Beta
×

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!

Microsoft's Glasses-Free 3D Display

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the believe-it-when-i-see-it dept.

Displays 197

An anonymous reader writes "The Microsoft Applied Sciences Group has developed a new lens that lets you watch three-dimensional content without 3D glasses. The new lens is thinner at the bottom (about 6mm) than at the top (11mm) and steers light to a viewer's eyes via LEDs along its bottom edge. The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light; the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."

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

Wow (5, Funny)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577248)

The Blue Screen of Death will look awesome in 3D!

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577318)

The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light

And the Blue Screen of Death will be looking back at you!

Re:Wow (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577756)

Sounds like Nietzche had he been around in the mid 1990s

Re:Wow (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577644)

So with all this nonsense of 3D and voice commands with the new Xbox, if they are moving this to Windows, how do I press the 'any key'?

Windows, press any key.

But the body tracking from the Kenict or whatever research development lead to this head tracking. Also, will the text be 3D?

Re:Wow (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578332)

To press the any key, you throw the controller against the wall with all of your might.
......................
Then you buy a new one.

Re:Wow (-1, Redundant)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577746)

Wow (Score:1, Flamebait)

Now mods are flamebaiting blue screen of death jokes? Come on. Seriously. What the fuck.

Re:Wow (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578286)

In all seriousity, I wasn't joking.

Re:Wow (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578146)

The Blue Screen of Death will look awesome in 3D!

Or will it be The Red Ring of Death?

# of viewiers? (5, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577264)

So this only works with one person?

Re:# of viewiers? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577350)

RTFA

Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each), regardless of where they are. It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously (one video for each person).

Re:# of viewiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577654)

RTFA

(one video for each) ... (one video for each person).

split screen?

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578108)

per left and right eye pricing

Re:# of viewiers? (2, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577460)

Several people. They've discussed using it as a privacy screen or conversely to display different sets of information to different observers.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577918)

Some high end cars already have screens like that. The driver sees a sat nav display, the passenger sees a video.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578342)

Right, it's a more generalised version of that, which I believe is an application of the parallax barrier tech that's going into Nintendo's 3DS.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577942)

Several people. They've discussed using it as a privacy screen or conversely to display different sets of information to different observers.

The idea of displaying multiple pictures to different people is actually of more interest to me than the 3D application. 3D pictures confined to the small surface area of your TV just doesn't inspire me that much, but the prospect of being able to watch decent television programs while my wife watches her crappy soap operas on a single TV is a truely fantastic prospect.

Re:# of viewiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578084)

...

Thanks for taking my thoughts down the dystopia train of thought.

First, they send each person their own image, then they send each person their own sounds, and what's next? Microphones? You have the camera, which they might as well make really high quality, so we can record ourselves with our TVs. And next thing you know, you're living in a dystopia.

Re:# of viewiers? (4, Funny)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578580)

Seconded! Sitting through crappy reality shows about fat people losing weight is neigh torture. She feels the same way about Stargate. So we compromise and watch her shows.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

justdaven (1238962) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578834)

IFTFY:

Seconded! Sitting through crappy reality shows about fat people losing weight is neigh torture. She feels the same way about Stargate. So I compromise and watch her shows.

Re:# of viewiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577476)

Don't let the article slow down your assumptions! ;)
"Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time."

RTFA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577484)

Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each)

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

SiaFhir (686401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577684)

It works for two people, or can show a different 2-D display for up to 4 people. So it's useless as a 3-D display if you have a party over watching the game, or if the whole family is watching movies. It's a great display for loners, sucks for anyone else.

Re:# of viewiers? (1, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577792)

Its a great display for families wanting to do different things as well. I can be playing my PS3 my daughter can watch the fucking insipid show Glee and my wife can be watching Avatar in 3D. So how is this useless? Oh I know. You are just mad. Hey I hate Microsoft too. I just do not allow it to destroy my ability to think.

Re:# of viewiers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577998)

And are you all wearing headphones, or just putting up with three audio tracks at once?

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578230)

Yeah, shame you can't direct the sound yet. Enjoy your headache.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578502)

Headphones

Re:# of viewiers? (2, Funny)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578608)

Good luck pushing your fancy 7.1 sound through headphones.

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578810)

Don't need 7.1 with good headphones.

Re:# of viewiers? (2, Funny)

Jeffrey_Walsh VA (1335967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578190)

It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously Stop the presses! Bob, Joe, Sally: gather 'round my ordinary computer monitor with me and read what Ars Technica is reporting about a display that can show TWO DIMENSIONAL content to up to FOUR PEOPLE!

