×

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!

How To Build a Winscape

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the well-that's-pretty-cool dept.

Graphics 161

hoagaboom writes "You take your plasma TVs, mix them with a healthy dose of OpenGL and a dash of Wii Remote. Bake for a year and enjoy something called a Winscape." Although I'm not sure I'm quite willing to wear a special necklace to make the effect work, it's a super sweet little project, although they want $10 for the software and then $10 for many of the actual video loops.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

The effect would be weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31856848)

The thing is, it still wouldn't look 3D, even if it had head tracking. It would be quite a weird effect for you to move and be able to look around but it would still be flat.

Yeah but (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 4 years ago | (#31857244)

3D TVs + 3D glasses + this setup = problem solved!

Of course you'd make even nerdcore rappers look normal wearing that getup. But that's the price you pay (well that and $3000).

Re:Yeah but (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | about 4 years ago | (#31857478)

You would still have the problem of dictated focus. One big problem I have with '3D' movies is the fact that the foreground or background (or both) are out of focus. I tend to have my vision wander while watching movies and well trying to focus on something that appears closer to me that is out of focus is a fasttrack to a headache.

But this would actuall create a real 3D expierence, versus a sterio vision appearance of depth.

Re:The effect would be weird (5, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about 4 years ago | (#31857282)

I worked in a lab doing stereo vision research once. There's a lot more than stereopsis going on in depth perception. About 5% of the general population does not have stereopsis; 10% at age 65 and generally increasing thereafter. Often people who have this condition don't even know it.

The research I assisted on was on the impact of cognitive load on peripheral vision acuity (answer: none that we could find), but I also tinkered with stereograms. It turns out you can make them out of flat pictures by presenting disparate shadows to each eye. I got so good at looking at sterograms I didn't need a streoscope. I could look at a strip of Lunar photos from the Ranger mission and merge them into stereo images without any optical assistance.

In any case real world stereopsis only works at close range -- 25 meters or so is the max. As you approach that limit other cues become more important, including movement parallax, which is what this system exploits. If you looked at an image of something apparently fifty feet away or so, the fact that moving from side to side affects its apparent position and moving forward and back affects its size has a much stronger impact on your perception of depth and distance than stereopsis, even though stereopsis is theoretically operational at this distance. I'd bet the virtual object's distance would have to be quite close, say four meters or less, before your brain really starts to object.

So as far as a vista from your window -- say a view of the Golden Gate bridge -- stereopsis has absolutely no effect at all on the perception of 3D.

Re:The effect would be weird (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857552)

In any case real world stereopsis only works at close range -- 25 meters or so is the max. As you approach that limit other cues become more important, including movement parallax, which is what this system exploits.

It’s not that far away though... it’s relatively close to you, hanging on the wall. There’s a flat, vertical surface with an image on it. Regardless of how flat the image inside the window would look (as you said... at a distance, it would look relatively flat so long as you didn’t move your head), the window would still look like a hole in the wall because the wall is much closer.

Re:The effect would be weird (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857582)

I should have clarified... a real window will look like a hole in the wall (because it is). This, on the other hand, is at the same distance as the rest of the wall, and would look not only flat but also close.

It was probably obvious what I meant but I should have stated it more clearly...

Re:The effect would be weird (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | about 4 years ago | (#31857750)

For an example to back up our point: think skyboxes in video games. After a certain ditance away you would cease to notice any of the depth of an image, especially if your reference point is essentially fixed. This system simulates a skybox with 2D textures (and could theoretically have closer 3D objects as well) outside your window, which for the most part is good enough.

latency = veritgo (2, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about 4 years ago | (#31857498)

The thing is, it still wouldn't look 3D, even if it had head tracking. It would be quite a weird effect for you to move and be able to look around but it would still be flat.

because the objects are at a distance you won't have any binocular ability so it will look just fine in 3D. The real weirdness is going to be latency. you move your head and the scene lags. It will give you the sensation you are falling over or falling into the scene.

