×

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!

MIT Develops Holographic, Glasses-Free 3D TV

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the realer-than-real dept.

Television 98

MrSeb writes "Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are busy working on a type of 3D display capable of presenting a 3D image without eye gear. What you've been presented with at your local cinema (with 3D glasses) or on your Nintendo 3DS console (with your naked eye) pales in comparison to what these guys and gals are trying to develop: a truly immersive 3D experience, not unlike a hologram, that changes perspective as you move around. The project is called High Rank 3D (HR3D). To begin with, HR3D involved a sandwich of two LCD displays, and advanced algorithms for generating top and bottom images that change with varying perspectives. With literally hundreds of perspectives needed to accommodate a moving viewer, maintaining a realistic 3D illusion would require a display with a 1,000Hz refresh rate. To get around this issue, the MIT team introduced a third LCD screen to the mix. This third layer brings the refresh rate requirement down to a much more manageable 360Hz — almost within range of commercially produced LCD panels."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

98 comments

"Almost" within range.... (5, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#40633995)

Do they need to add more LCD panels? :)

Re:"Almost" within range.... (5, Funny)

Daetrin (576516) | about 2 years ago | (#40634263)

Yo dawg, i heard you _really_ like watching TV, so i put a LCD panel inside your LCD panel inside your LCD panel inside your LCD panel....

Re:"Almost" within range.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40636473)

LOL, on the topic just use OLED (AMOLED) it can reach over 1'000 frames per second (up to 100 millions frames per second for never panels)

Re:"Almost" within range.... (1)

Sene (1794986) | about 2 years ago | (#40636901)

Unfortunately the screen is not even translucent anymore and the light sources would make the screens behind the first screen not really visible thus ruining the effect. Meaning LCD is pretty much a requirement here.

Re:"Almost" within range.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638601)

so we've added an electron gun to improve the brightness.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40644401)

It's LCD panels all the way down!

Re:"Almost" within range.... (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#40634687)

Each display you add encreases the complexity of the computations used in generating the image. So adding a fourth panel is not as easy as it seems.

Re:"Almost" within range.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634999)

View-Master, Flat Panel lovechild?

Re:"Almost" within range.... (2)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 2 years ago | (#40640097)

Do they need to add more LCD panels? :)

One MIT engineer was quoted as saying:
Fuck everything, we're doing five LCD panels!

It's a tensor display. (5, Insightful)

ma++i+ude (580592) | about 2 years ago | (#40634027)

"MIT Develops Holographic, Glasses-Free 3D TV"? Only if by "holographic" you mean "not holographic"

Re:It's a tensor display. (4, Informative)

zalas (682627) | about 2 years ago | (#40634987)

Oh interesting, so they finally gave it a name. I remember coming across the 2-layer version of the display sometime ago. Looks like they also have an interesting theoretical foundation to go with it; the abstract of the first paper from Gordon Wetzstein's page [mit.edu] gives a nice overview.

What essentially is going on is that you can model (at least when talking about things much larger than the wavelength of light) light as a four-dimensional function (i.e. intensity of light along all the possible rays that fill space), which is referred to in this research area as a "light field." Putting a mask somewhere in space will mask out a 2D-extrusion of the mask shape in 4D space. Putting multiple masks at different planes will mask out the product of this 2D-extrusions (and the extrusion angle varies as a function of depth). Hence, what they are doing is attempting to piece together the original 4D function by piecing together unmasked portions at each time frame.

For a more simplified view, you can think of this as trying to create a 2D picture through a sequence of special single-color 2D pictures created by placing stripe patterns oriented at a fixed set of angles on top of a light panel.

If you've taken linear algebra, it is somewhat like decomposing a matrix into a sum of rank-one matrices, except here each component needs to be positive (masks cannot create "negative" light).

Re:It's a tensor display. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40637843)

What I didn't understand was "Instead of the complex hardware required to produce holograms." Holograms are pretty easy to do with film, all you need is a dark room, a laser, a lens, and a beam splitter. To see the image you simply shine a laser at the film after it's developed. We did this in an undergrad physics class I took way back in the seventies.

It seems to me that if you had a high enough resolution display, you could view holograms on it by backlighting with lasers instead of LEDs, although making the actual movies would likely be difficult.

Re:It's a tensor display. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40639587)

What I didn't understand was "Instead of the complex hardware required to produce holograms." Holograms are pretty easy to do with film, all you need is a dark room, a laser, a lens, and a beam splitter. To see the image you simply shine a laser at the film after it's developed. We did this in an undergrad physics class I took way back in the seventies.