Re:# of viewiers? (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578628)

It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously
Stop the presses! Bob, Joe, Sally: gather 'round my ordinary computer monitor with me and read what Ars Technica is reporting about a display that can show TWO DIMENSIONAL content to up to FOUR PEOPLE!

Who modded this insightful? This is a report about showing 4 different two dimensional images to four different people at the same time on the same display - not all 4 seeing the same Ars Technica article on one monitor.

cool idea but why? (2, Interesting)

Midnight's Shadow (1517137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577276)

Ok, I'll admit it is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about 3D that always drove me nuts were those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'

I can't be the only one who just doesn't see the point of 3D and something like 10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577496)

I can deal with non interactive 3D, it's when the games begin the gimmicky decline to 3D interaction that will totally screw me. Lack of depth perception will make those sorts of games unplayable for those of us who are stereoscopically challenged.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577948)

Why? Lack of depth perception doesn't make you incapable of taking part in real life, does it? Lack of depth perception doesn't make me unable to play modern 3D games even though 3D displays do make it easier to do thing like judge the location of magic effects being thrown at my character in games like WoW? Is it that you, presently, enjoy an artificially leveled playing field in 3D games since everyone with depth perception is stuck without it's advantage? If that's the case then sorry, but we're not going to handicap the rest of the world because of your personal problem.

I hope that, someday, modern science will develop the technology to allow people without depth perception to gain it's advantage. I feel the same way about the ~18% of the population (according to Wikipedia) that suffers from color blindness and can't take full advantage of color TV/Computer Screens (for whom we didn't just not bother to invent color TV). They've already been able to work miracles for deaf people with the invention if cochlear implants. Rather than complain about technological advancement and advocating for the rest of the world to play with one hand tied behind their backs in order to accommodate you, perhaps you should direct your ire/complaints towards the medical community to motivate them to find a cure for your problem.

Sorry if I come off a little harsh here. I'm, just, a little tired of seeing people whine about how much of a "waste of time" 3D technology is just because they, personally, are incapable of using it (because they are part of the small percent of the population that, either, has depth perception problems or get headaches from the present implementations). In reality, they are a very small percentage of the population but a, disproportionally, louder voice of complainers online.

Re:cool idea but why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578202)

oh well, life isnt fair.

Next you'll complain you didn't have access to an Olympic-sized swimming pool growing up, or how it isn't fair you aren't 7 feet tall and get paid a professional NBA salary.

Play a different game, or get outside you big fat dork.

Re:cool idea but why? (5, Insightful)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577530)

10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.

10% of men are homosexuals, but people still sell pictures of boobs

Re:cool idea but why? (2, Informative)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577690)

And 10% of all makeup statistics are within 8% accuracy (90% of the time)

Re:cool idea but why? (2, Insightful)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577788)

In most populations (i.e. not San Francisco, Brighton, etc.) it is more like 2-5%

But your point still stands.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578660)

Or more to the point: 10% of people are color blind, but somehow they still sell color TVs.

.... or are those 10% of color-blind people only in some color-blind Metropolis (... and where would that be...)?

Re:cool idea but why? (2, Interesting)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577886)

10% of men are homosexuals, but people still sell pictures of boobs

Are you implying that lesbians aren't interested in boobs?

Re:cool idea but why? (4, Funny)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577974)

No, he's implying lesbians aren't men.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577980)

I dunno, I could ask around for you

Re:cool idea but why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578082)

I hereby ask for their share, for the greater good of course.

Re:cool idea but why? (3, Interesting)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578258)

Way OT, but that reminds me of a quote from James Randi about coming out of the closet. From the end of this interview snippet [bigthink.com] :

And people often will say, "But you named your car Sophia, after Sophia Loren." A little blue Miata, a beautiful little jobbie. And they said, "Well, you keep on talking about Sophia Loren." And I say, "Yes. You see, I'm gay, but I'm not blind."

Re:cool idea but why? (2, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577546)

>> those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses

That's what 3D contacts are for. Well, that and freaking people out in the supermarket.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

nathan s (719490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577558)

Color differences are something else a small proportion of the population has trouble seeing, so I guess everything should be in black and white?

