Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents Glasses-Free 3D Projector
angry tapir writes "Apple has been awarded a US patent for a display system that would allow multiple viewers to see a high-quality 3D image projected on a screen without the need for special glasses, regardless of where they are sitting. Entertainment is far from the only field in which 3D can enhance the viewing experience: others include medical diagnostics, flight simulation, air traffic control, battlefield simulation, weather diagnostics, advertising and education, according to Apple's US patent 7,843,449 for a 3D display system."
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Here's a good read on the subject.
Sexton, I. and Suramn, P. "Stereoscopic and autostereoscopic display systems." Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE 16:3 (1999). pg. 85-99.
The parent method of the approach they're using is parallax barrier autostereoscopy, which is covered in patents going back to 1901...
Does this count?
http://www.physorg.com/news188550483.html
Also, the headline is horrible: "Apple Patents Glasses-Free 3D Projector"
The innovation is the surface onto which a slightly modified projector projects. There isn't much to the projector itself. Besides, most of the patent's paperwork is describing the surface - not the projector.
See the idea of a patent wasn't ever really that you'd keep an invention all for yourself. It was that you'd license the technology for your invention to others, so you made money for the work and creativity of creating it, and everyone benefits. Patent trolls often needn't buy patents, they just make their own. They come up with stupid patents and then sue people for licensing fees. The problem is not that they have bought or sold a patent, it is that their patent is bullshit.
A "no licensing" thing for patents would be bad because it could reduce competition and even prevent products from coming to market. So say I work on some amazing new display technology and patent it. Wonderful stuff, going to change how things are done. However after that, I decide that I'm just not willing to go in to production of it. Too much money to start up, etc, etc, I'm just not interested. If I can't sell or license the tech, it then languishes until my patent expires. However if I can license it, no problem. I invent it and then license it out to existing display companies. I'm compensated for my work inventing it, they bring it to the mass market.
That is the reason for patents, the reason to not just get rid of them. They can be real important in two situations:
1) A person or small company makes a big invention. Patents keep big companies form stealing it from them and profiting off the work of others. Like if a 5 man company invented an amazing new wireless communications device that is cheap to make and effective. However since they are small, they produce them for $50 each. Motorola, being huge, can do it for $20 each. With no patents Motorola just takes their work and goes for it, and they get crushed being unable to compete.
2) A development that takes massive amounts of money. There is tech that takes many millions, even billions occasionally in research. A company will pour a ton of money and years of work in to something because it is worth it. But it is only worth it if they can make that R&D back. Suppose a company invents a new battery with 100x the capacity of current lithium batteries that is cheap to produce. They spend $250 million doing it, and in quantity the batteries cost only $1 per cell to make. Ok well they need to sell those for like $3-4 per cell or so, maybe more, to recoup their $250 million. Remember until they've cleared that, they are making zero dollars total on the product. However a competitor? Well they could sell the cells for $2, maybe even $1.50 each. They have only the production cost, so as long as they cover that the rest is unit profit. Without patents, they could do that.
The problem with patents currently isn't that they exist or can be licensed. It is that they are too broad, granted for too many things, and many of them are way too obvious. Parents are supposed to be for new, non-obvious things that took a lot of effort and/or creativity to make, not for any and everything. They are important to encouraging and supporting R&D, they just are too easy to abuse as it stands.
I haven't read the patent, but it appears to be far more than just what you're describing. What they've done is hooked it up to a computer which can apparently adjust the effect based upon the location of the viewers in the room. Which is in and of itself worthy of a patent if they've succeeded in doing so.
Don't expect this to come to your local cinema any time soon.
To project a movie with 2K horizontal resolution per eye on a 15m screen you'd need ripples to be no more than 15mm wide. You'd have to focus each pixel somewhere along a quarter section of that, 3.75mm. Assume 20 people seated every 1m, with each persons' eyes separated by about 65mm, that means to bounce a pixel off the ripple at a specific eye you'd need to divide that 3.75mm into 308 subdivisions of about 12 microns each.
This is over 2000 ppi resolution, projected across a 15m screen by a projector over 30m away. If the imaging device were to do that directly it'd have to have a resolution of 1.25M pixels horizontally, but you'd probably have a parallax barrier to direct the light. If you had something capable of head-tracking each person on each row and adjusting views individually, each of the parallax barrier sets (you'd need one set per viewer, along with individual optics to go with it) would need to be capable of nanometre-precise positioning. It might be possible to use a single, extra-fine set of tens of thousands of individually-mobile, variable-width parallax barriers, but we'd probably start hitting quantum effects at this point :-)
Alternatively, if people held their heads very still, you could use a nano-scaled lenticular prism with variable-length ripples on your screen and precalculated, radial, fixed seating positions, but I suspect they'd just opt for the glasses instead.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I haven't owned an Apple product since my Mac 7600.
The PowerMac 7600? You realize that you gave up on Apple just before they started getting good at making computers again?
could this actually be innovative technology from Apple?
i'm kind of impressed.
Nope, the Death Star has prior art.
The Death Star has non-enabling prior art. If you wanted to patent "1. A method of projecting a 3D image, comprising: (a) projecting a 3D image so it appears in free space," the Death Star would be just fine. But as soon as you start including additional elements about how you do that, Star Wars ceases to enable one of skill in the art to make and use the system.
Here's a good read on the subject.
Sexton, I. and Suramn, P. "Stereoscopic and autostereoscopic display systems." Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE 16:3 (1999). pg. 85-99.
The parent method of the approach they're using is parallax barrier autostereoscopy, which is covered in patents going back to 1901...
Oh?
1. A method of displaying three-dimensional images, comprising:
providing a projection screen having a spatial filter defining a predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function;
determining the left and right eye locations of at least one observer in proximity with the projection screen;
projecting left and right sub-images of a three-dimensional image toward the projection screen; and
angularly and intensity modulating the left and right sub-images respectively in coordination with the predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function to define respective discrete light paths that respectively direct the left and right sub-images to reflect from the projection screen to the respective left and right eye locations to provide a three-dimensional viewing experience.
I don't know that you're going to find systems in 1901 that determine eye locations of viewers and dynamically modify images to match the eye locations. But, since you're so certain, link away!