Slashdot Mirror
MIT Develops Holographic, Glasses-Free 3D TV
MrSeb writes "Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are busy working on a type of 3D display capable of presenting a 3D image without eye gear. What you've been presented with at your local cinema (with 3D glasses) or on your Nintendo 3DS console (with your naked eye) pales in comparison to what these guys and gals are trying to develop: a truly immersive 3D experience, not unlike a hologram, that changes perspective as you move around. The project is called High Rank 3D (HR3D). To begin with, HR3D involved a sandwich of two LCD displays, and advanced algorithms for generating top and bottom images that change with varying perspectives. With literally hundreds of perspectives needed to accommodate a moving viewer, maintaining a realistic 3D illusion would require a display with a 1,000Hz refresh rate. To get around this issue, the MIT team introduced a third LCD screen to the mix. This third layer brings the refresh rate requirement down to a much more manageable 360Hz — almost within range of commercially produced LCD panels."
Do they need to add more LCD panels? :)
"MIT Develops Holographic, Glasses-Free 3D TV"? Only if by "holographic" you mean "not holographic"
You can't shut us down! The Internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas!
I can't wait to see another shitty Tupac. Wait, that's redundant.
So useless for TV.
"Please state the nature of your medical emergency."
It does not track the viewer.
Why? Do you expect that your mom might come downstairs and watch TV with you?
That's what this is.
The article from the first link is a little better explanation than the second link.
This is not quite a hologram, but it is a true multi-viewer solution without the need for headtracking or other dynamic tricks. It is a precomputed video stream displayed on precisely spaced, and slightly higher-than-your-living-room-tv-refresh-rate, but otherwise normal LCD panels.
Basically, the MIT guys have come up with algorithms to compute a set of three overlay transparencies, which selectively occlude or reveal certain pixels when viewed from certain angles due to parallax, such that one of many possible perspective images of a scene is produced depending on the angle from which this stack of overlays is viewed.
The part they seem most proud of is that because these different perspective views are all of the same scene, many of the pixels are the same color from one perspective to another, so they only need to concentrate their parallax trick on making a select few pixels vary by angle, thus reducing the complexity of the problem to the point where it can actually be realized with consumer resolution LCD panels and attainable data rates.
Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.
Think of this like an integral display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging#Description
Except that instead of using microlenses to bend the rays, they are using the layered screens to produce virtually bent rays. The high FPS is because they can only produce one set of virtually bent rays for any one frame, so they need as many frames as they want points of view. IOW what integral displays need in extra pixels this display needs in extra frames.
To put it another way, this is to integral what parallax is to lenticular.
Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.
That actually makes it suck more.
Don't get me wrong, the research is nice, and I'm sure there are tons of really good uses for such a thing. As a monitor for games and movies, it's a horrible idea. I don't want parallax. The last thing I want is to be sitting in a theater and missing part of the movie because of the location I chose to sit in. Or playing a game and having to constantly move my head to see things.
So I'm assuming that this requires the source to be supplying the additional content at their 1000hz (or whatever refresh rate) to cover the full range of viewing angles? So now all we need are video media 1000 times bigger, and graphics chips 1000 times faster to supply the frames.
You know, you have a point regarding movies, I hadn't thought of that. However your point is invalid re:games. The only thing you achieve by flattening a game into 2D is that now you have to move your character to see occluded things, whereas the multiscopic 3D gives you the additional option of moving your head instead of your character, which can be a severe advantage when aiming (ie. you don't have to un-aim to look around).
The company website is scant on details of their technology, but it's obvious that a different implementation is used and my guess from what they do say is that it's a lenticular device that only generates horizontal parallax. In that case, try tilting your head 90 degrees to the side and you'll lose depth perception, whereas this wouldn't be the case for the tensor display mentioned in the article. It might not be that important of an issue, until you want to lie down on a couch and watch a 3D program on TV...
Yes, and the smaller one is only 10 feet wide, 7 feet tall, and 9 feet deep... (well, there is a smaller one, about 5.5 feet wide, 2.2 feet deep, 6.5 feet high, but it's only 600x800). Oh yeah, and uses 10 kW of power... ( 3.7 kW for the 600x800 one...)
So yeah, they've been doing it for years... except really tailored for home use...
OMG... I have a sig?
No, that's pretty clear. Though irrelevant, as this is 3D and not stereo 2D.