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578060)

Oh, it's even better than that. According to Wikipedia, it's around ~18% of the population that has some form of color blindness. That dwarfs his, apparently made up, statistics on how many people lack depth perception. Not only that, unlike the switch to 3D technology, the switch from black & white to color, inherently, degraded the quality of the shows for color blind people. Before color TV, content makers used all sorts of tricks to enhance the contrast of the black & white image and make the scene better. Some of these tricks included using things like makeup, for the actors, which look horrid in color but increased contrast. Or, background/prop colors, chosen for the same reason, that look odd in color. All of these tricks, which would benefit color blind people, had to be abandoned when color TV was introduced.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577596)

I have to agree with you. I was a bit confused by this sudden surge of 3D movies and tech in the last year. 3D has been around for so long, why is it suddenly being marketed so heavily now? I also do not see any real benefit from it; it seems to me like a silly gimmick. I am reminded of the Wii; motion sensor technology had also been around for years and years, yet the Wii used it to sell a ton of consoles to casuals (and yet...who still plays on their Wii? For me, the novelty has worn off, and I am back to playing FPSs on my PC or PS3...except for the occasional drunken game of Mario Kart with my friends).

I, for one, will not be buying a 3D display/TV/monitor anytime soon. I think it is a fad that will pass (3D glasses or not). I did have a look at the new LED TVs the other day though, those look fantastic. Might save up for one.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577950)

Dose The ability to play your PS3 on your 52" screen while the wife watches crappy chick flick and the 2 kids are not arguing about what to watch worth it to you? Or how about having a friend over and playing against each other sitting right next to each other and not seeing the screen of the other guy? I am SO FUCKING GETTING ONE.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578162)

Fair points, though they do not much apply to me:
1) My partner would rather join me playing PS3 (she especially likes LBP). Though mostly we are PC gamers, both of us.
2)Don't have kids.
3) Last point is valid, though as mentioned I am more likely to be playing FPS's on a PC, and thus the screen problem is not an issue.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577630)

What do you mean "why"? The point is to have 3D consumer media, e.g. 3DTV, 3D movies, more immersive* games (3D display + Natal?), etc.

And if 10% can't see in 3D (which is obviously not true - they can see in 3D, they're simply not fooled by current displays), that leaves 90% of the population. Saying that is useless to sell 3D displays because of 10% is like saying there's no point in selling tools for right handed people.

Re:cool idea but why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577720)

You're a witless tool.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577766)

According to Wikipedia, something like 18% of the population has some form of colorblindness, should we have not bothered with color TVs? Your argument is idiotic Ludditism. Just because you don't care about it, why do you feel the need to piss in everyone else's Cheerios?

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577820)

Stupidest comment ever on /.? Not sure. Just would like to know where you all think this one ranks.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578292)

No need to degrade yourself, I've seen a lot worse than your comment.

Re:cool idea but why? (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578406)

Ok, I'll admit the automobile is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about horses that always drove me nuts were those saddles the never fit well so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'

Automobiles were around for about 100 years before Ford's first assembly line, and were pretty much "cool tech, cool idea, but huh?" Then the bugs were ironed out and they became reliable and cheap enough to do some modestly useful things.

I can't see how 3D-TV is going to do anything comparable, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that my inability to see something means that it won't happen. Maybe it'll revolutionize design engineering, as we are still doing 3D CAD on 2D displays...

The really important thing about this technology is suumed up by the statement: "the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."

Welcome to the next industrial revolution: embedded intelligence. We are only just beginning to mine the possibilities inherent in cheap, really powerful, embedded processors. They've been thrown at automobiles, but there are a zillion other applications waiting to be born.

Head tracking required (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577288)

It seems to me that if they can do reliable head tracking (which seems to be a requirement), then it also enables this technique [youtube.com] which I find much more impressive than simple tweaking of focal distance.

Re:Head tracking required (2, Informative)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577384)

Well, the guy who made that *is* working for Microsoft now. Check his homepage: http://johnnylee.net/ [johnnylee.net]

Next is 3D with no screen (2, Funny)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577290)

Once Ben Affleck gets ahold of one of these, it's only a matter of time before another company announces a 3D screen minus the screen.

that movie was so bad (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577664)

i'll make you a deal: i'll make believe i didn't get the movie reference in your joke if you make believe you didn't make the joke, and we'll both make believe we never saw the movie. erase our memories as it were

Re:that movie was so bad (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577710)

To erase memories should we use the more intense hardware method or the newer, but slightly unreliable chemical method that may result in vague memories of each other's eyes that eventually leads to the undoing of some evil plans?

perhaps (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577784)

we should provide ourselves with a set of objects that would keep us out of danger without the objects having any obvious value

Re:perhaps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578424)

I'll just stick with my collection pf Philip K. Dick short stories, thank you.