Nice party joke if you don't mind cleaning up vomit.

Re:The effect would be weird (4, Informative)

Jaruzel (804522) | about 4 years ago | (#31857510)

I've done this on a 8ft projector screen with Johny Chung Lee's original Wii head tracking mod, and I can assure you, the moment you move your head and the display updates, your brain is immediately fooled into seeing 3D.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw [youtube.com]

-Jar

Re:The effect would be weird (1)

TerranFury (726743) | about 4 years ago | (#31858144)

I think it depends on how far away the simulated scene is. Outside of a meter or so our stereo vision really doesn't do much. And also outside of that range (maybe a little further) the rays are close enough to parallel that it probably doesn't matter whether the system is tracking the head or the chest.

Finally (5, Funny)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 4 years ago | (#31856862)

Now my bomb shelter will be perfect

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858122)

Anyone else read that in Zoidberg's voice?

Fucking lobster....

Re:Finally (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | about 4 years ago | (#31858154)

If you could get it to track without the necklace I think there are a whole ton of funny pranks you could pull with this.

The first one that comes to mind would be to mess with the head of a drunken one night stand. Set the video loop to Paris and then watch their face when they walk in... What, you don't remember flying to Paris with me last night? Man, you were drunker than I thought.

As a fresh father (2, Funny)

blind biker (1066130) | about 4 years ago | (#31856884)

..let me say that the baby in the video is really cute. Not as cute as my baby boy, but still, not trailing far behind.

Way more fun than a techie gadget such as fake windows.

Re:As a fresh father (-1, Offtopic)

tom17 (659054) | about 4 years ago | (#31856944)

As another fresh father, I challenge that *my* baby boy is the cute one! :)
Wait, is 1yr still considered fresh? Still feels it.

Tom...

Re:As a fresh father (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857134)

When he turns 8 you'll still think he's a baby.

Now get off my lawn :)

Re:As a fresh father (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857226)

Because 6.5 billion is still not enough people on the planet.

Re:As a fresh father (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31858036)

Whoever modded that "troll" was either childless or stupid. Someone please correct that moderation (you can mod me offtopic, I have karma to spare)

Re:As a fresh father (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31858092)

This is Slashdot. We’re all childless, most of us are stupid, and anyone who claims otherwise is trolling. Hence the mod.

The preceding comment was a joke.

Oh no money for software and content! (4, Funny)

ROBOKATZ (211768) | about 4 years ago | (#31856890)

although they want $10 for the software and then $10 for many of the actual video loops.

Well, nothing is stopping you from making your own if you want to save $20, after spending several thousand on the hardware. Actually I suppose you could just engineer your own plasma screens too. Screw you patents! Stick it to the man!

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (3, Informative)

DanoTime (677061) | about 4 years ago | (#31857074)

While I think $10 is absolutely reasonable - if you look deeper many of the scenes he shows are not available for sale. I'm sure if you were building the thing from scratch you would probably capture your own footage too. But non tinkerers rejoice - a kit may be for sale later for ~$3K

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | about 4 years ago | (#31857424)

I'm sure if you were building the thing from scratch you would probably capture your own footage too.

At first, I was thinking "if it's convenient to get a view of the Eiffel Tower (or some other landmark), why do you need this?"

Then I realized, this could be a nice way to replace your view of that adjacent highrise in your apartment in Paris (or wherever the heck you live) without being pretentious (hey, come to my apartment in Omaha, my window looks over the Rhine...)