It seems to me that if you had a high enough resolution display, you could view holograms on it by backlighting with lasers instead of LEDs, although making the actual movies would likely be difficult.

Holographic photography is not the same things as converting data into a hologram. Basically no one has figured out how to make a digital hologram.

Re:It's a tensor display. (1)

Carnildo (712617) | about 2 years ago | (#40644917)

Holographic photography is not the same things as converting data into a hologram. Basically no one has figured out how to make a digital hologram.

Digital holographic displays do exist, but they're strictly for research purposes right now: the resolution is horrible (last time I checked, a top-of-the-line display was 30 lines of 250 pixels), the computational requirements were huge (that 30-line display was driven by a multi-core multi-GPU workstation, generating a few frames per second), and the bandwidth requirements were insane (the workstation was pushing 10GB/s to the display).

Re:It's a tensor display. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40639861)

You can also go the other way with a light field [wikipedia.org]: I saw an amazing talk on the Lytro light field camera [lytro.com] a few months ago. Basically, they have one normal CCD with an array of microlenses in front of it, so you get a 2D array of smaller normal 2D images that are effectively from slightly different angles which can later be combined in software similar to adjusting the settings on a regular camera... but after taking the photo. I didn't think the idea could be easily adapted to a display, so it's really cool they managed to do this.

Re:It's a tensor display. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40642905)

I would've called it a "Sammich Display". :)

They had me at "sandwich" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634091)

Mmmmm... Sandwich..

Only in the West (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634261)

Can you imagine something like this being developed in any Islamic Theocracy with all their trillions of cash ?

Well maybe if it blew up after the whole family was watching.

Re:Only in the West (-1, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#40636257)

Can you imagine something like this being developed in any Islamic Theocracy with all their trillions of cash ?

Well maybe if it blew up after the whole family was watching.

No they're busy sodomising each other so that they can fit more explosive up their arses [raymondibrahim.com]. God I hate Muzzies

Re:Only in the West (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40639223)

Chris, you sound upset that you can't join in on the action.

MIT Media Lab’s Camera Culture group (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634273)

What kind of fucken touchy feely gay name is that? "Camera Culture"?

Media Lab is stocked by wash outs from the main faculties anyways.

Just one viewer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634289)

So useless for TV.

Re:Just one viewer? (1)

acid_andy (534219) | about 2 years ago | (#40636275)

So useless for TV.

Just hang four tellies on the wall. Or twelve if you're really popular. It then just needs something to identify which viewer is supposed to be watching which TV as it could get annoying if it adjusted for one of the other viewers glancing at it from the other side of the room, but I imagine that could be even more of an issue with the single TV. Face tracking biased to whoever has been looking at the current show the longest?

Re:Just one viewer? (1)

acid_andy (534219) | about 2 years ago | (#40636293)

So useless for TV.

Just hang four tellies on the wall. Or twelve if you're really popular. It then just needs something to identify which viewer is supposed to be watching which TV as it could get annoying if it adjusted for one of the other viewers glancing at it from the other side of the room, but I imagine that could be even more of an issue with the single TV. Face tracking biased to whoever has been looking at the current show the longest?

Ah, looks like it doesn't do face tracking anyway and could work for multiple viewers. My bad.

Re:Just one viewer? (5, Informative)

White Flame (1074973) | about 2 years ago | (#40636823)

No, this effectively broadcasts many views of the image through the entire range. Any viewer at any valid angle within the field of view should see a properly tracked perspective.

So it tracks the person looking at it (0)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#40634291)

Let me know when they develop a walk-around 3d display that multiple people can look at simultaneously and each see the correct view from their position.

Re:So it tracks the person looking at it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634549)

Why? Do you expect that your mom might come downstairs and watch TV with you?

Re:So it tracks the person looking at it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635349)

And your big breakthrough? Funny how fast Slashtards are to judge and condemn when most of them have never done anything more advanced that installed some Linux Distro and now they think they're tech gods.

Re:So it tracks the person looking at it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635709)

And your big breakthrough? Funny how fast Slashtards are to judge and condemn when most of them have never done anything more advanced that installed some Linux Distro and now they think they're tech gods.

Well, to be fair, the distro was called "Fuck You Newbie Linux", and the man pages were all replaced with ascii images of middle fingers and short pithy phrases about your stupidity for wanting documentation, when a binary disassembler was available.