Screenshots (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577396)

Come on, no screenshots?

The difference between Microsoft & Apple (2, Insightful)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577510)

Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.

Apple: Here's our new tech. You can get-it from the Apple Store starting now.

Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ... By the time Microsoft would get this to market, there will be dozens of low-quality chinese knock-offs at 1/2-1/4 of the price but compatible with each-other and Microsoft's screens will use some kind of new and incompatible protocol.

I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577548)

MS shows that stuff to make people think they are innovative.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (3, Insightful)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577552)

Apple is a bit more like--You can get it next June in the apple store, and oh man is it going to be broken for the first couple releases but we'll take your money anyways.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

Arkham (10779) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577758)

Apple is a bit more like--You can get it next June in the apple store, and oh man is it going to be broken for the first couple releases but we'll take your money anyways.

Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577866)

Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.

Mine hasn't. I tried the iScale App, where you step on your iPad and it tells you how much you weigh. I've been having problems with my iPad ever since.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578542)

That should serve you right for getting your apps from elsewhere than the app store.

You know, Apple just wants to protect the user from malicious apps such as your iScale app...

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578804)

...

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577960)

Are you also sitting at a Starbucks with your nice hot cup of Joe writing the next literary master piece.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578614)

Cup of Joe? I think you mean Cup of Steve. He's looking for someone to share it with..

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578004)

After we get it working though we will team up with Sony and Downgrade the shit you bought till it is worthless though.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578458)

Not really.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (2, Interesting)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577658)

My theory has long been that Microsoft hires people into these research positions to prevent them from coming up with something innovative for someone else that might disrupt their business strategy. These people are then given a decent salary to do whatever they want on whatever schedule; and as a bonus when they come up with something cool Microsoft could show it off for PR purposes (but never actually attempt to manufacture said item because it would just take away from their serious work.)

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577752)

I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

To raise investor interest and increase stock value.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (2, Insightful)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577934)

MS is just spreading the word about their new tech much earlier in the development cycle. Apple knows that it already has its fanbois standing in line to get whatever it is they come out with next, they don't have to worry about generating interest 2-3 years ahead of time.

MS likes the image of itself as an R&D innovator (whether or not they actually are, thats the image they like to portray). It is in their best interests for everyone to see their projects as the develop. Think of all the press time and attention they've gotten over Natal (now Kinect). That is free publicity, just for being open during their development process.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577984)

Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ...

That's interesting, because even as I browse the macrumours site I don't see anything to suggest Apple is working on a competitor for this. Even their "Hyper Real" 3d display is totally different than this.

I'm not saying Microsoft is going to do well with this, it could be yet another flop *cough*zune*cough*. But I don't think Apple is going to be the one dominating the sales in this market either.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (5, Insightful)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578014)

You're missing the point here. Microsoft is not a hardware company, unlike Apple, which is both hardware and software. Microsoft is a software company that invests in hardware research to create Proofs-Of-Concept to convince other hardware companies to build the hardware that Microsoft's NextProduct will depend on for cool-whiz-bang features.

When Microsoft sells a mouse, it's because it's a five-button mouse before five-button mice have caught on and it's not even because it's the first five-button mouse, it's because it defines the specs that Microsoft wants all the other hardware vendors to follow, not because it's innovative but because it makes the hardware work consistently on its OS. When Microsoft sells a keyboard, it's because it wants hardware makers to add that useless Windows key.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578068)

Having read this, I regret that I already posted elsewhere and cannot mod you up. That is a very Insightful point (see what I did there?).

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578334)

Ok, not a hardware company.

Microsoft:Here's our new tech, the next version of Windows which will have a brand-new filesystem called WinFS ...

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578042)

The difference is that Microsoft has a research lab that tries to create and innovate new technologies. Apple has a room full of designers that they have working on making existing technology look slick.

There... Fixed that for you... (5, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578282)

Microsoft: Here's the tech we have bought off and patented recently.
We have a single working prototype in the lab and in about a year(ish), you will be able to buy a version with tacked on features you will have no use for, most of which won't even work as they should.

Apple: Here's the tech we have copied from someone else, tacked an 'i' in front of it and spit-shined it to appear cooler.
You can PAY for it right now at the Apple Store, and we will get it to you when we damn well please.

Oh... and one more thing - it will cost anywhere between 2 and 5 times as the competition's model, but it will come in Apple's signature iWhite and maybe some other iColors.
And it will cost half as much a month after it comes out. If you complain nicely, you will get a iGift-certificate for the fraction of the money difference that you can use to buy socks for your iPod. [apple.com]

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578396)

I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

Yeah! I mean this fancy Project Natal (Kinect) crap they've been working on, that'll never come to fruition!

