Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's First 3D Webcam Tested

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the didn't-like-the-others-they-were-all-too-flat dept.

Input Devices 124

CNETNate writes "The world's first 3D webcam not only takes anaglyphic images, but will let you have a stereoscopic 3D video chat over the Internet. It's the work of a unique camera called 'Minoru,' which has been tested and documented in a feature today. Be warned though: anaglyphic photography was clearly not invented to create comfortably-viewable videos."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

3D Webcam (5, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | about 5 years ago | (#28724093)

Finally! My old, 2D webcam kept falling through the cracks in the floorboards.

Re:3D Webcam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724197)

And before 2D, when there were 1D cameras, you just could not locate them at all. They were so easy to be misplaced, I am telling you!

Re:3D Webcam (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724493)


(After one of the film reels gets damaged and Tucker can't get a replacement reel in time, he tells a sold out San Diego crowd the following)

"Okay, check this shit out. The average film is spooled on like six separate film reels and shit. About twenty minutes each, give or take; I'm not a fucking projectionist. Well last night after leaving Arizona, which is a cool place but hot as shit, and those fucker don't party like you fuckers in SD!"


"Anyways, last night the fifth reel of the film got destroyed. But here's the funny part. I FUCKING DESTROYED IT. Well, not me, but a motherfucking Tiger."


"Serious, this is true story. Last night we got to SD early, like 2:30am. The whole way here Nils, Dawes, Tando and I were doing shots of moonshine. Like 40 or 50 shots each. We're full-on buzzed and looking for some fun. Then I remember there's a Naval base down here in SD. Holy shit, I said 'I should call up a few Navy SEAL friends I know.' BAD. IDEA."


"By 3:00am my SEAL buddies BroHawk, Mondo and Terror meet us in a parking lot. They didn't come empty handed. They brought a Howitzer machine gun. If you're not familiar with the power of a Howitzer let me explain. Ten seconds of rapid fire from a fucking Howitzer can turn an entire Iraqi Wedding party into two thousand pounds of ground beef and shit."


"Calm the fuck down, they're Iraqis NOT humans"


"Fuck, I haven't even told you motherfuckers the best part of the story. Shit. so we spent the next hour drinking beers and shooting out every motherfucking street lamp in a two mile radius. The cops were called and we took off in the tour bus. Since I was fairly drunk I knew the best thing for me to do was, well, drive the mother fucking bus!"


"Problem is, I couldn't figure out how to work the fucking air conditioner. So now it's like 100 degrees in the tour bus and I'm doing like 80-90 mph. To where? Who the fuck knows? Anyways, since everyone is sweating and shit, people started taking off their shirts and shit. I look in the mirror and I catch my Navy SEAL buddy Terror's reflection. He is shirtless, sweating and cut like a motherfucker. Full on six pack, nice round pecks, shoulders to die for."


"At this point I'm no longer looking at the road. I'm looking at Terror's fucking chest and thinking about running back there and sucking and licking his nipples. Damn, dude has a better body than me motherfucker."


"Shit. I don't have notes. Where the fuck was I again?"


"Gay? Motherfucker, I've pleased more pussy than Purina Cat Chow!"


"So I'm driving the fucking bus down the road when I see a sign. A sign from God. It reads: SAN DIEGO ZOO. 'Guess where we're going motherfuckers' I yelled to the boys. So a few minutes later we're in the zoo parking lot. Obviously it's closed. Closed to the public that is, but not Tucker Fucking Max!"



Re:3D Webcam (5, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about 5 years ago | (#28724603)

I also thought about making a 1D camera joke, but figured, "what's the point?"

Re:3D Webcam (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | about 5 years ago | (#28724743)

That would be a 0D camera. Get out, we don't want your kind here.

Re:3D Webcam (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | about 5 years ago | (#28725605)

I also thought about making a 1D camera joke, but figured, "what's the point?"

Bad 1D geometry skill is where I draw the line.