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (2, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#31858028)

"While I think $10 is absolutely reasonable - if you look deeper many of the scenes he shows are not available for sale. I'm sure if you were building the thing from scratch you would probably capture your own footage too. But non tinkerers rejoice - a kit may be for sale later for ~$3K"

I agree, $10 is reasonable. My problem is you have to wear a giant ugly IR-emitting necklace for the system to recognize you. Gee, a computer that can track a IR-emitting necklace? That's 1990s tech my friend. Facial recognition software has been around for many years, you'd think a webcam could determine where you are in the room and change the image based on that alone without a IR necklace. Logitech added face tracking to their webcams in 2005 [beststuff.com] and people were playing with it on Youtube in 2006 [youtube.com] . If there's multiple people it should be able to change according to whoever's closest and looking at the windows. Here's a example from 2008 of using a webcam for the same effect without giant IR necklaces. [youtube.com] Here's one you can test at home yourself if you have webcam. [solidsmack.com]

When I saw the video that's what I thought he had done, I thought it was just watching the user. Requiring a IR necklace made this absolutely not impressive because any day someone will make a webcam version.

I'm even less impressed that this guy's system requires a $2,000 Apple Mac Pro running a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 which is Apple's version of 2008's low-budget Geforce 9500 GT, [xi0.info] and is a bit slower than a ATI 4670 [insidehw.com] for those of you more familiar with ATI. Not high end graphics folks, and making people buy a $2,000 system when you could probably suffice with a PC under $500 is ridiculous, and being Mac based means this will remain expensive for several years while a PC version would continue to drop.

Also, don't plasma screens suffer from screen burn-in? [wikipedia.org] Why is this guy running basically static images for hours on two 46" plasma screens?

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857098)

Patents only apply if you want to sell it. They mean nothing if you only want to build your own plasma screens.

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (1)

hansamurai (907719) | about 4 years ago | (#31857158)

Babies to wear the sensor cost a lot more than just several thousands of dollars, they're expensive hardware!

Re:Oh no money for software and content! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857420)

Plus they are noisy and produce a lot of waste. Pretty much the showstopper for this setup. Might be interesting if they come up with a less revolting accessory.

Enjoy the patent disclosure ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857360)

Well, if it's for yourself, then you are not screwing the patents. It's about the only benefit of patents to the general population.

They want money?! The horror! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31856900)

$20 total and you're bitching about it? Seriously. STFU & GTFO. If you think that "Free" software means "No money" then you're doing it wrong.

Re:They want money?! The horror! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857136)

I think it’s more that it costs $2000-$3000 to begin with and then they nickel-and-dime you on the software and video loops.

heard anything of the giant fireball yet robbIE? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31856932)

no submissions on that one yet? not stuff that really matters anyway, right? better storIEs abound? how about how the mirrors went away & the smoke remains? something catchy?

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/fireball/2010_04_14_fireball_loop_1024x768_long.gif

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators......

$20 is cheap! (3, Interesting)

HEbGb (6544) | about 4 years ago | (#31856978)

Why on earth are you whining about a $20 price? People spend plenty more on screensavers.

Totally worth it, and negligible when considering the cost of the rest of the hardware.

I expect that an improvement can be done with webcam tracking, obviously for one viewer at a time.

It's not the money (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#31857094)

It's not the $20! It's the baby! Getting a baby to hang the motion tracking device on will be an issue.

I mean, do you rent it? Adopt it? Make your own? - which means getting a woman...

Nah, this is just waaaayyy too difficult!

Re:It's not the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857156)

+1 HILARIOUS

Re:It's not the money (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31857654)

It's not the $20! It's the baby! Getting a baby to hang the motion tracking device on will be an issue.
I mean, do you rent it? Adopt it? Make your own? - which means getting a woman...

It's the chicken and egg problem*. If you are pushing a baby in a stroller in a supermarket, women will come up and talk to you. I remember thinking when my kids were babies and I took them to the store "damn, why didn't I have one of these when I was single?"

* the egg came first.

Re:It's not the money (3, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#31857876)

It's not the $20! It's the baby! Getting a baby to hang the motion tracking device on will be an issue. I mean, do you rent it? Adopt it? Make your own? - which means getting a woman...

It's the chicken and egg problem*. If you are pushing a baby in a stroller in a supermarket, women will come up and talk to you. I remember thinking when my kids were babies and I took them to the store "damn, why didn't I have one of these when I was single?"