Oh wait...

It only takes one example to ruin your FUD.

Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578680)

Well, one of the big hurdles to 3DTV in the home for the common TV user is definitely its current inconveniences. Current 3D TVs either require you to sit in a specific spot or wear glasses. This solves the biggest annoyance. Now they need to get the TV up to 360-480hz to make 3D watchable by 3-4 people and they are sitting on the next big home entertainment item.

I personally see it as a very big deal.

can't wait for 4d now? that's just perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577598)

the real 'trick' is to pick your pocket, & leave you believing something. for example; you're happy, & your needs are being met.

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need not to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Works for one person... (0, Redundant)

SiaFhir (686401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577600)

"The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light"

But what if there are more than one person around the display? How does it steer the light then?

Autostereoscopy [wikipedia.org] has more promise I think. Philips has done it [gizmodo.com] .

Re:Works for one person... (1)

SiaFhir (686401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577748)

Woops, guess I should've RTFA. K, so it works for two people, works as 2-D for four people... useless for >4 people? We're supposed to be excited, why? Stereoscopy would work for any number of people, rather than a limited number cameras to watch a couple pairs of eyes.

Re:Works for one person... (1)

baxissimo (135512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577750)

You just track more than one pair of eyes. I believe the device is capable of displaying more than 2 views. There's sure to be some limit, though. Probably won't ever be able to have the whole extended family crowded around the screen with tech like this. But 4 or 6 eyes shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Re:Works for one person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32577764)

Read the article. Works for up to four separate targets - 2 pairs of eyes viewing 3D or 4 pairs of eyes viewing 2D.

3D, What's it like? (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577634)

Seriously, what is it like? As someone who suffers from a condition known as Strabismus [wikipedia.org] , all 3D movies tend to do is make my eyes water.

All the big chains in Aus are promoting 3D TV's, I'm not looking forward to that sales conversation when I decide to upgrade my TV.

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577882)

Don't worry, friend. 3D is mostly very disappointing. Shapes that were flat on the screen come out at you, but are still flat. And it is still not fully immersive (unless you've got a 360 display setup) so it is more like instead of looking at a picture book, its like one of those popup books you used to get as a kid.

And I wouldn't worry about upgrading your TV. I believe this 3D thing will either a)never really take off at all in the consumer/home market, or b)become briefly popular and then die away (like the minidisc).

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578234)

The only reason I want to upgrade is to go bigger. The little 28" we've got, just doesn't cut it. Superficial "features" like 3D aren't remotely on my radar. I think the nostalgia of 3D (it's been talked about as far as I can remember), is more exciting than what the current reality.

To be honest, on the list of things that annoy me in life, lack of 3D isn't one that rates highly. Accurate depth perception would be far more useful!

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578752)

Haha, indeed, I do not envy you with this condition.
I would look at your budget. a 37" or 42" does nicely (anything bigger than that, I find, is not really worth the money, but that's just me).
If you can afford it, get an LED. Otherwise, many 1080p 37-40" LCD's can be very impressive (check the contrast ratio, the higher it is, the crisper the picture looks in terms of bright whites and dark blacks).

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32577986)

There's no conversation to be had. If you're listening to a salesman trying to sell you a TV, you're probably not ready to buy one.

It looks sucky, by the way, and gives people without focusing issues a headache as well.

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578128)

Most salesmen I've dealt with tend to prattle on thinking they know more and that Brand X or Technology X is better. I can't wait for them to blab on about how I'd be much better off with the more expensive 3D tv.

Re:3D, What's it like? (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578504)

Seriously, what is it like?

It's unnatural, while 2D looks flat you know it's not real and a flat image on a screen. With the pseudo 3D movies you get some fancy trick where your mind is tricked in thinking it's 3D, but only if you look at it from the right location, at the right angle, which you never do, as you need to sit at the right place, but also need to keep your head level. There are also focus problems, as you need to focus on the 2D screen on which it's projected while you mind wants to focus on a different distance. Making it stressful.

The gimmick of seeing something float in front of you is great, but it looks holographic, not 100% real. And the effect is gone as soon as the object hits the border of the screen.

It's like a roller-coaster, great fun on the first ride, but riding it to much will make you puke.

Well (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32578008)

It's great and all but what is it going to cost when all these little parts goes wrong

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32578684)

YOUR SOUL!!!!

or money, whichever...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?