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!

3-D Monitors From Actual Depth

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the looking-into-things dept.

Hardware 192

Klenex writes "True 3-D Visual Effects w/o the use of annoying '3-d' glasses or stereograms. Actual Depth "The Actual Depth monitor is actually two LCD displays stacked on top of each other. The LCD on top displays white transparently, so you can see through to the display beneath it, which is opaque." You need a dual head card or a 2nd video card to drive each display but this seems incredibly cool and it will work with any OS which supports dual monitors w/o any other hardware. Here's TechTV's scoop on the new technology. They even have a link to contact them about a demo in your area. I'd love to see one of these in action even though chances are I would never be able to afford one. Prices start around 6 grand, quite steep."

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

An urgent request: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283176)

Dear sirs:

I have recently been diagnosed with ass cancer. [anus.com] My doctor tells me it may have been a result of the countless torn anus incidents that afflicted me over the years. These tragedies that struck me were due to furious tail-fisting sessions I had with my butt buddies, Jeff Bates and Jon Katz. I am now forced to give myself daily enemas. My doctor has also prescribed me a heavy-duty douche bag so that I may fully cleanse out my rectum. My wife [sarcasta.net] wouldn't give me hers because she says, "I'm not getting any fuckin' from you, so I am forced to pleasure myself with this douche wand. It's either that, or an affair with a penguin. [linuxsucks.com] "

With a heavy heart, I regret to tell you that my prognosis is bleak. Thus I make a plea to the Slashdot community: Please send butt products and advice to the following address.

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
2001 Woodlark Ave
Holland, MI 49424

A- (-1, Offtopic)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283188)

If you had logged in, you'd have gotten an A+, which rhimes with Uranus.
BTW, where are the fscking mod which (mod don't desserve to be treated as human beings) upmodded me ?

F- must try harder (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283482)

If you could spell then you would have got a C. Maybe you should listen to teacher instead of crap flooding /. ?

Re:F- must try harder (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283507)

no, I spell according to my default post-mod :-)
gimme +5 when I post and I'll speel accordingly.

Re:An urgent request: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283191)

This is why I don't need a 3-D monitor....

People have no imagination these days (1)

cscx (541332) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283181)

Whatever happened to just a plain ol' 14 inch CRT and a pair of those 3D glasses from 7-11 back in the day?

Re:People have no imagination these days (1)

MrFredBloggs (529276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283376)

The writeup described the 3d glasses idea as `annoying` although its surely not as annoying as having to spend thousands on new untested technology. Given that my cd writer lasted just over a year before becoming infinitely fussy about which cds it wrote to, i`ll be damned if i`m going to be an early adopter on this nonsense. 3D will always be a gimmick, anyway. Games will be nice, but i cant see how it will ever be standard on the desktop.

Finally! (0)

Troed (102527) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283183)

Now here's a use for my old dual-head Matrox card. Finally. It just took a few years!


*g*

Re:Finally! (-1, Offtopic)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283196)

hey, your sig is a nice troll, but don't forget trolls are supposed to be stupid, not insightful !

Re:Finally! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283382)

Exactly. Dont go intentionally killing children if you can`t take a joke. Whats good for one side is surely good for another. The PLO/PA/Hamas/Wacky Islamic group #102942 has had all the time in the world to come to the conclusion that targetting civilians is a stupid idea which makes you look uncivilised. Now they`ve gone and pushed Bush off the fence and onto the side of the Israelis. Arafat will be dead inside a month, the IDF will do whatever they want, the Arab states are powerless to do anything except burn yet more American flags (well, it keeps them happy anyway - keep an eye out for evil Bert!)... does this count as a success?

generalisation (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283387)

A few desperate people bomb themselves among Israeli civilian... this doesn't make all the Palestinians kamikaze.
But the fact that the Israeli soldiers may in total impunity go in a post office and kill pregnant women "for fun" denotes some real problem on the invader's side.
As the Arabs asked, what make these few people so desperate ?
Is it the same thing that make the Israely moderate minority pissed off (integrism and expansionism) ?
Now, Arafat for sure isn't an angel, but Sharon still has to attend the International Court in Den Haag.
BTW, you wrote inside a month though within a month would have been better so, where are you from?