* the egg came first.

And then what? Ask them, "Do you want to help me make another one?"

I don't know. I'm just curious.

Re:It's not the money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858262)

And then what? Ask them, "Do you want to help me make another one?"

I don't know. I'm just curious.

Uh, over the long term, yes. Especially if they're in the "Baby Rabies" zone (29-39 years old, childless).

Re:It's not the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858102)

It's not the $20! It's the baby! ... do you rent it? Adopt it? Make your own? - which means getting a woman...

Simply file a bug, describe it as "... fails on young child voices", and you'll get an opportunity for free.

(It's a reference to a recent comic. Sorry.)

Re:$20 is cheap! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31857334)

Why on earth are you whining about a $20 price? People spend plenty more on screensavers.

Yeah, and people put on their makeup while driving, and try to siphon gasoline with a vaccuum cleaner. These are the sort of people who spend twenty bucks on a screensaver.

Totally worth it

Worth it? Hey, pay attention to your driving instead of posting to slashdot!

Re:$20 is cheap! (1)

xeoron (639412) | about 4 years ago | (#31857882)

I am the only one that is surprised people actually pay for a screensavers these days when there are so many wonderful free ones? Come to think of it-- I wonder if the same the people who buy things through spam....

Re:$20 is cheap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858082)

I think the general balking at a price for software on Slashdot doesn't have to do with the price itself. It's the knowledge that, if the provider insists on you paying money for the content, then that means that they also have to withhold the source code and/or implement some godawful DRM, making it less hackable, less useful, and less interesting for all of us, because God forbid someone uses their work without them getting their precious $20.

Not that I have anything against people trying to profit from their own work... but if they can't figure out how to do it without inconveniencing their users, that's their problem.

Does the baby comes with the 10$ price tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31856982)

Really.

Why the need for an IR necklace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857020)

Use something like EyeToy or Natal to track the user.

Re:Why the need for an IR necklace? (1)

BenevolentP (1220914) | about 4 years ago | (#31857256)

Natal was also my first thought; I'd bet something like this will be among the first non-game apps on Live.

Yes (3, Funny)

COMON$ (806135) | about 4 years ago | (#31857026)

Now I have something else I MUST have that I didn't even know about before, damn you slashdot!

While they're at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857062)

If they track the location they could make it 3D, too. Well at least in theory.

Whining about the $20 is like complaining the gas for your new Ferrari is too expensive. Sure though, it's a valid excuse not to buy it!

My two cents.

Re:While they're at it (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 4 years ago | (#31857666)

Now, if I could only get another 99 people to put in their two cents, I could buy the software! Whereever would I find a site where so many people would be willing to voice their opinions. :)

Get rid of the Necklace... (2, Insightful)

Shrike82 (1471633) | about 4 years ago | (#31857068)

If they get rid of that horrific looking necklace and use camera based person tracking the whole thing would be a lot more feasible. You can't honestly tell me that having to walk around your house with an IR emitter (guessing that's what it is based on the WiiMote) round your neck is a great prospect?

Re:Get rid of the Necklace... (1)

hesiod (111176) | about 4 years ago | (#31857194)

They don't expect you to do that. That part is a gimmick feature for parties or something. Of course, though, without that it's just a really expensive digital picture frame.

Re:Get rid of the Necklace... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857210)

it's just a really expensive digital picture frame

Speaking of which, I wonder how much less it would cost if they used a Linux box and free software?

