Slashdot Mirror
3D Nausea Solved By Eye-Tracking
An anonymous reader writes "If you are like me, then the slightest disparity in those 3D movies causes nausea — and I know it does with thousands of others too. LG claims to have solved the problem with a new technology that uses eye-tracking, similar to those red-eye detectors in digital cameras, adjusting the 3D display so that you don't get sick. Due to be available in LG's glasses-free 3D computer monitor it also displays normal 2D stuff, so even if you don't use the 3D much it might be worth a try. I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.) If it works as advertised great; if not, at least I can still use it as a regular monitor."
Or you can just stop trying to push this gimmicky, useless 3d garbage on everyone.
What a concept.
I'm sure those monitors will be very expensive when they first come out. Why not try it in a store first? If it doesn't work, you won't have spent your money on a product that is only partially functional for you. Or you can purchase a regular monitor and have some money left over for something else.
Gouge out their eyes. If they are true friends, they won't mind. Honest.
Some of us have friends...
I don't think your real doll or fleshlight is going to mind if it can't watch the 3d with you.
This is slashdot. We all live alone in our parent's basement. A 'friend' is someone you know on Facebook, who has their own TV set.
(And of course, the answer is in TFA, as this technology doesn't work for more than one person. Fancy stuff that...)
It's a combination of both. The technology fails because good or bad movies still hurt many people's eyes, the content fails because 1. Too many movies are trying too hard to overdo 3D, Reminds me a bit of that comercial for the phone that can do video in 3-d, where the dad is forcing the kids to hit harder for the sake of making better use of the 3-D while they play ping pong, completely taking all the fun away from the kids. But even with both of those problems solved, the idea of 3-D is just flawed beyond belief. There are 2 possible theories of how it ends, 1. it is in the same phase that stereo was for music, IE every song is just messing around with it to the point that it is distracting and annoying, but soon it will be less used and fade to barely noticeable. Either way I consider anyone investing in it to be wasting their money. Assuming this technology comes out, and it works, we are looking at spending hundreds of dollars for 3D in a form that you can chose between, 3D that causes 1/4th the viewers headaches, or 3D that only one person can watch at a time. Great for social events of all kinds.
I plan on buying one of the 20-inch monitors this fall when it becomes available in the U.S. (It's only in Korea now.)
Um, good for you? Who cares? Anything else you would like tell us? Keep the inane commentary out of the summaries please.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
As I wrote on Gizmag:
As an armchair scientist, I have been experimenting with screens for quite a while. Trying to plot out what factors are involved for 3D display and depth perception.
I have been following this whole 3D craze with dismay because TV builders have failed to address the fundamentals.
Stereo vision is only one aspect of 3D vision and in fact not even nearly as powerful as some other effects. Although there are many causing discomfort the light ray divergence is most relevant.
Your eye also tells you how far away something is by the amount of work it needs to do to bring it into focus. The lens in your eye bends incoming light rays so they focus on your retina similar to how a photo camera works. To get the best possible 3D effect in commercial flight simulators, they make use of collimated displays.
Consider the pixels on your LCD screen a light sources. Take a pixel and you can consider it to be a light point that radiates light in all directions. After all you want to see the screen at many viewing angles. So the light rays diverge and the lens in your eye needs to bring the rays that hit the eye together to focus on your retina.
A collimated display emits light rays that are more or less parallel. Your eyes can relax more in order to focus which is an very powerful depth suggestion.
Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.
The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch. Added benefit is that displays like this can be adjusted for your eyes so you can watch TV without your glasses. They would make really good computer monitors.
A pixel worth of imagery normally only contains R, G and B channels for Red, Green and Blue light that combine to any color. In addition each pixel needs a fourth channel indicating the depth of the pixel. You may find the focal depth powerful enough without the need for stereo vision. You can try this simply by closing one eye and look around and notice how your eye adjusts to things nearby and far away.
Parallax. When you shift your head, objects in the front appear to move more than objects further away. This matters even in a more or less stationary position because you change your head position and the scene should change, but doesn't.
I'm not sure why this aspect has been so ignored because it is a big cue, and one you can do on existing screens, at least with video games. You just need something to track the head position and orientation of the viewer, then adjust the screen accordingly.
Now that has limits, of course, only works for one viewer being chief among them but then so does this technology. If someone released it, I'd get it because it would be fun to play with. It adds a non-trivial amount of "3Dness" to what you are doing, works on existing screens, and doesn't fatigue your eyes since nothing else is changed.
You don't have real 3D until you have separation, parallax, and focus. Only when you have a display that can properly show all those things does it really simulate 3D as we see it.
Thank you. I like 3d. I pretty much only pay to see movies now that are 3d. I get it that people don't like 3d and that's fine so then don't see them. To me when they are don properly it adds a lot to the movie. Makes you feel a like you are a part of it. When I see a move in 2d these days it feels like something is missing.