Re:generalisation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283481)

I`m from the UK. `inside a month` is fine. I dont have a problem with Palestinians. Despite having Jewish relatives, i believe that the UN resolutions going back years should be enforced. I think there should be UN/EU/Whoever peacekeepers in Israel/Palestinian areas. I think Sharon is evil. BUT there is *no* justification for deliberately killing civilians - period. Kill soldiers, thats fine. Dont kill children, on purpose, while they are eating pizza, then show us the blood of dead militants as if its the same. Militants/soldiers are supposed to die - thats what they are paid for - thats what they do best. You point a gun at someone, you get to kill or be killed. Pretty simple.

Re:Finally! (1)

packeteer (566398) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283257)

hmmmm matrox cards are STILL nice cards...

i have yet to see a card with a better picture clarity and overall 2d computing... and i think thats what matters... how ofter do you use 3d... 10% 20% of the time...

maybe if we are lucky this new technology will help us use more 3d but untill then we use 2d for the majority for the time and i dont know about you but my eyes start to hurt when i have a fuzzy picture causing text to be a little bit less sharp...

so keep using your matrox cards... they are still VERY useful for day2day use...

Re:Finally! (1)

zmooc (33175) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283323)

Matrox cards are NOT nice cards. Well. At least they don't have nice drivers. The last good thing they did was the g400 and since then there has been no proper TV-OUT support for Linux. I know this is offtopic, but I know waaay too many ppl that bought a g450 for the tv-out and were very disappointed.

Slashdot Ain't Truly Open Source (-1)

Rock 'N' Troll (566273) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283185)

Every day, thousands of geeks and Linux communists from all over the world visit Slashdot to discuss recent news about computers, technology, science, copyright, etc. etc. It's quite a nice community, inhabited by several different species of geeks - ranging from teenagers without a social life to developers of illegal communist "open source" software!

I have observed for a long time how these geeks openly promote "open source", which can be rationally explained as copying computer programs and data from one computer to another without paying for the software. Illegal distribution of MP3 music is a fine example.

For a long while, I was one of them who think it's a ridiculous concept. If software developers have put 100's of hours of work in creating good software, would it really be right to steal their work without paying them for their efforts? No, of course not. Or...?

Just a few weeks ago, a colleague of mine demonstrated how simple it is to open-source a copyrighted program over to a CD. Just a few clicks on the computer cursor! So what does this mean? Well, from now on, I will sure as hell not buy any new software, that's for sure.

I can get the latest Windows, Office, Internet or pop album for the expense of a writable CD!

I got back to Slashdot after a short break, just three days ago. It was a happy moment as I felt that I was joining with my fellow open-sourceres's to share the joy of open-sourceing programs. But it didn't turn out to be what I had expected.

Slashdot, this site that has claimed to be "open-source" for a long time, is in fact not. It was a tremendous emotional shock to me when I discovered that several important parts of Slashdot are "closed-source", I.E. not available for copying!

Some of the missing things are:

- A full list of user e-mail addresses, in a non-obfuscated form.

Yes, not only does Slashdot NOT provide a list of all users' e-mail addresses in a conveniently downloadable text file, but the addresses, which you have to dig out manually one-by-one, are obfuscated for "spam-protection". What does this mean? It means that a company that wants to advertise its great products to new customers will have a hard time, because it can't send out the advertisements! And why? Because Slashdot refuses to share its data in an open-source manner!

- An open public database of user passwords.

In its current state, Slashdot holds 70% of its website - the individual user account pages for all users - restricted. Is this open source? No, of course not! Slashdot should definitely unlock these pages and make the password database public to everybody!

The above two are of course just the top of the iceberg. Or how about: a moderation system that close-sources out controversial user posts, zero write access to the Slashdot servers from remote computers such as mine... I don't think the list is finite!

It is in my opinion and interest that Slashdot should strive to become fully open source. The process should start right now, by us, the users, us who want open-source to be part of our society.

So act now - raise your voice and speak out! Should dictatorship like this be tolerated?

Of course not! We must make a difference!

Re:Slashdot Ain't Truly Open Source (-1, Offtopic)

mshurpik (198339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283301)

Yes, not only does Slashdot NOT provide a list of all users' e-mail addresses in a conveniently downloadable text file, but the addresses, which you have to dig out manually one-by-one, are obfuscated for "spam-protection". What does this mean? It means that a company that wants to advertise its great products to new customers will have a hard time, because it can't send out the advertisements! And why? Because Slashdot refuses to share its data in an open-source manner!