Re:Get rid of the Necklace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858296)

It would cost the same. The PC/MAC came with Windows or OSX Pre-installed (I think he mentioned that it was a OSX, but its the same either way). He paid for that with the cost of the hardware, and would have even had he chosen to later install linux. He wrote the software that is used to do tracking and display modification, so that cost the same (his time) regardless of platform. In fact, to be completely honest, it would have cost more to use linux because he still would have bought the PC/MAC (or used one he already had) - fixed cost, still would have had to write the software (fixed time) but with linux, he would have had to acquire linux (purchase of a magazine to get DVD, cost of monthly internet access to download, cost of software if purchased on the shelf at a big box, beer for a friend if they downloaded it for you, etc) at an additional cost above the previously mentioned fixed costs, and would have then would have had to use the time to install linux on the PC/MAC and possibly learn the dev environment of a new system - at additional time, which for those who have lives, is perhaps more important than money. In summary...... gratuitous mention of how much cheaper linux would have been will get you modded up, which mentioning reality will get me modded down. SOSDD (Same old shit, different day)

Re:Get rid of the Necklace... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31858610)

You’re an idiot.

The PC/MAC came with Windows or OSX Pre-installed (I think he mentioned that it was a OSX, but its the same either way). He paid for that with the cost of the hardware, and would have even had he chosen to later install linux.

He could have built his own computer. No OEM license fee for an OS whatsoever.

He wrote the software that is used to do tracking and display modification, so that cost the same (his time) regardless of platform.

He’s selling the kit, so by writing the software for OS X, he’s locked everyone who purchases the kit into Apple’s over-priced hardware. Hardware that comes with OS X installed, which is what he is using, is going to be significantly more expensive than similar hardware that came with Windows installed (simply because you have to buy it from Apple).

and would have then would have had to use the time to install linux on the PC/MAC and possibly learn the dev environment of a new system

BOO HOO.

I was never suggesting that he specifically be pained with the awful chore of installing Linux, learning to develop software on it, and producing his kit for Linux. Somebody else with experience on Linux could do it, and “they” could probably do it cheaper using Linux. And ZOMG, if they used OS X, it would cost them more because they’d have to buy a whole new dev computer and learn to design apps for OS X!

In summary...... gratuitous mention of how much cheaper linux would have been will get you modded up, which mentioning reality will get me modded down.

Regardless of what you perceive as “reality”, I’d bet you the price of a new Mac that the same system running on Linux would cost significantly less than the $2500-$3000 price tag for the kit he’s going to be selling.

Re:Get rid of the Necklace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857336)

Perhaps Natal (not that I'm such a fan) could be the solution to this? It could easily track humans in the surrounding area, and then adjust the view. Don't know how it will work with multiple people though.

I see a few huge flaws (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31857106)

It would be fine for one person, but the perspective will only be for the person wearing the dorky necklace. It will be wierd and jarring for anyone else. "Waking up in the same place is boring" but more boring would be putting the thing on before you perk your coffee. Even putting on glasses was a pain in the ass thirty years after I started wearing them at age six, and they were totally necessary; I was blind without them. Nobody is going to get up and put that thing on first thing in the morning, especially after the novelty wears off.

Also, prior art -- Total Recall

Re:I see a few huge flaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857222)

It would be fine for one person, but the perspective will only be for the person wearing the dorky necklace.

Figured that out all by yourself, eh?

Re:I see a few huge flaws (4, Interesting)

pz (113803) | about 4 years ago | (#31857270)

It would be fine for one person, but the perspective will only be for the person wearing the dorky necklace. It will be wierd and jarring for anyone else. "Waking up in the same place is boring" but more boring would be putting the thing on before you perk your coffee. Even putting on glasses was a pain in the ass thirty years after I started wearing them at age six, and they were totally necessary; I was blind without them. Nobody is going to get up and put that thing on first thing in the morning, especially after the novelty wears off.

Also, prior art -- Total Recall

Simple solution: if you are putting on your glasses every morning, then put a small reflector on the front, and bathe the room in IR. Works like a charm for head-sensing camera-based systems like TrackIR. If you habitually wear glasses, then you are, in fact, at a huge advantage for this sort of device, because there's zero impact to your daily routine, and only upside. Moreover, as long as you leave it on, it will continue to work every morning. Everyone else will have to remember to put something on, which gets to be a pain, and thus because it is not necessary, the neato-keeno device evenutaly will be forgotten or ignored.