Re:So it tracks the person looking at it (4, Interesting)

schroedingers_hat (2449186) | about 2 years ago | (#40638349)

Let me know when they develop a walk-around 3d display that multiple people can look at simultaneously and each see the correct view from their position.

Just letting you know that MIT have developed a prototype for a walk-around 3d display that multiple people can look at simultaneously and each see the correct view from their position.

Here's a link to the summary on slashdot http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/07/12/2225233/mit-develops-holographic-glasses-free-3d-tv [slashdot.org]
Make sure you read the article or some of the comments so you don't confuse it with a head tracking version and post stupid comments like this retard: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2975701&cid=40634291 [slashdot.org]

We all know where this ends... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634299)

"Please state the nature of your medical emergency."

Re:We all know where this ends... (1)

pgpalmer (2015142) | about 2 years ago | (#40636261)

Which will lead to the Emergency Secretarial Hologram, Emergency Technician Hologram, Emergency Receptionist Hologram, Emergency Lawyer Holograms, and Emergency Company Representative Hologram.

Re:We all know where this ends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40640207)

"Please state the nature of your medical emergency."

"You have entered: Regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1."

MIT Develops Holographic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634551)

I didn't know that Romney had these kinds of skills.

Not a hologram, but not shabby (5, Informative)

CyberVenom (697959) | about 2 years ago | (#40634589)

The article from the first link is a little better explanation than the second link.

This is not quite a hologram, but it is a true multi-viewer solution without the need for headtracking or other dynamic tricks. It is a precomputed video stream displayed on precisely spaced, and slightly higher-than-your-living-room-tv-refresh-rate, but otherwise normal LCD panels.

Basically, the MIT guys have come up with algorithms to compute a set of three overlay transparencies, which selectively occlude or reveal certain pixels when viewed from certain angles due to parallax, such that one of many possible perspective images of a scene is produced depending on the angle from which this stack of overlays is viewed.

The part they seem most proud of is that because these different perspective views are all of the same scene, many of the pixels are the same color from one perspective to another, so they only need to concentrate their parallax trick on making a select few pixels vary by angle, thus reducing the complexity of the problem to the point where it can actually be realized with consumer resolution LCD panels and attainable data rates.

Re:Not a hologram, but not shabby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635843)

Much better explanation than those I read above, but I need an XKCD to understand it completely.

Re:Not a hologram, but not shabby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637085)

Ah. It is because of posts such as the parent that we hopefully search the slashdot comments rather than simply RTFM to get salient information on a story. Thanks CyberVenom. The article was seriously stretching the attention span of this adhdled brain.

Re:Not a hologram, but not shabby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638733)

Another way to achive the same result is to place a lenticular lense in front of a display that has N times the horizontal resolution you wish to convey, where N = the number of seperate viewing angles you wish to have. And perform the same sort of computations mentioned for this display for pixel assignment. This is how 3D baseball cards work (which can also be viewed by multiple viewers from different angles).

Displays with high enough resolution to do the trick I mention are not yet being produced, thus the need for the MIT trick.

Re:Not a hologram, but not shabby (1)

Ozan (176854) | about 2 years ago | (#40640723)

Thank you for your explanation. Is it correct to say that the principle is similar to shutter glasses? But instead of occluding one eye at a time, one picture for exactly one perspective is shown at a given time, while the other perspectives (for different viewing directions) are not displayed. This is the reason for the high refresh rates needed.

Hey guess what! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634595)

3d still sucks and no one cares.

Ive never played a game, watched a movie, looked at a book/comic book that was in 3d and said "Wow the experince was more enjoyable because of the 3d".

I wish 3d would just hurry the hell up and die off.

Re:Hey guess what! (1)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40634683)

Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.

Re:Hey guess what! (4, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about 2 years ago | (#40634829)

Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.

That actually makes it suck more.

Don't get me wrong, the research is nice, and I'm sure there are tons of really good uses for such a thing. As a monitor for games and movies, it's a horrible idea. I don't want parallax. The last thing I want is to be sitting in a theater and missing part of the movie because of the location I chose to sit in. Or playing a game and having to constantly move my head to see things.

Re:Hey guess what! (5, Interesting)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40634911)

You know, you have a point regarding movies, I hadn't thought of that. However your point is invalid re:games. The only thing you achieve by flattening a game into 2D is that now you have to move your character to see occluded things, whereas the multiscopic 3D gives you the additional option of moving your head instead of your character, which can be a severe advantage when aiming (ie. you don't have to un-aim to look around).