There should be a Weak/Impotent Troll modifier in addition to the usual Troll, the latter of which is sometimes a compliment. Or maybe it already exists as Offtopic.

Re:Slashdot Ain't Truly Open Source (-1, Troll)

Azza (35304) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283333)

Not to mention:
-1 Stupid
-1 Lame humor attempt
-2 Groupthink
-3 Content free
-5 Obviously didn't read article
-9 Whiny bitch

Re:Slashdot Ain't Truly Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283364)

Don't know what he is complaining about anyway there. He has the source (text file) and it is not obfuscated it is commented ( of course all the comments say the same thing "don't spam me" ). All he has to do is edit and compile it as any good open source software geek would do if he/she chose to use this open source material.

Two layers? (2, Insightful)

lxmeister (570131) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283189)

Two layers doesn't seem very deep. Wouldn't it take a few more to create something resembling 3 dimensions?

Re:Two layers? (2, Insightful)

Foss (248146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283268)

It's the white transparency on the first layer that'll sort this out. If something is supposed to look closer to you, it'll be made lighter by the nearer screen. If it's further away it'll be darker.

Re:Two layers? (4, Interesting)

pubjames (468013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283273)

Two layers doesn't seem very deep. Wouldn't it take a few more to create something resembling 3 dimensions?

It is amazing how effective parallax (a simple animation technique where planes further away move more slowly than closer planes) is at creating a 3D feeling. It would be even more effective on this type of monitor.

I think this could be extremely effective for fast games, although I agree that two planes probably isn't enough. Three might do it though.

I already have a 3D monitor (4, Funny)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283192)

My monitor is already 3D, it is a huge 3D box.

Re:I already have a 3D monitor (1, Offtopic)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283377)

Real life 3D isn't enough! We have to make shoddy, half-assed 3D which really isn't 3D at all!

Re:I already have a 3D monitor (-1, Offtopic)

danielrose (460523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283443)

How was that off topic you fuckwit moderator!

Cost? (1)

NWT (540003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283194)

Oh that 17inch monitor looks really cool, but what about the price? I'd say it's at least 2x the price of a normal 17" TFT, and that's too much for home use.

Re:Cost? (2, Informative)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283202)

It's not really for home use yet (give it a few years and it might become standard), and the article lists a price of $6,000.

Drool... (4, Funny)

l810c (551591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283197)

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.3d

Re:Drool... HAHAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283236)

nice ;)

site work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283199)

/.ed already??

Re:site work? (0)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283214)

it's because your 2d browser takes some time to render some pure-3d sh33t.

or maybe it's a 4d browser that renders the site as it were centuries ago (or that renders /. in the near future) ?

CRT? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283206)

I know it wouldn't look as sexy, but it would probably work just as well with one LCD in front of a CRT. That would knock the price down.

Re:CRT? (5, Informative)

Ubi_NL (313657) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283248)

It will also not work.
The whole idea behind this is that certain pixels on the low layer get shaded by pixels from the upper layer. Now if you have a high enough resolution, and if the pixels fit exactly, then you get 3D (meaning: your left sees something else then your right eye).

This is because the shading pixel is not really on top of the underlying pixel, but a little bit left or right from it. This is the difficult part!
Don't forget that you don't see the depth just because it has two layers: you see it because the upper pixel and the lower pixel together produces two images: 1 for the left eye, 1 for the right!

If you do this with two screens that are not exactly matched you will most likely lose the effect of 3D.

Re:CRT? (1)

rixkix (205339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283319)

You'd still have alignment issues, but the LCD would still be in front.

Re:CRT? (2, Informative)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283370)

I noticed that neither the Actual Depth page nor the TechTV writeup talked about this at all. Both presented this device as something that simply gives you two planes to work with: "Imagine editing video, for example, and having your video displayed full-screen under your timeline and other editing palettes.".

I'm aware of the technique of putting a vertical grating on top of a screen to block every other line from each eye, then drawing the right eye image on the odd lines and the left eye image on the even ones, creating a 3D image. You seem to be talking about something like that, with the front monitor taking over the role of the grating. In that case, I think "This is the difficult part!" is an understatement. Can you explain further? Or are you talking about a different principle?