Re:I see a few huge flaws (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 4 years ago | (#31858246)

if you are putting on your glasses every morning, then put a small reflector on the front

While this would work, I can only imagine what people who do this will look like on the beach or outside in the sunlight in general. Can you imagine a tour guide trying to give a presentation with 20 bright spots of light shining him in the eyes? My eyes! My eyes!

People would sparkle in the light like second-rate vampires. So uncool.

Re:I see a few huge flaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857288)

I think that it's even more prior art -- Farenheit 451. And even more prior art than that, I just don't know what off hand...

Re:I see a few huge flaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857364)

Well, before Total Recall (1990) it already appeared on Aliens (1986), when Ripley is recovering in the hospital after the hibernation. Can't say about Fahrenheit 451 (1966) since I saw it a lot of years ago.

Re:I see a few huge flaws (1)

SilverJets (131916) | about 4 years ago | (#31857318)

Not flaws if you had bothered to read the text below the video. They don't expect you to always wear the tracking necklace. It is just a novelty item they included.

Re:I see a few huge flaws (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | about 4 years ago | (#31857776)

Then it is perfect for all the /. basement dwellers. When would they ever have more than one person in their basement?

Re:I see a few huge flaws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858330)

My thought exactly...anybody building one of these *clearly* has no life and no wish to see the world first hand . Mod parent up!

Video forum discussion (1)

HangingChad (677530) | about 4 years ago | (#31857128)

This concept has been discussed in several video forums. Turning your HDTV into a window to somewhere else [dvfreelancer.com] . Along with fish tanks, fire places and other perspective shots.

But this goes way beyond those simple ideas. The perspective tracker is very clever, but that and building it into the wall adds cost and complexity. I think a simple screen saver type loop would be good enough for most people. Just to keep your TV from being a big, black hole in your living room.

Still, good work packaging a simple idea into something that has potential as a commercial product.

Re:Video forum discussion (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31857756)

The perspective tracker is very clever, but that and building it into the wall adds cost and complexity.

You wouldn't have to build it into the wall, you could mount it with screws or nails. No big deal.

I think a simple screen saver type loop would be good enough for most people. Just to keep your TV from being a big, black hole in your living room.

My TV's screen saver is a picture of a black cat in a coal chute at midnight on a cloudy, moonless December. And it's free!

Missing cost.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 years ago | (#31857130)

$10,000 for hardware and other aspects.

sorry, not worth it. Neat, but until I wipe my bum with $100.00 bills I'ts not worth it.

Re:Missing cost.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857690)

You sound poor. And fat.

Re:Missing cost.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857758)

I do have $10,000 (several times over, actually) just sitting in various bank/brokerage accounts gathering dust (erm... interest)... and it’s still not worth it.

Re:Missing cost.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31858068)

you sound stupid and still haven't touched a boob.

You cant count mom and dad's income as yours.

p.s. take a bath, you will never get near another woman smelling like cheetos and butt grease.

Not the first, but still better than the first (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857142)

In Holland we have a saying; Better well-stolen than poorly made up. In this case, this guy beat them to the idea, but these guys made a better looking use for it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

Fails if there are two or more people in the room. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857168)

Because it can only work from one point of view at a time, it's going to fail badly if there is more than one person in the room. The one wearing the necklace gets the full 3D experience - the others wonder why the image is so skewed and distorted all the time.

Re:Fails if there are two or more people in the ro (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857198)

Straight from TFA...

The effect will only look correct to the one person in the room wearing the tracking device, so it’s presented more as a fun party gimmick than as a feature for full-time use.

So yeah. Apparently most of the time you’d want to just have it sit there displaying its static image or video loop but not tracking your movements.

Use Project Natal! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857212)

Nuff said, switch from the necklace to Natal!