Re:Hey guess what! (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40635103)

Hey, how about a Modern Warfare game with this tech. Now when you peer around a corner, and the other guy snipes you, your real head explodes! Yeah!

Re:Hey guess what! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635315)

Actually, from the summary, this method fixes the multi-viewer problem you guys are pointing out.

That's why it needs such high refresh rate -- it's displaying multiple angles at "the same time" for people all over the viewing area.

Re:Hey guess what! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635971)

As a monitor for games and movies, it's a horrible idea.

And you thought dead pixels were annoying before...
Well now you've got three times as many just floating there in front of your reticule.

Re:Please report to the Boston Eye Institute (1)

Thagg (9904) | about 2 years ago | (#40638931)

They are looking for eye donations. Clearly you would be happy with just one.

Re:Hey guess what! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#40645043)

The last thing I want is to be sitting in a theater and missing part of the movie because of the location I chose to sit in.

Nobody complains much at the theatre or concerts, but if what you really want is a constraint of old technology, there's no reason they couldn't show the same picture at every angle. That ought to be much cheaper to produce and transmit, so it might even be the norm.

Maybe IMAX will gain some new purpose in life by showing 'real 3D' projections that need terabit-class stream rates. I'm looking forward to a nice fully immersive coral reef on a 60' screen at the local science center.

Re:Hey guess what! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40662467)

Nobody complains much at the theatre or concerts

What are you talking about? Complaining of poor seating location at the theater, concerts, and sporting events is the single most common complaint about such events, more so even than complaints about the quality of the show itself.

PROTIP: Stereo 2D != 3D. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634701)

Do I need to say more?

Re:PROTIP: Stereo 2D != 3D. (1)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40635057)

No, that's pretty clear. Though irrelevant, as this is 3D and not stereo 2D.

Re:PROTIP: Stereo 2D != 3D. (1)

Beardydog (716221) | about 2 years ago | (#40635685)

Of course it is. The number of views used to create the effect is limited, but guess what: we live in a quantum universe. The number of views from which you can view an actual object in the real world is vast, but finite.

But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634733)

will it blend?

Not holographic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634759)

MIT is in Cambridge. Homographic is more like it. Fucking queers.

Holografika.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634773)

Holografika [holografika.com] has been doing this for years. Time to catch up MIT...

Re:Holografika.com (2)

zalas (682627) | about 2 years ago | (#40635029)

The company website is scant on details of their technology, but it's obvious that a different implementation is used and my guess from what they do say is that it's a lenticular device that only generates horizontal parallax. In that case, try tilting your head 90 degrees to the side and you'll lose depth perception, whereas this wouldn't be the case for the tensor display mentioned in the article. It might not be that important of an issue, until you want to lie down on a couch and watch a 3D program on TV...

Re:Holografika.com (1)

dkuntz (220364) | about 2 years ago | (#40635031)

Yes, and the smaller one is only 10 feet wide, 7 feet tall, and 9 feet deep... (well, there is a smaller one, about 5.5 feet wide, 2.2 feet deep, 6.5 feet high, but it's only 600x800). Oh yeah, and uses 10 kW of power... ( 3.7 kW for the 600x800 one...)

So yeah, they've been doing it for years... except really tailored for home use...

For those who still don't get it (2)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40634803)

Think of this like an integral display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging#Description [wikipedia.org]

Except that instead of using microlenses to bend the rays, they are using the layered screens to produce virtually bent rays. The high FPS is because they can only produce one set of virtually bent rays for any one frame, so they need as many frames as they want points of view. IOW what integral displays need in extra pixels this display needs in extra frames.

To put it another way, this is to integral what parallax is to lenticular.

Re:For those who still don't get it (1)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40634835)

Also, they are abusing the property of most real 3D scenes that not everything changes from one POV to another (ie. the middle of a diffuse-lit diffuse surface doesn't) to try to cram more POVs in less frames.

Re:For those who still don't get it (1)

zalas (682627) | about 2 years ago | (#40635049)

The analogy kind of works and kind of doesn't. A parallax barrier has an image layer and a fixed mask layer. What these guys did was to allow for multiple layers with time-varying patterns and optimize the pattern on each layer so as to create a better image. So it's more like "this is to integral what parallax on crack is to lenticular."

