Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Boosts 3D Camera Output After Interest From Phone Makers (bloomberg.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

Sony, the biggest maker of camera chips used in smartphones, is boosting production of next-generation 3D sensors after getting interest from customers including Apple. From a report: The chips will power front- and rear-facing 3D cameras of models from several smartphone makers in 2019, with Sony kicking off mass production in late summer to meet demand, according to Satoshi Yoshihara, head of Sony's sensor division. Sony's bullish outlook for 3D cameras provides much needed optimism to the global smartphone industry, which is suffering a slowdown as consumers find fewer reasons to upgrade devices. The Tokyo-based company has started providing software toolkits to outside developers so they can experiment with the chips and create apps that generate models of faces for communication or virtual objects for online shopping. "Cameras revolutionized phones, and based on what I've seen, I have the same expectation for 3D," said Yoshihara, who has worked for more than a decade on wider industry adoption of cameras in smartphones. "The pace will vary by field, but we're definitely going to see adoption of 3D. I'm certain of it."

56 comments

  1. Re: who needs 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cool story, bro.

  2. Consumer demand? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    I know that phone manufacturers are adding this so that they've got some new gimmick to sell, but is there any consumer demand for this? I honestly wasn't even aware that this was something that phones could do, and I'm not particular sure that I care.

    Does anyone with a newer device use this and if so, for what?

    1. Re:Consumer demand? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Oh good the first "I don't need it so no one needs it" post.

      I owned an Evo 3D and liked it a lot. I also have a VR headset. I'm the target market for this. Note: the Evo 3D did not require any hardware to view in 3D on the device.

    2. Re:Consumer demand? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Considering how 3DTVs failed spectacularly and VR is a niche market within a niche market, it's hardly just them who don't want or need either. The vast majority of consumers have said no thanks.

    3. Re:Consumer demand? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "I honestly wasn't even aware that this was something that phones could do, and I'm not particular sure that I care."

      Well, first, it's not phones, it's cameras. It's something cameras "can do".

      Furthermore, it's not something you need to be aware of for it to matter nor does anyone care that you care.

      Lastly, it's something that a camera can do in order to make the things that cameras do (that you may care about) better. It's a capability under the covers, not a feature sold directly to the customer.

      So yes, there are cameras that do these things and there is consumer demand for those cameras.

    4. Re:Consumer demand? by Trevorm7 · · Score: 1

      Something can be successful without prior consumer demand for that particular things. If the tech has inherent usefulness then the consumers will begin to demand it once they become aware of it.

    5. Re:Consumer demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how 3DTVs failed spectacularly...

      Just because the manufacturers chose to dump 3D TVs in favor of arguably-indistinguishable-from-across-the-room higher-res TVs doesn't mean 3D failed spectacularly, it just means marketing have chosen to alienate a market segment. Personally, I much prefer the extra depth cues of 3D video over extra pixels that I'm never going to notice from across the living room. (My eyes aren't getting any younger.)

      There are those of us out there who, believe it or not, enjoy watching 3D videos on our 3D TVs. (No thanks to Disney/Marvel/Pixar who refuse to sell 3D Blu-rays in North America. Fortunately, they don't withhold them from overseas markets.) With no nearby cinema screening 3D movies, a 3D TV is the only way I get to enjoy movies in their proper glory.

      I am disappointed that I can no longer buy a new 3D TV. The one I have now was an inexpensive model, bought to see whether the hype was worth it. Since I confirmed that it was, I've been looking for a new, larger model, but Samsung, LG, et al. apparently don't want my money. Their loss. I'll have to look for an alternative when my TV eventually fails, I guess. Maybe a projector. I understand quite a number of those support 3D.

    6. Re:Consumer demand? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Hey look. We found the one person in the world who still cares about 3DTVs.

    7. Re:Consumer demand? by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"I owned an Evo 3D and liked it a lot. I also have a VR headset. I'm the target market for this. Note: the Evo 3D did not require any hardware to view in 3D on the device."

      I, too, had a 3D Evo. It was neat how it worked, especially with the no-glasses-needed-screen. But for my own uses, I thought it was more of a novelty than something useful. Please keep in mind that I very much enjoy 3D- I have lots of 3D blurays and a 3D TV, and go to 3D movies in the theater. When done right, it can add another great aspect to movie story-telling. So if even I can say it probably isn't that big a deal in a phone, it is likely to be too gimmicky to most others out there.