Re:CRT? (1)

BoBaBrain (215786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283445)

Thanks for the explanation. :)

It still seems very limited (Half the resolution, angle issues...) and the article doesn't even mention this as a use. They seem to treat it simply as a Head Up Display.

Re:CRT? (1)

BoBaBrain (215786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283453)

One more thing...

This technique would also work with a regular screen with a grid of dots painted on the screen guard.
:o\

Re:CRT? (1)

hij (552932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283457)

The alignment would be all that bad. All you need is to do is to divide the screen into two pictures. Then tape a piece of cardboard so that it divides the two images. Now put a couple of lenses at the other end of the cardboard. Instant stereoscope!

The technology of the roaring 90's (1890's) meets the technology of the twenty-first century. Just think, we all thought that we would get flying cars.

Seen it. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283217)

I've seen the monitor before. The effect isn't impressive. It basically looks like what you'd expect - one lcd layer on top of another, will little illusion of depth.

Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283224)

Porn just became cool all over again. Wait.. was it ever not cool?

Confusion.... (1)

Schlopper (413780) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283226)


This is going to wreck havoc and cause major confusion for the clean-freeks between
us... Imagine trying to clean those nasty fingerprints in 3D..

I wonder what the moiré patterns caused by fingerprints would look like on
this screen..

Interesting (1)

ctid (449118) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283238)

The video gives a little technical information. At the end, the reporter says that consumer versions are planned and "they will cost less than two desktop LCD monitors".

3D is the future? (1)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283255)

I think that eventually we will get 3D displays for games. What I'd really love is a dual projector system with polarised glasses. That should look awesome - a bit like a minature version of those incredible 3D IMAX films.

HH

Supports any OS? Including Linux, right? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283258)

Qoute:
I'd love to see one of these in action even though chances are I would never be able to afford one. Prices start around 6 grand, quite steep."

For those Lusers that want one, you could always
do the honorable Linux thing and steal one. Lets
not kid ourselves here. You do the same with
software, why not hardware?

Inquiring minds need to know.

- Vince

This is perfect... (0, Troll)

Acideous (162622) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283259)

Now the feeling that Bill Gates is choking me to death can be experienced in the ever more uncomfortable word of 3d!

Who ever said extortion couldn't be fun?

Re:This is perfect... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283286)

3DBSOD

huh? (1)

Innomi (566928) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283260)

What use is there for 3 dimesions, when depth is only one of two values? Is there something I'm missing?

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283381)

1 bit Z Buffer!

Afford? (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283262)

"I'd love to see one of these in action even though chances are I would never be able to afford one. Prices start around 6 grand, quite steep."

Right now the prices may be high, but as with all the goodies, the prices are bound to fall.. and fall. When the company breakevens, the prices should fall, but it is really dissapointing to have such high priuce pegged initially. If the prices were lower, breakeven would be faster... anyways, this tech is cool, but what is being ignored comletely is the effect on eyes. I may be wrong but i do not think that any eye tests have been done! Already lotsa ppl in the IT industry are suffering from poor eyesight.. i wonder what this technology has in store for us?

Re:Afford? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283316)

Just wait till you have to buy the two 512 MB video cards to go with the display so you can play Quake 5 after John gets a look at these things.

Re:Afford? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283336)

Just wait till you have to buy the two 512 MB video cards to go with the display so you can play Quake 5 after John gets a look at these things.

Anyone designing/producing a dual AGP motherboard yet? Is that possible or will the second have to be PCI?

Re:Afford? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283438)

"Anyone designing/producing a dual AGP motherboard yet? Is that possible or will the second have to be PCI?"

I am not aware of any in production but it is reportedly possible with two north bridges. There are however some dual head AGP video cards in production including those from Matrox and 3D Labs.