Re:For those who still don't get it (1)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40635279)

I didn't think anything of the time-varying, but maybe I'm just spoiled because in my field we convert from PCM to PDM and back, every day for breakfast, and once again for dinner, and the mindset of resolution--time equivalence sort of sticks with you.

But yes, your version is more accurate.

4D TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634805)

"You bought the wrong TV, sillyhead!"

Hmm... why not prerender? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634809)

So they aren't very clear if this is a real time solution or not. Even if it isn't real time, it seems like they are basically done for prerendered/static images (movies, ads, etc).

What am I missing?

Waste of time. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40634855)

Today Viacom has induced me to swear off all the cheesy garbage TV of theirs I'd been watching on the net. I realize now what a colossal waste of my time that was, that could be better used doing other things.

The advancement of 3D viewing technology is, to my mind, completely pointless. The quality of what passes for television now days, and most movies too, is utter dogshit, with so many annoying, offensive, stupid, repetitious commercials that an hour long show is not much longer in reality than a HALF hour. Then I am expected to put up with all the ham-handed product placements (mostly Apple) that I don't even want to watch anymore. So spending all this time and money and effort trying to make it possible to watch something where what you see depends on where you sit is pointless, polishing a fat, stinking turd. They should focus their efforts on the economic model behind our visual entertainments, rather than worrying about the delivery medium, and come up with a way to have an hour long show that actually takes up 50+ minutes with interesting, valuable content, instead of this throw-away Shitivision we have anymore. I'm done. I'm cutting the cord, AND I'm not watching this garbage online anymore either.

Fuck Viacom, fuck television, I'm going to go READ. You should all join me too, send Viacom a big fat bird, say "suck a hairy syphilitic cock, you fucking pieces of greedy shit, you've lost me as a customer, drop dead you scum!" Everybody pick up a book, and let your brain come back to life!

Re:Waste of time. (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 2 years ago | (#40635929)

You used the word "fuck" twice, yet you apparently haven't come to the realization that long before the horrid, craptacular garbage (with exceptions...let's be fair) passing itself off as television these days gets into this, there will be a thriving, multi-quintillion-dollar pron industry making use of the tech.

Source refresh rate? (1)

hughJ (1343331) | about 2 years ago | (#40634901)

So I'm assuming that this requires the source to be supplying the additional content at their 1000hz (or whatever refresh rate) to cover the full range of viewing angles? So now all we need are video media 1000 times bigger, and graphics chips 1000 times faster to supply the frames.

Re:Source refresh rate? (1)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40635025)

No. The content itself is at a normal video frame rate, the extra frames are computed out of a map of the deltas between POVs at the displaying site.

Of course you still need to store that in the video somehow, but it's only the inevitable overhead of holographic vs. 2D, which isn't going to be anywhere near 1000 times bigger and is only going to get smaller as compression methods tailored to it are developed.

Re:Source refresh rate? (1)

Beardydog (716221) | about 2 years ago | (#40635755)

Do you currently run video at 1Hz?

Re:Source refresh rate? (1)

hughJ (1343331) | about 2 years ago | (#40637101)

Sorry, I wasn't using "1000" to mean a specific amount, it was just a convenient way of asking if the source data would dramatically balloon as there would have to be huge amounts of additional data to support all these unique POVs rather than just a pair of stereo POVs.

I guess basically where I'm coming from is asking myself the question: what is needed in order for a display using this 3D technology to replace the present 3D HDTV implementation while keeping at least a 1080p @ 60hz field per eyeball? What would be needed from Hollywood to produce content that supports this? Would they even be interested in this, considering they can't use this for theater ticket sales, and when they already cheap out by doing quasi-3D post-conversions? For video games? Would each frame have to be completely rendered hundreds of times in order to accurately populate all the potential POVs? Due to the massive amounts of processing overhead, would a game system be likely to support such a technology without a substantial install base? Would that substantial processing be better spent on other features?

This technology just seems to be a lot more substantial than a simple new 3D format. It seems more akin to the jump between SD and HDTV, and would have all the same hiccups and delays. I'll be old and gray by then, and no doubt one of my eyes probably won't work well enough to enjoy it anyways.

THEY'VE DONE IT (4, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | about 2 years ago | (#40635325)

This is really a significant breakthrough. I mean good looking, glasses free 3D (please look at the video) which means MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS VIEWERS using CHEAP components. The only difficulty is the compute power requirement is a little high but that's nothing that won't be solved quickly thanks to Dr. Moore. (I think they are also able to use GPUs so massive cheap parallelism can overwhelm the problem).