Re:3D Webcam (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 5 years ago | (#28727381)

Yeah, but you should have seen the pictures from my Flatland vacation!

Re:3D Webcam (2, Insightful)

ivucica (1001089) | about 5 years ago | (#28724341)

Don't know about the rest of you, but I don't find anything 3D about additive red+blue channel images, and I find any advertisement of a "3D movie" annoying. Unless it's holo -- as seen on Star Trek viewscreens -- then that's not 3D, plain and simple.

And I also don't find anything innovative about this cam. How about "just" pairing two "regular" cams, and writing a virtual webcam driver that would merge the images into one? This Minoru is essentially the same thing, but packed in a £49.95 plastic box, and thus I don't find this truly 'unique'; the box is unique, and Minoru is perhaps first implementation of this silly idea, but unique is a too strong word.

PS Slashdot, give us UTF-8.

Re:3D Webcam (4, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 5 years ago | (#28724413)

What you said is absolutely correct, including the UTF-8 part. And BTW, if you meant to invoke the voice of comic book guy without mentioning him, you totally succeeded. :)

Re:3D Webcam (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#28724697)

+1, especially since you have to wear the stupid glasses anyways, why not just pair 2 normal cams (ooh challenging), and have your main product being special glasses with a screen in each 'lens', then the glasses have a focus setting, which sends back to the webcams to change their focal point. Or get a little more complex and have the glasses monitor the viewers eyes, and interpret the desired focal distance and angle by that, then you could actually "look around" as if you were there, (having the ability disabled on the webcams side incase you don't want people looking around the room)

Re:3D Webcam (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 years ago | (#28725623)

Probably because glasses with screens in them do two things. First they give people headaches after prolonged use of them unless you can see through the images or the images are peripheral instead of the focal point. The second thing is that you wouldn't be able to see the keyboard or other things on the desk when using the glasses like a normal web cam. It might make a fun toy but would severely limit the applications.

Re:3D Webcam (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 5 years ago | (#28725999)

Actually, we can use the half-mirror sliver in a clear glass block like what you could find in old super-8 cameras to solve the problem of not being able to see the keyboard.

Good luck on solving the headache issue, though. The only thing i've found to work is to actually have a visor and lens assembly bigger than the Virtual Boy, and then we'd introduce the problem of neck strain due to the weight of the unit.

Re:3D Webcam (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 5 years ago | (#28726125)

and then we'd introduce the problem of neck strain due to the weight of the unit.

Easy... just attach helium balloons to the front of the unit to offset the weight!

Re:3D Webcam (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 5 years ago | (#28725295)

I'm holding out for a true 4D cam, with temporal persistence. those 2 and 3D ones are here one instant and gone the next.

Re:3D Webcam (1)

Jake73 (306340) | about 5 years ago | (#28726207)

Sorry, you cannot do 3D anaglyphics with a rolling shutter.

Hot damn! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724129)


Re:Hot damn! (2, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 years ago | (#28724513)

We're lucky that Slashdot is still in good old 2-D. Otherwise my eyes would just have been poked out by your comment.

Possibilities (2, Insightful)

theArtificial (613980) | about 5 years ago | (#28724183)

Amateur pornographers of the world rejoice.

Re:Possibilities (2, Insightful)

arndawg (1468629) | about 5 years ago | (#28724329)

Shoe on head is going to be so amazing with this technloogy :D

Re:Possibilities For a couple of sex i though i (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 5 years ago | (#28724343)

ANALglyphics.... but then i saw the image, and i felt i wnet tghruo an aanl refragtometer. My sped is heel stinning..

Profit (4, Insightful)

matchlight (609707) | about 5 years ago | (#28724191)

Step 1: build something
Step 2: Figure out how to use it to make porn
Step 3: make porn
Step 4: Profit!

Re:Profit (1)

ivucica (1001089) | about 5 years ago | (#28724293)

You missed a step.