Does this actually work? (5, Informative)

rkgmd (538603) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283263)

Here [stereo3d.com] is an article that explains why this device may be nothing more than two simple overlaid workspaces but not true stereoscopic 3-D. In particular, it says in bold red: "For Stereoscopic-3D you'll need special Stereo-3D software in any case, whether it's photography, film, tv, video or computer software. You will never get a real 3D experience out of standard material. There are products which claim to do this, especially pseudo3D-television devices, but those offerings are bogus! - You can't get 3D out of thin air." From what I have previously heard about stereoscopic vision, and confirmed by what the article says, one needs two slightly different points-of-view of a 3-d object (or simulated points-of-view in case of flat images) for the brain to correctly synthesize the notion of depth. That is why one typically uses glasses with accurately sync'ed shutters (so that one frame is delivered to one eye and the next frame to the other---there are any number of schematics [dmu.ac.uk] available on the web to roll your own provided the display hardware/software can support this). Alternate techniques for generating stereo vision include polarization techniques, etc.

Re:Does this actually work? (1)

carm$y$ (532675) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283281)

There are products which claim to do this, especially pseudo3D-television devices, but those offerings are bogus! - You can't get 3D out of thin air[...]

Did you see their address? Global Headquarters:

Deep Video Imaging Ltd. (New Zealand)
Airport Road
Mystery Creek RD2
Hamilton
New Zealand

Now I wouldn't put my savings in a bank on Crook's Road or trust a company on Mystery Creek to come with err... magic products. :)

Other links (2, Informative)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283269)

The manufacturers web site [deepvideo.com] .

An article [electronicstimes.com] in the Electronic Engineering Times.

Who's claiming this is doing 3-D? (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283270)

3-D in the traditional sense has to do with showing a different picture to each eye. Everything else is just polygons.

What this monitor does do is lay a transparent layer on top of a regular LCD display. So its kind of having two monitors without moving your neck. Cool, but not 3D.

Re:Who's claiming this is doing 3-D? (2)

zmooc (33175) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283334)

Ehm. I saw 3d displays at CEBIT. I'm not sure if it were the ones discussed here, but they were definately VERY 3d. I think it was only 2 planes but the sense of depth is incredible. I think even with 2 planes you can show a multiplane 3D image pretty realistically.

These things only worked if you're not standing too close and not too far (a few metres) and DON'T MOVE YOUR HEAD! You'll get very dizzy and before you know it you're down on the floor:)

Re:Who's claiming this is doing 3-D? (1)

Uerige (206572) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283344)

In what way is this not 3D? Only because the third dimension only has such a low resolution that doesn't mean that there isn't a third dimension.

Re:Who's claiming this is doing 3-D? (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283403)

What they need to develop are electronically generated, software defined, holograms.*

Ive seen hologram / photographic plates at a hamfest once laying flat on a table, illuminated with ordinary room lighting, but you actually DO see DOWN into the table - it was so astounding you want to reach under the table and check it out! Somehow it reconstructs a wavefront plane such that as you change your point of view you get a different image from that point of view, i.e., each eye does get a slightly different image.

* This idea copyright ©2002, Pat. Pending.

I'm not impressed (2, Informative)

altaic (559466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283271)

They passed up the excellent opportunity to use a polarized filter on the lcds. With a pair of polarized glasses, you could have true 3D with that setup. That's what they use in the 3D IMAX setups these days (polarized light on a screen that preserves the polarization), and it works amazingly well. You can sit down for hours and watch those with no problem, despite the bs (why their product is better) from the Actual Depth guy. The setup Actual Depth uses is only two layers. As far as 3D gaming goes, there is little to no difference. I don't see the other applications as doing too well either, except perhaps for the medical ones. Even then, though, it's nothing a normal single layered lcd couldn't do with overlays. -Altaic

Re:I'm not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283391)

Well, using polarizing filters won't work because light couldn't pass from the display on the back (eg. polarized vertically) through the polarizing filter of the display on the front (eg. polarized horizontally).

Re:I'm not impressed (3, Informative)

BadDoggie (145310) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283450)

Why didn't they use polarising filters?
Perhaps because LCDs are already polarised [howstuffworks.com] .
Really. [sait.ab.ca]
It's true. [toppoly.com]

woof.

LCDs, polarization, 3d (3, Interesting)

isaac (2852) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283522)

There are a few different 3D LCD systems - the one in this article is just 2 lcd panels stacked on each other for a multiplane effect. Others have referred to a system that uses lenticular lenses and a special pattern of illumination to deliver stereoscopic images without glasses, but this only works if you're in one of the "sweet spots" that aren't very large. The polarization idea, though, I think is the one that will really catch on.