A previous poster brought up the good point that it wasn't clear if the scene was pre-rendered. If/when it can be done on the fly (just a matter of CPU power), think of the applications. CAD, GAMES!

In 10 years (or less hopefully) we should have really large (80") true 3D displays that a bunch of people can stand around and touch (like what those guys in Perceptive Pixel, recently bought by Microsoft*, do). Talk about science fiction.

I actually submitted this story a day or two ago but I didn't understand how it worked (and still really don't get it, the math is beyond me). Anyway I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves.

*Let's hope that Microsoft doesn't kill it, or use the patents it acquired to block progress.

Re:THEY'VE DONE IT (1)

khipu (2511498) | about 2 years ago | (#40635787)

This isn't "multiple simultaneous viewers".

Re:THEY'VE DONE IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635943)

This isn't "multiple simultaneous viewers".

Umm, sure looks that way to me.
If not then why the holy f@#$%^& hell would they need the 1000hz refresh rate, exactly?

Obviously you didn't RTFA (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#40635945)

Yes, it is. This is anyone, looking at the screen from any angle within the supported field of view will see the (approximately) appropriate perspective of the displayed objects. No head tracking, fancy glasses, etc. required. Very much like an animated hologram in appearance, though the technique used is different.

Re:THEY'VE DONE IT (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40636601)

it is.

but the compute requirement is a bit more than just "a little high" for games.

Re:THEY'VE DONE IT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637967)

Maybe something will finally use those 8-core processors and 1536-core [geforce.com] graphics cards.

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635449)

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm [cryptome.org]
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 [pastebin.com]

Sections Overview:

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Only one viewer, no depth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40635969)

If the display just tracks the viewer and adjusts the picture, then (a) it does not look 3D when you stand (or sit) still in front of it and (b) multiple viewers will not work.

Re:Only one viewer, no depth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40636115)

Well guess it's good that that's *not* what these guys are doing, so thanks for playing.

Filming live action? (1)

DeathCarrot (1133225) | about 2 years ago | (#40636329)

Anyone know if it's feasible to construct a camera that records footage that this screen would output? Would they just interpolate between multiple cameras?
This is the first bit of 3D display tech I'm genuinely interested in, the current stereoscopic implementations have too many compromises.

Re:Filming live action? (4, Informative)

Exrio (2646817) | about 2 years ago | (#40636455)

The camera that films video for this display is a light-field camera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera [wikipedia.org]

Surprisingly they're already being sold to mere mortals, but those are early models that are not mature enough to be used for video production (the Lytro is for consumers but can only take pictures, the Raytrix can take video but is for industrial applications).

In the meantime while these cameras mature, any way you can turn imagery into 3D models is fair game, maybe a wide-angle high resolution Kinect, or interpolation from two normal cameras (it's a bit more complex than interpolation but you get the idea), or mere image recognition a la gimmicky 2D-to-3D conversion, etc.

All about PC (-1, Offtopic)

nealnayan (2683765) | about 2 years ago | (#40637899)

Hi This is dimond and i am form bangladesh. I was looking for some of the informational in this post. I think i am lucky to find your article. I really wish that i could meet you. Come to my country i will show everything about our country and will discuss something about your subject. My address is Khulna, Bangladesh.I have a blog related to the program. Please come and give me your expert opinion. All about PC [blogspot.com]

I wanted to do this as an art project (1)

Thagg (9904) | about 2 years ago | (#40639415)

Inspired by the tapestry on pg 560 of Skylark III [gutenberg.org] I wanted to build a art piece that contained thousands of suspended beads -- as you walked around it, the beads would align into images that could only be seen from that one spot; it would be a random (although attractive) array of colors otherwise.

This work here seems similar, although infinitely more practical and realizable. Very nice work.

How difficult is it to render 3D objects on this? (1)

descubes (35093) | about 2 years ago | (#40641545)

I wonder what the precise computational cost is of rendering complex 3D objects and scenes on this kind of technology.

I can't wait to have one of these babies to run Taodyne's 3D presentations software [taodyne.com] on it! One of the things which is tricky with current multiscopic displays is how to convert existing 2D movies. Ideally, you want to do that in real time, something that Tao Presentations can do for Alioscopy or Tridelity displays, but which is more computationally expensive for Philips/Dimenco displays.

Check for New 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...