying more than 2 views. There's sure to be some limit, though. Probably won't ever be able to have the whole extended family crowded around the screen with tech like this. But 4 or 6 eyes shouldn't be too much of a problem.
we should provide ourselves with a set of objects that would keep us out of danger without the objects having any obvious value
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Found this presentation about the tech behind this: http://www.sidchapters.org/pacificnorthwest/meetings/apr01_09_presentation.pdf
It's great and all but what is it going to cost when all these little parts goes wrong
Microsoft: Here's the tech we have bought off and patented recently.
We have a single working prototype in the lab and in about a year(ish), you will be able to buy a version with tacked on features you will have no use for, most of which won't even work as they should.
Apple: Here's the tech we have copied from someone else, tacked an 'i' in front of it and spit-shined it to appear cooler.
You can PAY for it right now at the Apple Store, and we will get it to you when we damn well please.
Oh... and one more thing - it will cost anywhere between 2 and 5 times as the competition's model, but it will come in Apple's signature iWhite and maybe some other iColors.
And it will cost half as much a month after it comes out. If you complain nicely, you will get a iGift-certificate for the fraction of the money difference that you can use to buy socks for your iPod.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This is still stereoscopy. Specifically, it's called autostereoscopy (sometimes "auto-stereoscopy" with a hyphen). I don't know why the article fails to include the common term that has been used to refer to this technology for decades (that is, since the mid-80s when it was invented).
microsoft+eye lasers? cant see what could possibly go wrong, sign me up!
Didn't Nintendo already announce this for their next handheld?
... will it blend?
Sig ?
The system relies on tracking a viewer's eyes, so it can only be viewed by more than one person at a time.
If you're viewing by yourself in private at home, why would you care about how you look wearing glasses?
The applications for a no-glasses solo viewing display would seem to be limited. I don't see any use for personal viewing at home.
Advertising in a public area? It has to have so little traffic that no more than one person at a time is likely to be in range, yet enough traffic to justify the cost of installing the system.
Hotel? If there are two beds in a room, they'd better plan on double occupancy. Two TVs?
Arcade games? Seatback entertainment on planes and busses? ZunePads? Can anyone think of anything else?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"In my house I'm the boss, my wife is just the decision maker."
Woody Allen
Yeah, I mean this thing doesn't work for 1000 people right out of the gate?! Useless! And this fusion discovery they just made, it only produces 1% more energy than it takes in?! Useless!!
Since I don't respect Microsoft's "creativity". I have to admit I have to give them good credit for this one. I won't become Paul Thurrot though. There's still a long way to go for Microsoft if they wish to undo the evils they have done to the industry.