Step 3.5: ???

Re:Profit The missing step is the missing link: (0)

davidsyes (765062) | about 5 years ago | (#28724375)

Digital Transmission of MULTIPLE Orgasmim Concomitant to omnidirectional/omnidimensinoal leakage while becoming ONE with the uniwerse....

Re:Profit (1)

miggyb (1537903) | about 5 years ago | (#28724457)

I'm pretty sure any steps between "Make porn" and "Profit!" are self-evident.

Re:Profit (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#28725181)

Step 3.5: ???

Meet women.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28725371)

you obviously don't understand interweb memes

Re:Profit (1)

c6gunner (950153) | about 5 years ago | (#28725401)

If you're only meeting women in step 3.5, what the hell kind of porn were you making in step 3???

Re:Profit (0, Troll)

jason.sweet (1272826) | about 5 years ago | (#28725953)

If you're only meeting women in step 3.5, what the hell kind of porn were you making in step 3???

This [] kind.

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28726119)

Are you sure you want to know the answer to that?
Posting AC because I'm...
A: Too lazy to sign up.
2: Too drunk to sign up.
C: Blind in one eye and don't give a damn about 3D, or..
4: All of the above.
Yep, definitely all of the above.

Re:Profit (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | about 5 years ago | (#28725421)

It's porn. Women are optional

Re:Profit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724377)

These are already being used to make porn over at [] (nws!)

Re:Profit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724389)


Re:Profit (1)

gpronger (1142181) | about 5 years ago | (#28724451)

But 10 years down the line, once porn has worked out the bugs, and made the market big enough to drive the cost of the hardware down, it'll become common technology. So, though porn may have a lot of negatives, it does tend to allow the development of technologies based upon what a lot of horny SOB's are willing to pay.

Re:Profit (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 years ago | (#28726735)

though porn may have a lot of negatives

This is good, it means you can make new prints if the old ones get ... ummm ... damaged.

Re:Profit (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#28724719)

Quote from Avenue Q, "In volatile market, the only stable investment is porn."

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28726593)

Finally! We have located the missing step leading to profit!

Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (4, Interesting)

jhfry (829244) | about 5 years ago | (#28724219)

The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect. For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).

With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I'd bet the effect is quite good.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (4, Informative)

B Nesson (1153483) | about 5 years ago | (#28724291)

Cross-eye and parallel-eye stereoscopic images don't have this problem.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (3, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 years ago | (#28724305)

Also polarized light and shutter glasses 3D. But you need a projector for the first one. Okay, two projectors.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

Wingman 5 (551897) | about 5 years ago | (#28724683)

Also polarized light and shutter glasses 3D. But you need a projector for the first one. Okay, two projectors.

Not really iz3d [] sells LCD monitors that will be polarized for each eye.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 years ago | (#28724757)

RIght you are. I forgot about those. That one is even reasonably priced. They don't say what the 3D resolution is though... probably half of what they quote as the resolution, which would make it 800x500ish.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

Wingman 5 (551897) | about 5 years ago | (#28724889)

No that is the full resolution however it requires that your card support dual monitors.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (2, Interesting)

Tacvek (948259) | about 5 years ago | (#28725595)

I'm guessing this works by having two liquid crystal layers.

A liquid crystal layer has two states. in one state light passes through with no change to the polarization. In the other state, there is a 90 degree change in polarization.

So take a bog standard LCD monitor. Add a large single segment liquid crystal layer to the front. So this new layer has just one giant pixel, making it very inexpensive. (In reality for performance reasons you would probably use multiple smaller segments, but you don't need anywhere near one per pixel.)

Now we need to add a bit more electronics. For 3d we need two image sources, but we only have one screen to display them. So we add some hardware to interleave the images. If we were going really high-end, we might use a monitor that supports a 120 Hz framerate. Then we can interleave the two 60 Hz images without any loss. Otherwise, we do every other frame, and thus lose half of our framerate.