Yes, I know how LCDs work, so bear with me - instead of using filters that polarize every pixel the same way, one could use filters that polarized every other line at 90 degrees to the previous. Now, manufacturing such filters and fitting them to LCDs is more expensive than current LCDs, but the advantage is that a simple pair of polarizing glasses (with one lens polarizing at 90 degrees to the other) would enable stereoscopic viewing of the LCD from any distance within the field of view of the LCD. I believe there is a company out there already claiming to have developed such displays, but I don't recall the name - they were touting their micropolarizer filter technology, anyhow, which is the hard part of making such a display.

-Isaac

Only 2 levels of depth? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283274)

People seem to forget that with 3D glasses, you're not limited by the depth of the apparatus, you can render things at infinity, and even things in front of the screen!

Furthermore, with 3D glasses you get to see everything even if you're not exactly in front of the screen (think 'living room' with 10 people watching the same screen, some people will have tilted views). If your 3D TV is shaped like a hollow box, then the sides of the box will hide parts of the image for some people.

The only technology that could compete with 3D-glasses would be a transparent hollow box, or think R2D2 projection hologram. You still lose the range of depth you can get with 3D glasses (so you lose panoramas), but you gain a "stand in your room" effect which could be pretty cool in some cases.

3d-glasses, like rechargeable batteries, a great simple technology that somehow gets dismissed.

Re:Only 2 levels of depth? (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283346)

Once upon a time, maybe '96-97, weren't they actually supporting 3d-glasses in some games? not shutter-glasses, but real honest-to-god independant display-for-each-eye 3d glasses? I seem to remember a set-up at a computer store, with a $500 head mount display, and descent, or something like that. I was wasted at the time, which might have added to it, but it was REAL. this is going to kill me, time to throw up REAL. I was just too broke at the time to pay much attention. I know I've done some 3d tricks with VRML on some of my sites (which I shall not plug at this time) where I did 2 VRML displays on screen, from slightly different perspectives, then unfocus your eyes, and it works like a charm, aside from making you look like an idiot. It would be cool If there was a standard 3d goggle you could design stuff for... But I still want a holotank.

Re:Only 2 levels of depth? (2)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283514)

Drivers support 3d glasses already

3D Stereo Driver (for 3D Glasses)
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=wind ows2000

Some GF4 (PNY branded I think) cards come with them in the box.

Re:Only 2 levels of depth? (2)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283524)

Update: for 3D glasses check here.

http://www.i-glasses.com/

Nvidia and Dimension do this already (1)

bob1000 (174146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283276)

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, this [nvidia.com] claims their cards support Dimension Technologies [dti3d.com] 3d lcd displays. Their monitors use a single lcd but have special optics that makes alternating columns of pixels visable to each eye.

Re:Nvidia and Dimension do this already (1)

TommyBear (317561) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283400)

Yes... except the ActualDepth LCD monitors do not have Actual Depth, whereas the dti LCD monitors do have Actual Depth and are real 3D without the glasses using NVidia's 3D drivers.

It's hilarious that these guys think they have something special. The DTI3D LCD's work on all Direct3D and OpenGL games to give you actual 3D, whereas these guys need stuff written especially for the hardware. This will not get past the commercial market if any.

Seen it in action (5, Informative)

sdflkgfljdqshgjkqsfg (129027) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283287)

Last week I saw such a 3d display at an IS conference in Paris. I was in a bit of a rush so I did'nt have time get any details but here are my impressions:
- You do have a "real" depth feel.
- you have to stand at a set distance from the screen (not too far, not too close)
- Don't move your head around too much, it gets blurry.

So yes, I was definatly stumped, but don't go spending your dollars yet is my advice. It's definatly cool but I don't feel it's all that ready either.

Re:Seen it in action (1)

zmower (20335) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283392)

I've seen it too and was also impressed. The guy demoing it said their target markets were kiosks and info-heavy apps (e.g. build 3D model in top layer, render it in the botton layer). Not your average gamers rig and with 2 LCDs not likely to be anytime soon.