      I will laugh, however, when it comes to the "iPhone" and Apple and it's users claim they invented that idea, too.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:Consumer demand? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that I don't need it and therefore no one does. I even said I wasn't aware that phones had this capability. Maybe this is something that I do need or at least might want. I just can't envision what this technology might be useful for and was asking if anyone was using this or had some particular use case in mind.

    9. Re:Consumer demand? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Capturing a 3D field image allows you to reconstruct the photo after it's shot. Do you want a slightly different angle? Focus on a different subject? Wish the camera had been closer or further away (no it's not the same thing as zooming)? The only way to do those things with a 2D camera is to go back to the location and try to recreate the scene so you can re-shoot it. With a 3D camera image, you can correct these errors by recreating it computationally.

      I agree that viewing photos in 3D is gimmicky. But the value in having fewer missed shots because you unknowingly did something slightly wrong makes this a technology worth pursuing.

    10. Re:Consumer demand? by Misagon · · Score: 1

      This isn't a light-field camera but a depth-sensing camera combined with a regular camera.
      Some useful uses of this type of camera include:
      * Unlocking the phone with the shape of your face
      * Filtering out the background in video-calls.

      For these a lightfield camera would be overkill. But yes, you could say that most other uses are gimmicky at the moment.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    11. Re:Consumer demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guardians of the galaxy was released in 3D in North America, you liar!

    12. Re:Consumer demand? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Over pricing the 3D content and making it difficult or impossible to get 3D versions of new releases may be the big issue.
      I have an active and a passive 3D TV, both are excellent performers for the 2D content that is provided.
      I was an early adopter, I started with a Nimslo 3D film camera, I also have the Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3, and the GoPro 3D Hero System which was a bit of a drag when helmet mounted and travelling at freeway speeds, and a very nice Dell laptop with an active 3D screen.
      The negatives:
      A: Fuji never made their 3D photo printer available in the US making sharing pictures nearly impossible. Also those lenticular prints (Nimslo or Fuji) really limit the resolution of your pictures.
      B: Active screens using proprietary signalling to force you to use proprietary ($$$) active glasses, AND having to buy new glasses because batteries were not replaceable.
      C: If a studio would release a DVD in 3D it was always terribly over priced (yet I bought several) and usually long after the 2D version was out. The 3D version fit on the same lousy disk as the 2D version, come on disney, sony, who ever, you jerks.
      --
      Perhaps the intent is to maintain incredible profits by not diluting their product stream with even the most insignificant addition of providing 3D versions.
      Remember, BetaMax provided a superior product but went down in flames to VHS due to the much larger availability of content.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
  3. HTC EVO 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an EVO 3D sitting in my dresser drawer that I bought brand new. It was an interesting gimmick for a while. Don't see how that will change with this new "resurgence" of 3D camera phones.

    1. Re:HTC EVO 3D by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sometimes technology flops, then after time it becomes something really useful.

      How many people got Windows CE Smart Phones back in the early 2000's or Palm Pilots. But they never really caught on. However after time, some hardware improvements new approach to software, and sometime a developer willing to give that feature a bit more effort then just a Gee Wiz take a look at that in CES effect.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:HTC EVO 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a Windows CE HTC Apache, circa 2004 or so. It was much better tech in many ways than what we use now. It had better input devices and finer control over the device's functions.

      It was also fat, had fairly poor battery life, would sometimes overheat, and had an unfortunate design flaw with its belt clip that could violently eject its SD card several feet.

      Despite those problems, I used it until 2009. I threw away the belt clip.

      I still wish the current phones had evolved from that. The combination of slideout keyboard and touch controls is still unmatched, and it had a neat physical joystick nub control that actually made SHMUPs and first person dungeon crawlers fun on it.

      Bonus: you could turn off the phone while leaving the data antenna on, in case you wanted to use it uninterrupted as a modem.

  4. It has some infrastructure in place now by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    Plenty of VR headsets and glasses have been sold, many of those people want to be able to see their own content in 3d.

    It's not a majority market. But I enjoy the clarity 3d gives. There's more context to know what is where in the image.

    1. Re:It has some infrastructure in place now by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Plenty of VR headsets and glasses are sitting in drawers, unused. Just another fad.