Now all we do is swap that second liquid crystal layer to the opposite polarization at each Vsync. A trival way to do that would be to drive the monitor second liquid crystal from a toggle flip-flop, clocked by Vsync. In reality one would probably do something a bit more sophisticated, so as to ensure left single is always up/down, and right is always left/right, or vice versa.

Does anybody know if that is what they do? If not, are there any particular issues with what I described above?

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

Larryish (1215510) | about 5 years ago | (#28725901)

Now imagine that you have an ordinary house-cat, and two jars of marmalade.

You look at the house-cat first through one jar of marmalade, and then through another jar of marmalade, and then some bloody bastard named Shodillinger or something poisons the bloody house-cat with a hammer and a box.

How rude.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 5 years ago | (#28726137)

Neither does real life.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28724299)

The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display

Slow down, cowboy...

There's many ways in which you can present stereographic content. Personally I prefer the side-by-side method as it allows for full color and no special display; and then specifically the cross-eyed method. This does take up twice the horizontal space; though for most webcam purposes you could re-orient the camera so that it records in a portrait projection, and you'd lose much less (though requiring more vertically - unless cropped).

Other methods include things like chromadepth ( color matching doesn't matter there, but you have to pre-process the two images into a single image of varying hues so that e.g. red appears close and blue appears further away ), polarized display of both images into the same 2D space (requires special screen/projector and glasses), lenticular displays (both images appear interlaced vertically with eachother.. e.g. one image in the odd-numbered columns of pixels, the other in the even-numbered columns).. destroys half the horizontal resolution, requires a special display but not special glasses), '3d glasses' (a la VR shutter glasses, simply presenting the 'left' image in front of your left eye, and the right image in front of the right; requires special glasses, drivers, etc.).

Personally I don't know -why- this company went with the anaglyphic method as it's fraught with problems.. color filters are only the beginning... messing your eyes up like you wouldn't believe it for the next 5 minutes after you take the glasses off is a more serious issue. At least shutter glasses only give you a headache, rather than the entire world appearing to fade between red/blue or red/green or cyan/magenta, etc. in front of you in swirly clouds of freakiness.

Re:Prepare for a run in display calibration tools (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 years ago | (#28726377)

The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect. For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).

The problem with red/blue glasses is you are sacrificing 2 dimensions to gain 1 back. The ones you lose are two of the three dimensions in human visual color space; the one you gain is depth. (Actually it seems wrong that you'd have to sacrifice 2 to get 1, maybe I am not thinking right.)

Motion not a strong point (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 5 years ago | (#28724227)

I just tried this with some old 3d glasses I had laying around and it looks like the cameras get out of sync when it moves around. Especially when the camera swings over people, you see those ghost images of the person in one eye.

Re:Motion not a strong point (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 5 years ago | (#28724259)

hell, I can see it desyncs with no glasses at all, red is all over the place when something moves fast.

This will fail at videoconferencing. (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 5 years ago | (#28724257)

Because everyone will have to be using 3d glasses.

Unless you make the 3d glasses somewhat invisible to the 3D camera and... ow my head!!

Re:This will fail at videoconferencing. (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#28725199)

Then everyone shall be the guy on the left [] .

Re:This will fail at videoconferencing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28725479)

And really though, who wants to go through the trouble of even picking up a pair of glasses to talk over the internet? Oh right, the same people who actually use the video chat feature on skype when they're not actually showing you anything.

Is it just me... (2, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 5 years ago | (#28724287)

..or does Minoru [] look like the mutant love-child of Number 5 from Short Circuit and Stewie from Family Guy?

Re:Is it just me... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#28724515)

It was just you until you mentioned it.

Where's the brillo pad? I need to scour out my eyes.

Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724597)

...thats looking for a video of that.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 5 years ago | (#28725153)

Man that is one home video of the honeymoon night I *don't* want to see.................