Re:...are you sure? (2)

reachinmark (536719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283477)

-Don't move your head around too much, it gets blurry

Are you sure that you weren't looking at an autostereoscopic display? That is - something that is true 3D, and uses lenticular lenses or similar to achieve the 3D. It is also something that is not very technologically advanced yet - resolution is very poor (typically half of a normal LCD, due to the tricks required to get stereo) and the stereo "sweet spot" is very small.

The product in question, however, is simply two LCD screens, one on top of the other, to give you "actual depth". There is nothing particularly 3D or stereo about it - simply that some objects can be positioned an inch behind other objects. The main use for this would be in the area of public touchscreen booths, etc. It may also be useful in ordinary desktop metaphors where (for example) the active window could be positioned an inch infront of everything else.. And more importantly - it has the advantage that it doesn't require you to hold your head in a certain position / distance.

26. (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283288)

The concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified ;--but even here Jewish priest craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel ceased to be of any value: out with it!--These priests accomplished that miracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the documentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the face of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the past of their people into religious terms, which is to say, they converted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all offences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was rewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as something far more shameful if familiarity with the ecclesiastical interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our inclinations for uprightness in historicis. And the philosophers support the church: the lie about a "moral order of the world" runs through the whole of philosophy, even the newest. What is the meaning of a "moral order of the world"? That there is a thing called the will of God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and what he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual thereof, is to he measured by the extent to which they or he obey this will of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual arecontrolled by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to the degree of obedience manifested.--In place of all that pitiable lie reality has this to say: the priest, a parasitical variety of man who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the name of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he himself determines the value of all things "the kingdom of God"; he calls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained "the will of God"; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and all individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the power of the priestly order. One observes him at work: under the hand of the Jewish priesthood the great age of Israel became an age of decline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was transformed into a punishment for that great age-during which priests had not yet come into existence. Out of the powerful and wholly free heroes of Israel's history they fashioned, according to their changing needs, either wretched bigots and hypocrites or men entirely "godless." They reduced every great event to the idiotic formula: "obedient or disobedient to God."--They went a step further: the "will of God" (in other words some means necessary for preserving the power of the priests) had to be determined--and to this end they had to have a "revelation." In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and "holy scriptures" had to be concocted--and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of "sin" now ended, they were duly published. The "will of God," it appears, had long stood like a rock; the trouble was that mankind had neglected the "holy scriptures". . . But the ''will of God'' had already been revealed to Moses. . . . What happened? Simply this: the priest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest meticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to the smallest (--not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for the priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be known just what he wanted, what "the will of God" was.... From this time forward things were so arranged that the priest became indispensable everywhere; at all the great natural events of life, at birth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the "sacrifice" (that is, at meal- times), the holy parasite put in his appearance, and proceeded to denaturize it--in his own phrase, to "sanctify" it. . . . For this should be noted: that every natural habit, every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice, marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value in itself, is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the reverse of valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the "moral order of the world"). The fact requires a sanction--a power to grant values becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is by denying nature. . . . The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all.--Disobedience to God, which actually means to the priest, to "the law," now gets the name of "sin"; the means prescribed for "reconciliation with God" are, of course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the thumb of the priest; he alone can "save". Psychologically considered, "sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning". . . . Prime axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth"--in plain English, him that submitteth to the priest.

Re:26. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283351)

Wow. I click on "replies beneath my threshold" and I read Nietsche for the first time in my life.

Slashdot has finally been educational.

GafTheHorseInTears...is that a biblical reference, or were you merely circumcised as I was?

obj dupe post (1)

friode (79255) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283304)

3D w/o Goggles [slashdot.org]
3-D Monitor From Deep Video Imaging [slashdot.org]

How hard is this? Perhaps with all the money you're reaping from these ads, you could hire some poor sap to search for dupes?

Re:obj dupe post (1)

hij (552932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283473)

I agree. Once something pops on slashdot it's time to just move on and get on with our lives. We should not have to ever see another article on 3d imaging, DSL on the American west coast, KDE, or Bill Gates. Considering all the attention Uncle Bill gets around here, we especially don't need to hear anything else about him!

Old news, man (2)

Grab (126025) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283310)

This was news back in 2000. I guess it's news to ppl who weren't reading tech news back then.

And the TechTV "scoop" is just so much guff. What kind of lousy review doesn't even show pictures of this thing in action? The cynic in me says that they've just copied-and-pasted from a press release...