    2. Re: It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youâ(TM)re a daisy if you do

    3. Re: It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy moly. Holy moly

    4. Re: It has some infrastructure in place now by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You heard it here first. Put it in the landfill with all the 3DTV's.

    5. Re: It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you asking him on a date? Do you want a dollop of daisy?

    6. Re: It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would I find such a thing?

    7. Re:It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even care so much for the 3D uses, I care more about the algorithms that can be run on top to create sharper, multi-focus imagery from one sensor.
      Being able to refocus the image from one dataset since you can tell not only what a color is, but the general direction.
      Admittedly the ability to resolve 3D will be very limited in such a flat space, but it can still be done to a reasonable extent.
      It will also make spatial awareness functional, making augmented reality actually useful instead of shit. You'll be able to do much less work to get useful geometry to build against.
      Admittedly the latter one is a grey area as to whether it will be good overall because it will lead to situations where some architects will use smartphone AR measurements instead of proper equipment. It wouldn't be the first! Not just architecture either. AR should only ever be used as a quick napkin-sketch at best, i's not all there yet.

      You can do some neat shit with 3D camera systems that go beyond "wooow it's 3D!".

    8. Re:It has some infrastructure in place now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.
      Content creators and digital artists already know what they want to do with a pixel depth api.

      Everyone else will be in line buying a ticket to the shows, downloading the apps, and oooogling the imaging on social media

  5. Re: who needs 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got an affiliate link to show you

  6. Re:who needs 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing that an inept IT janitor making junk videos barely more interesting than a test pattern has become a meme!

  7. Pretty much only phones by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Well, first, it's not phones, it's cameras. It's something cameras "can do".

    No, it's pretty much not. There are way more phones with 3D imaging abilities than standalone cameras.

    The fact they mentioned Apple in the summary is a telling clue as well...

    Lastly, it's something that a camera can do in order to make the things that cameras do (that you may care about) better.

    In what way is this useful for cameras that is helpful?

    Autofocus does not use 3D cameras - it's mostly phase related hardware, or contrast detection on-sensor.

    On phones, some may be using a 3D camera for facial unlocking, or on front and rear for faking a narrower depth of field - but even phones with a single camera can do effect DOF faking now.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Pretty much only phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bokeh. When you take a photo with a new iPhone and adjust the background blur or lighting or isolate the subject easily afterward, that's because the phone took two photos with the two lenses (or used the TrueDepth thingy for selfies) and extracted 3-dimensional information.

      Halide is an app that puts those depth maps in AR and it's fun to play around with. There's some promising hand-held 3d scanning.

      And Snapchat filters have nothing on memoji's, at least as far as my young nephew is concerned.

    2. Re: Pretty much only phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like another apple gimmick

  8. 3D fad comes and goes by xack · · Score: 1

    We just had the 3D movie and tv fad disappear a few years ago, and now they want to bring it back? I expect new 2019 Pogs and Fidget Spinners to come out too.

    1. Re:3D fad comes and goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong type of 3D. The summary doesn't make it clear, but they're talking about Kinect-style 3D cameras - where you have your traditional 2D color image plus a 2D depth map that correlates to that image.

      It's the same type of camera Apple uses to make Face ID work. (Face ID doesn't use image-based facial recognition, it uses 3D depth map based facial recognition. That's why a photo won't fool it, but a 3D-printed head will.)

      Although much like the Kinect, I don't really see any future in this style of camera. They're neat, briefly, and you can do some neat things with them (like the 3D facial tracking that makes Animoji possible) but overall they're pretty useless and don't offer any truly compelling features. It's why Microsoft gave up on the Kinect.

    2. Re:3D fad comes and goes by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We just had the 3D movie and tv fad disappear a few years ago

      Huh? It disappeared? *goes to check local movie site*, nope still there, only a few crappy 2D sessions at odd hours of the day and everything else still 3D.

      I guess you're talking about home 3D, which was frigging stupid and never worked well.

  9. I own a 3d film camera by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    And I can tell you that while the output is nice, the extra cost for film is not something most consumers would pay for.

    I doubt that the extra cost for display technology that does not involve special glasses would be worth it for a digital version. No way would anyone want to wear glasses to see the picture properly.