3D ? (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 years ago | (#31857228)

Might look nice in the video. In a real installation, I fear the human eyes are just too good, and will quickly tell you that while that may seem like the golden gate bridge outside, it has no depth, and thus is more likely to be a 2D image than a 3D reality.

Cool Tech..but (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#31857232)

Nothing says "I'm always going to live alone" more then this.

Re:Cool Tech..but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857726)

Despite the photos of his wife getting involved in the soldering, and the baby being used to demonstrate the video?

OMG (1)

Kingrames (858416) | about 4 years ago | (#31857262)

Totally going to have to have one of these with a field of stars moving in one direction, like the windows on a starship in Trek. I wonder how many of these you could have synched up. You could turn your house into a starship.

Yes, but ... (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | about 4 years ago | (#31858206)

You could turn your house into a starship.

... you'd need inertia anti-dampers to simulate that warp feeling.

Or maybe mount the entire house on hydraulic cylinders?

Disney has fake portals on cruise ships (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 4 years ago | (#31857300)

Circular TV monitors in interior cabins. You can select ocean wave or aquarium scenes.

Windows (1)

mindbrane (1548037) | about 4 years ago | (#31857346)

Wind eye [wikipedia.org] , an etymological, all time favourite of mine. From old norse, I can imagine my winter bound ancestor, The Seafarer [anglo-saxons.net] looking through a wind eye. Not that anyone cares about the above or that I'm doing taxes today. :(

Tracking screensaver (1)

Angua (1732766) | about 4 years ago | (#31857374)

Ok. This freaks me out. It's a screensaver on my wall that tracks my movements via a fashion disaster.

I'll pass, thanks.

$10 for the software and video loops, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31857458)

How much does the baby cost? It seems to be an integral piece of the system.

Small steps, people (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | about 4 years ago | (#31857584)

Small steps here, people. We already have face tracking. They'll go from the Wiimote to head tracking cameras pretty quickly and you won't need to wear anything special to make it work. Give it time.

Re:Small steps, people (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31857600)

Still for only one person, though, until they get TVs that can display entirely different pictures to different viewers based on their viewing angle.

No anti-Windows comments? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 4 years ago | (#31857680)

Slashdot, you surprise me sometimes.

Chthulu be praised! (1)

thomst (1640045) | about 4 years ago | (#31858336)

When I first saw this headline, I immediately thought, "Oh, NO! Billgatus of Borg has finally assimilated /.!"

Then I realized that the view was from the Marin headlands, not Redmond.

Get rid of (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | about 4 years ago | (#31857914)

the necklace and make it work for multiple people at the same time and then it will be more than just a gimmick.

Very promising (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 years ago | (#31857984)

Combine this with something like Project Natal so that the window could track the person and update the display depending on where they were and you'd have a near-perfect virtual window. Of course, I don't know how it would handle showing multiple people different views. Still, given some more refinement, you could have a frame that you hang on the wall that includes a screen, tracking hardware, and a specially designed computer to display the videos, etc. Design it right and you could extend it for other uses. Maybe it shows a virtual aquarium until a remote it picked up. Then a display comes up that lets you switch to TV mode (to watch live or recorded shows), Internet Mode (for browsing the web), etc.

Wendover, NV (1)

boristdog (133725) | about 4 years ago | (#31858062)

This reminds me of the HD plasma screens stuck all over the three Peppermill-owned casinos in Wendover, NV.
Gives you pretty scenes to look at while you wait for things or gamble with grandma.

Starship Simulator (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | about 4 years ago | (#31858208)

This will be a great tech to use for me to build a starship simulator.

I could make a 10-Forward room in my house that looks like the one on Star Trek.

No depth information! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 4 years ago | (#31858442)

This kind of technology only looks cool, when you watch in on a 2D screen.
But as soon as you see in in reality, before you, it’s very disappointing and kinda lame and pointless.

It’s amazing how many people can’t tell the difference between real 3D, stereo 2D or just this very simplistic adaptive mono 2D imagery...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...