I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (4, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | about 5 years ago | (#28724383)

Then they started putting out all these animated films in 3-D- Robots, Beowulf, Up, etc. And I kept paying the extra to see the 3-D versions. Something kept bothering me though. Then, in the middle of Up, I realized what it was: after about 10 minutes, I stopped noticing that it was 3-D at all. I mean, if you get really absorbed in a movie, you don't need it to be 3-D anyway... and frankly, 3-D images never look three dimensional like they do in the real world. They have an otherworldly quality that seems, at least to me, in some ways less natural than 2-D images. Maybe it's that they don't define the subtleties of the true three dimensional world well enough, I don't know. Half the time it almost seems like I'm looking at one of those paper cut-out toy theatres where there's several levels of depth, but everything on each level is flat and it's only the levels themselves that are spaced apart. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

Orion (3967) | about 5 years ago | (#28724497)

I actually thought that the fact that you forget it is 3D was a big plus.... they don't make it in your face, but it is a nice addition to the film. Eventually you just don't notice it anymore, but it still makes a difference.

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | about 5 years ago | (#28724503)

No, I agree with you. While I sort of like the 3D movies, I find myself removing the glasses frequently for two reasons. One, is the one you mentioned. The other is for some reason, my eyes water when I watch these movies. Instantly, as soon as the 3D actually starts, my eyes water. The first time I thought it was my allergies, but the next time we watched two movies back to back, and the first wasn't 3D, and my eyes were fine. As soon as we went into the second theater and I put the glasses on my eyes started watering. I think they must be straining or something, because I've seen a couple more and the same thing always happens to me. My wife doesn't notice anything when she watches, so it seems to just be me.

Don't worry - you're not alone (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28724617)

There's several reasons why you may not find them all that '3D'...

starting with the obvious: it's not 3D, it's stereographic. We still call that '3D' because you get depth cues from it and depth would be the third dimension.

also obvious: when you move your head, the perspective doesn't change. For 2D, your brain doesn't care so much* as it's been trained in seeing 2D images since you were born. Stereographic images however do fool your brain into getting a depth cue, and it assumes that because it gets depth cues, you should be able to get a different perspective by moving your head. This confusion fades after a short while (depends on the person), but it'll always be there. The worst thing is.. your eyes jitter, even if you keep your head perfectly still, your eyes will still be bouncing all over the place - with minute movements, but your brain still expects the minute differences in perspective it's used to from actual 3D environments.

less obvious: you get depth cues of, say, an object being up close... something silly like the sword in Beowulf... right at you through the screen. You look at it, essentially crossing your eyes a little like you would any object that gets closer to you.. but now something funny happens. Your eyes, when they cross, by virtue of the brain will try to focus at a depth of the intersection point of your two eyes*. However, the film is not -actually- 3D.. so you're at the mercy of whatever focus the film's producer decided upon. So if that tip of the sword is squarely out of focus, your brain sits there wondering what the $&#* is going on. This effect is not so pronounced for surfaces further away (much like a focal distance on your camera of 15m will happily cover 14m and 16m as well, and far beyond those; while a macro shot at 2cm distance requires very careful positioning of your camera's distance to the subject to get the correct part in focus... e.g. photographing an insect and trying to get its head, rather than some leg in focus) - but at the same time, depth cues get much less pronounced as surfaces get further away - simply as they converge with perspective.

There's a few other reasons, including keystoning of the projection (when seeing a stereographic 3D feature, try to sit as close to the center of the screen when projected out to the seating as possible), but the above are the main three.

It bugs me as well, but for some movies it's absolutely worth seeing the '3D' version.

* This is also the main reason why some people have issues trying to see side-by-side type stereographic images. Getting your eyes to see a surface at one distance (depending on how much you have to cross your eyes to make the two images overlap), while the lenses of each eye focus on another distance (the display surface) can be unnatural and some people simply never get it happening for them.