    That said, the basic idea is two pictures taken from a slightly different angle. That alone does have some advantages, including greater definition from a single picture, especially if you use algorithms to combine them.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I own a 3d film camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also been a stereo photographer for 40 years. One of the problems with "3D for the masses" is that nobody understands how it works. This results in the oft-cited "eyestrain problem" from violations of the stereo window and misalignment of the images. And I have to question whether such a "3D camera" will take natural stereo pictures at all, or merely synthesize them from two closely-spaced imaging chips.

    2. Re:I own a 3d film camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not talking about stereo pictures at all.

      They're talking about taking a regular 2D picture and also capturing a "depth map" along with it.

      That's it. That's the "3D camera" the article is talking about. It's literally the same technology the Kinect had on the Xbox, and we all know how successful that was.

    3. Re:I own a 3d film camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can tell you that while the output is nice, the extra cost for film is not something most consumers would pay for.

      I doubt that the extra cost for display technology that does not involve special glasses would be worth it for a digital version. No way would anyone want to wear glasses to see the picture properly.

      I've got a digital 3D camera. It's pretty cool. Unfortunately, while you can admire the results on its built-in display, there isn't a practical way of conveniently viewing/sharing the results outside the camera. The technology is sufficiently niche that there is no way I can see mobile manufacturers adding 3D displays to their products.

  10. Easy way to kill this here and now by xanthos · · Score: 1

    If we can just get people to equate 3D/VR/AR with P0RN we can stop this silliness.

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
    1. Re:Easy way to kill this here and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop or kickstart?

    2. Re:Easy way to kill this here and now by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The way I see it porn is the only thing keeping the VR scene alive. It's having the opposite effect of killing it.

  11. Not only for 3D by jeromef · · Score: 2

    Note that 3D sensors are not used only to produce traditional 3D scenes. They are quite useful for biometric authentication and DOF tricks (add blurry background to pictures).

    1. Re:Not only for 3D by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Those are some of the things they are currently used for. I would like to see more innovative things like using 3-D mosaicking to scan objects into games, or for 3-D printing. These cameras becoming cheap is also a major boost to cheap robust robotics applicarions as well like Simultaneous Localization And Mapping.

  12. Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not let Apple iFuckery this up too.

  13. 3D Dick Pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone with a newer device use this and if so, for what?

    3D Dick Pics. Come on, you know darn well the world is about to be flooded with them.

    1. Re:3D Dick Pics by adrn01 · · Score: 1

      It's the 3-D House of ^H^H^H^H Dicks (and other NSFW jiggly bits)!! (original SFW 3-D skit by SCTV folk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... )

  14. Apple does NOT discuss it's plans. by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    I followed TFA and it's reference article after reading the description above, knowing that Apple does not discuss it's plans with suppliers.
    Slashdot:

    boosting production of next-generation 3D sensors after getting interest from customers including Apple

    TFA:

    Apple is likely to adopt Sony's TOF sensors for future devices, according to Yusuke Toyoda, a sensors analyst at Fuji Chimera Research Inc.

    A research company's expectation is not the same thing as "getting interest from Apple".

  15. Re:who needs 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be happy for him! He made it somehow despite all people expectations!

  16. Re:who needs 3D? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends what "it" means, I suppose. "Made it" in the sense that you are breathing and eating? Sure, I guess. You're a running joke? Sure. I guess. You make test pattern videos for pigeons to poop on? Sure.

  17. What a joke! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    More gimmicks is all you get from smartphone companies these days. Notches, no notches, pretty colors, more camera lenses, smaller batteries slim & sexy, no bezels, higher prices. 3D? Really? Thought that went out of style in the 50's, then the 90's?

    1. Re:What a joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my lawn!

  18. Need Display Tech First by mentil · · Score: 1

    The RED Phone supposedly has a really-cool next-gen holographic display that requires no glasses, and works at any orientation/angle (unlike say the 3DS). If that tech somehow takes off, then 3d photos might make sense (the phone comes with a 3d camera IIRC). Otherwise, noone's gonna put on a VR headset to look at still photos. Once AR displays become commonly used, then I could see people looking at 3d photos more frequently, but that's probably not going to happen until Apple releases something.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  19. Stereoscoptic, not "3D" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3D implies that I can look around the objects and see different things at different angles

    Stereoscoptic just makes things appear closer or further from other objects, but you are restricted to the features viewable from one angle.

    1. Re: Stereoscoptic, not "3D" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should read:

      "Stereoscoptic just makes things appear closer or further from other objects, but you are restricted to one angle and whatever features were photographed from that angle."