Hey, how about a Modern Warfare game with this tech. Now when you peer around a corner, and the other guy snipes you, your real head explodes! Yeah!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually, from the summary, this method fixes the multi-viewer problem you guys are pointing out.
That's why it needs such high refresh rate -- it's displaying multiple angles at "the same time" for people all over the viewing area.
This is really a significant breakthrough. I mean good looking, glasses free 3D (please look at the video) which means MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS VIEWERS using CHEAP components. The only difficulty is the compute power requirement is a little high but that's nothing that won't be solved quickly thanks to Dr. Moore. (I think they are also able to use GPUs so massive cheap parallelism can overwhelm the problem).
A previous poster brought up the good point that it wasn't clear if the scene was pre-rendered. If/when it can be done on the fly (just a matter of CPU power), think of the applications. CAD, GAMES!
In 10 years (or less hopefully) we should have really large (80") true 3D displays that a bunch of people can stand around and touch (like what those guys in Perceptive Pixel, recently bought by Microsoft*, do). Talk about science fiction.
I actually submitted this story a day or two ago but I didn't understand how it worked (and still really don't get it, the math is beyond me). Anyway I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves.
*Let's hope that Microsoft doesn't kill it, or use the patents it acquired to block progress.
... because I saw it on Star Trek.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course it is. The number of views used to create the effect is limited, but guess what: we live in a quantum universe. The number of views from which you can view an actual object in the real world is vast, but finite.
And your big breakthrough? Funny how fast Slashtards are to judge and condemn when most of them have never done anything more advanced that installed some Linux Distro and now they think they're tech gods.
Well, to be fair, the distro was called "Fuck You Newbie Linux", and the man pages were all replaced with ascii images of middle fingers and short pithy phrases about your stupidity for wanting documentation, when a binary disassembler was available.
You used the word "fuck" twice, yet you apparently haven't come to the realization that long before the horrid, craptacular garbage (with exceptions...let's be fair) passing itself off as television these days gets into this, there will be a thriving, multi-quintillion-dollar pron industry making use of the tech.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yes, it is. This is anyone, looking at the screen from any angle within the supported field of view will see the (approximately) appropriate perspective of the displayed objects. No head tracking, fancy glasses, etc. required. Very much like an animated hologram in appearance, though the technique used is different.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
/facepalm...
Anyone know if it's feasible to construct a camera that records footage that this screen would output? Would they just interpolate between multiple cameras?
This is the first bit of 3D display tech I'm genuinely interested in, the current stereoscopic implementations have too many compromises.
is this going to be yet another device that could screw up a young child's vision and/or gives people headaches?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Let me know when they develop a walk-around 3d display that multiple people can look at simultaneously and each see the correct view from their position.
Just letting you know that MIT have developed a prototype for a walk-around 3d display that multiple people can look at simultaneously and each see the correct view from their position.
Here's a link to the summary on slashdot http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/07/12/2225233/mit-develops-holographic-glasses-free-3d-tv
Make sure you read the article or some of the comments so you don't confuse it with a head tracking version and post stupid comments like this retard: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2975701&cid=40634291
They are looking for eye donations. Clearly you would be happy with just one.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The migraine test is the only true test for all 3D viewing technology.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Inspired by the tapestry on pg 560 of Skylark III I wanted to build a art piece that contained thousands of suspended beads -- as you walked around it, the beads would align into images that could only be seen from that one spot; it would be a random (although attractive) array of colors otherwise.
This work here seems similar, although infinitely more practical and realizable. Very nice work.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I wonder what the precise computational cost is of rendering complex 3D objects and scenes on this kind of technology.
I can't wait to have one of these babies to run Taodyne's 3D presentations software on it! One of the things which is tricky with current multiscopic displays is how to convert existing 2D movies. Ideally, you want to do that in real time, something that Tao Presentations can do for Alioscopy or Tridelity displays, but which is more computationally expensive for Philips/Dimenco displays.
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
Crap, I meant "except not really tailored for home use..."
Son of a Dalek...
OMG... I have a sig?
The last thing I want is to be sitting in a theater and missing part of the movie because of the location I chose to sit in.
Nobody complains much at the theatre or concerts, but if what you really want is a constraint of old technology, there's no reason they couldn't show the same picture at every angle. That ought to be much cheaper to produce and transmit, so it might even be the norm.
Maybe IMAX will gain some new purpose in life by showing 'real 3D' projections that need terabit-class stream rates. I'm looking forward to a nice fully immersive coral reef on a 60' screen at the local science center.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)