For kicks.. close your left eye, now with your right eye, try to focus on a nearer distance (without cheating using another surface). Do the same with the right eye closed and left eye open. If you can do this, you can probably watch side-by-side stereographic images (of the cross-eye method) easily.
Now for your brain kicking in.. open both eyes, and try again. You'll find this difficult at best and impossible at worst - without, in fact, going cross-eyed.

Human visual system is fun - and that's without going into any optical illusion stuff :)

Re:Don't worry - you're not alone (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | about 5 years ago | (#28724773)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I don't have any mod points, but if I did, you'd be getting 'insightful' from me.

Re:Don't worry - you're not alone (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | about 5 years ago | (#28726101)

I can actually do that. Might be because at one point I took these classes that involved doing stereograms with increasing distance between the images to try and help my epilepsy or something.

Huh. I just found that I can move my eye's focus up and down individually (or at least reverse the movement for each eye).
I wonder if I could get my eyes to swivel around like The End...

I now have a migraine. Experiment aborted.

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | about 5 years ago | (#28724707)

No you're not alone.

It's basically the Uncanny Valley theory, applied to 3D animation instead.

A compelling movie doesn't *need* to be seen in 3D. If it has a great plot, etc, then you'll enjoy it. I don't think any amount of technology will ever change that.

Still, when this technology ultimately comes to research and games it will really change things.

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#28724797)

I wouldn't call any of the recent 3-D any more 3-D than original DOOM, I'd refer to it as 2.5-D. Just because the images come out of the screen isn't any different unless the entirety does, like a holograph.

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | about 5 years ago | (#28725951)

I hate those 3D movies. Mainly because they look exactly the same as the 2D movies because I have amblyopia, but I have to wear the annoying glasses over my regular glasses. I went to see Up in 3D as everyone else I was going with wanted to. Last time I'm doing that, it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the movie. I remember hearing these 3D TV shows being advertised as a kid and being confused as I thought everything was already in 3D.
The local theater scheduled significantly more showings of the 3D version. I'm hoping the trend does not continue, so I can actually go watch and enjoy these movies with people.

Re:I used to be a big fan of 3-D... (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | about 5 years ago | (#28726399)

Like you, I also get annoyed with red/green faux 3D because it doesn't work for me, so I've never been able to enjoy 3D comic books or TV shows even though I can see 3D in the real world. I had an injury in my recessive eye making my vision in that eye blurry. Yet the vision in the dominant eye is normal. That's why I'm able to see normally when walking around because the fine details come from the dominant eye whereas the recessive eye just fills in the stereo/perspective details.

Red is more difficult for my bad eye to make out, but the left 3D image is red so the effect simply doesn't work for me. Had the colors been reversed, blue for the left image then I'd be able to see the 3d effect. Oddly enough, I can see the effect with the polarized 3D movies with alternating frames because the images are in full color and display in stronger contrast which gives my bad eye more to work with.

Moving Forward? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724403)

For more than 50 years we have been experiencing these "advances" in 3D technology. But, even after 50 years, the end result, the viewed image, still looks the same. Awful!

This camera, isn't even remotely usable in the real world. Even for porn. It sucks!

My real question is, why don't they just give up on this 3D crap already?

Money, dur (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28724729)

My real question is, why don't they just give up on this 3D crap already?


Don't get me wrong - I love me some stereographic 3D (actual 3D is even nicer but well out of reach).

But the only motivator for 3D content right now is money. Money spent on 3D projection systems, the glasses, eventually special Blu-Ray (or beyond) features, displays (in the news a lot lately), cameras*, etc. etc.

Eventually stereographic 3D will become mainstream, as there's a -huge- push behind it. Eventually, smell-o-vision will be tried again as well.

stereoscopic video camera: []
( same in concept as sticking a big ol' 3D Lens in a Cap on your dSLR, fwiw )
stereoscopic photo camera:,9171,1909457,00.html?CNN=YES []

Not particularly new. There have been stereographic 3D photo cameras before that you'd get developed at a special lab that'd stick a lenticular sheet over it. Those usually had 3-5 lenses, too, for even greater effect (some perspective shift): [] ( creating output a la: [] )

Instead of Hello, World!..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724463)

3D video will use "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi".

already in the wild (1)

timmyd (108567) | about 5 years ago | (#28724481)

LiveJasmin has had 3D cameras for a few months now. ( [NSFW]

Re:already in the wild (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#28724811)

Porn, the real use for bleeding edge technologies.

Re:already in the wild (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#28725217)

If there's bleeding involved then either you're into really weird shit or you should come back in a few days when she's off her rags.

The demo sucked (1)

Big Smirk (692056) | about 5 years ago | (#28724485)

At least when converted to youtube the red and blue image wasn't even in-sync.

Perhaps a whole new compression algorithm.

The problem is the human senses are very sensitive to subtle changes - everything from phase changes in audio to things like frame sync. The original full motion simulator guys figured it out when they missed the motion tracking to video image by a frame or two - everyone got sick. Instant sea sickness.

All in all.

Really? This is the world's first? (4, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | about 5 years ago | (#28724495)

Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another? Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28724657)

I remember seeing this product a while ago, at least 2+ years ago, back when I was looking at open source software for making a 3d image from two separate webcams.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28724857)

I've seen at least the approach of using 2 webcams pretty much as early as the first webcams existed.

Sadly no records easily found, but here's one from 2004 (well post-webcam-introduction-era, of course: []

Note that there's one major problem with using 2 separate cameras; getting them to use the same settings. One might whitebalance/expose/etc. one way, the other another way, and poof... there goes the illusion.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

biospud (897563) | about 5 years ago | (#28725157)

*I* created the world's first 3D web cam. I operated a 3D webcam from 1997 to 2001. And it was not just anaglyph. You could view anaglyph, cross-eyed side by side, wall-eyed side by side, interlaced for certain hardware stereo setups, and jps format for other hardware formats. There is no way these jokers could possibly think they were first, unless they have never visited earth. Unfortunately my web server is down at the moment. Search later for "bruns-cam 3d".

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

biospud (897563) | about 5 years ago | (#28725369)

... and here's a link to a site that agrees (in French) that my 3D web cam was the first: [] "La premiÃre WEB CAM en 3D"

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28725763)

Yes, yes, and you would have told all the world about it if only the margins of your notebook were a little larger :)

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

pcgabe (712924) | about 5 years ago | (#28726491)

Also syncing is a problem. If you watch the video, it's plain that one of the cameras lags on motion. Instantly ruins the 3d effect.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | about 5 years ago | (#28724919)

This is in no way the first.

My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.

We haven't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing, but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents, prospective students, donors, etc.

Of course, figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing, but that's a question of software, not hardware. If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays, that might be interesting.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

plasticpixel (323537) | about 5 years ago | (#28724935)

Not exactly world's first. Sun Microsystems had an incredible demo about 12 years ago that involved an array of live web cams. The user's view would shift when they moved their head side to side. You could almost look around objects. They used LCD shutter glasses for the 3D view.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | about 5 years ago | (#28724973)

No, you got it. I happen to have red/cyan glasses on my desk and it seems the two cameras aren't even in sync (noticed when panning)

Oh, and that girl still looks flat.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 5 years ago | (#28727163)

Maybe she looks flat in real life, too!

Thanks, I'll be here all day.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (0, Flamebait)

syousef (465911) | about 5 years ago | (#28725577)

Am I missing something, or is this just two ordinary webcams that superimpose their images onto one another? Why did it take so long for someone to duct tape 2 cameras together?

You missed something: the marketing hype. No it didn't take this long to do stereographic video.

Re:Really? This is the world's first? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 5 years ago | (#28726691)

Because no one wanted to step on these "did I get fat ?" discussions with tools to actually have an objective measurement.

tradition (1)

paimin (656338) | about 5 years ago | (#28724865)

In the grand tradition of webcams, shouldn't the first 3D webcam have been a static shot of a coffee maker [] ? I mean really.


3D? (1)

prndll (1425091) | about 5 years ago | (#28725097)

I guess I just don't see the point in a "real" 3D camera when I can't view it's pictures on anything more than a 2D screen. Give me a "real" 3D screen to go with this and I might be impressed.

Mine eyes! They hurt! (3, Insightful)

kramulous (977841) | about 5 years ago | (#28725461)

Clearly I had to break out my red-blue anaglyph glasses and damn that video made my eyes and brain hurt.

The playback software has some glitches in it (not a youtube playback thing) because one image would freeze while the other eye would continue playing. They really need to fix that. The ad popup thing in youtube didn't help either.

It was good but a gimmick at best. Plus all my work colleagues looked at me weird with the glasses on until they realise what the hell I was doing. Then they came over for a gander. Who's cool now?

I just imagine... (1)

hotfireball (948064) | about 5 years ago | (#28725567)

You also need a quadraphonic sound to make sure it is really 3D.

Then I just imagine videoconference: folks in these funky eyeglasses seeing each other, trying to recognize who is who and talking from where...

I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996! (1)

John Sokol (109591) | about 5 years ago | (#28725671)

  I had my Livecam product doing this in 1996!

Stereo video is nothing new, and anaglyphic video is terrible.

There are some excellent stereo video codecs that have been developed over the years, I even experimented with a few designs.

Why use it for 3D? (2)

FirstTimeCaller (521493) | about 5 years ago | (#28725895)

Using it to produce 3D video seems gimmicky and, as someone pointed out, who wants to look at everybody wearing 3D glasses? I think a better use would be to use the two cameras to allow calculation of distances and then replace everything beyond a certain distance. Sort of a green screen effect but without the green screen. Now that would be useful (and cool).

Re:Why use it for 3D? (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 5 years ago | (#28727263)

Now you're talking. A bit of video-analyzing CPU muscle with these things could mean a webcam that senses Z-axis.

You could drop a virtual greenscreen at a fixed Z plane, like you suggest, or you could point the camera around your room, analyze its layout and clone it into your Second Life house (or whatever the hell the kids are up to these days) as a 3d mesh. Avatars could be made from a few stereo photos of your face.

And oh my god, the porn.

Methinks (2, Funny)

xednieht (1117791) | about 5 years ago | (#28726063)

Big tits will become immensely popular.... again

The demo video does it wrong (1)

DaleGlass (1068434) | about 5 years ago | (#28726093)

Anaglyph stereo requires two different images. These are taking two identical ones and shifting one of them a bit to one side. This does not work.

For instance, in the video, look at the table's border. You'll see how the red border is the same thickness, from the part that's closest to the viewer to the part that is furthest.

Compare this with an image that does it right [] . Notice how the difference between the left and right eye changes depending on distance. You can clearly see in the stairs how the red and cyan channels get closer to each other with distance, join, then start separating. That's how it's supposed to look like.

Binocular Vision overrated? (1)

JoeSilva (215173) | about 5 years ago | (#28726395)

I've had Strabismus [] (wall eyed version) my whole life. Maybe I'm missing something (you insensitive clod) but I get the impression this 3D Imagery stuff is just a gimmick, as I seem to do just fine judging distance without it. Still it probably gave a survival advantage at one time else why bother? Maybe it was just advantages to have a backup eye and the binocular ability came along from that, anyone know of research on that?

Linux and OSX? (2, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 5 years ago | (#28726499)

How long must I wait for OSX or Linux drivers for this thing? Should I just give up and make my own V4L filter that can color shift and merge two webcams into one? (should be easy, but do I want to glue to cameras together that badly)

colour blind (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | about 5 years ago | (#28726915)

Out of curiosity, how does a colour-blind person view '3D' movies? Are the affected?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>