Grab.

transparent windows (1)

rixkix (205339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283312)

Is it just me, or aren't most of the manufacturer's claims already doable using transparent windows or alpha blending on the desktop?

Re:transparent windows (2)

anpe (217106) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283345)

Doable yes, usable no : in this solution you just have to compute the final image two times. Using software would require the latter plus time consuming transparency calcs ...

Re:transparent windows (1)

rixkix (205339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283422)

Not only would the transparency calculations still have to be done, but twice as much info would be sent through the graphics card to drive the overlay display since it requires a card or system with dual monitor support. I propose that this 'hardware' method would actually be slower.

Re:transparent windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283468)

$6,000 would buy a kick ass CPU and video card.

Hmmm... (2, Interesting)

Evan927 (15553) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283315)

Please note: QuickTime and Real formats are no longer supported

The monitor may not require a special OS, but TechTV's review sure does.

3D Monitors will bring... (1)

Blasto.Net (570119) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283324)

3D Monitors??? Bring on the 3D Women! w00h00! -=J=-

Re:3D Monitors will bring... (1)

s4ltyd0g (452701) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283487)

Dude at the price they're charging you may as well just get yourself one of those Realdolls for even better 3d effects :-)

Are two different depths really enough? (3, Interesting)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283357)

I doubt that you can achieve the same amount of 3-dimensional impression using such a simple approach as, say, a CAVE with motion tracking. For example, how do they display objects with surfaces orthogonal to the two LCD screens?

Sharp demonstrated this in '96! (2, Informative)

chiark (36404) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283360)

I saw this at a tech show in London (Live) in 1996. It works well if it's the same sort of thing - one layer is "aimed" at one eye, and the other is for the other eye. Dunno how they split the LCD images, but I think prisms were involved.


Anyhow, the Sharp demo system worked and I wondered what had happened to the idea...

Booring... (1)

godot73 (182766) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283367)

This is not 3 dimensions. It's twice two dimensions, nowhere near a possibility to have 3d accelerator video boards taking advantage. No quake. Must feel like two overheads on top of each other. What exactly do you win with this kind of display? You could probably display the windows on the front layer and the desktop background on the back layer (including a nice shadow, osX style). But that's about it.

YA3DS (2)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283407)

Yet Another 3D Screen.

Cute, but when can I go down to WalMart and buy one?

Software transparency... (2, Interesting)

Bnonn (553709) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283409)

...anyone? As far as I can tell from the article, this is an uber-expensive hardware version of existing transparency methods, with two differences: 1, there are effectively two desktops you can see at once, so you can switch between them to draw applications into focus; and 2, the second desktop is located physically behind the first, so there is a better 3D effect due to parallax. It would be an interesting idea to try point 1 using software--it might make transparencies more easily manageable--but the only real benefit I can see over software transparencies is point 2.

Which is likely what you'd expect, except it's only 3D in that there are two flat planes for objects to be "projected" onto instead of one. Sure, having apps that would support this with depth-based widgets could be pretty cool, but I wouldn't get too excited. I'd be surprised to see this becoming a mainsteam hit.

Also, if someone could explain how this would benefit gamers (as stated in the article), I'd be keen for a response, coz I'm coming up blank. I can't see Quake being anything but confusing with this...maybe RTSes or RPGs that have sidebars with widgets?

ELSA has a real 3D-display (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283421)

If you want a real 3D-display check out the ELSA Economo 4D [194.175.18.166] . It consists of an 18" TFT-screen with an eye tracking system that aranges a so called sight prism so that each eye sees a different image. Obviously, however, this only works for one viewer at a time.

What advantage? (1)

BoBaBrain (215786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283433)

This is not a 3D screen. It's two 2D screens and as such doesn't offer any clear advantage over two regular screens IMHO.

Besides, It will be obsolete once they invent the elusive "Translucent Middle Screen". :)

Saw this at Siggraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283441)

and it wasn't very interesting.

If you want a real depth profile (i.e. many
layers) check out the Stereographics Synthagram
at www.stereographics.com or the 4D Vision
monitor at 4d-vision.de (I think).

i think this display is more intresting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283483)

two layers? ha! i think this display [actuality-systems.com] has more promise

I got myself one!!! (1)

jpumar (446416) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283490)

I wonder how it will download MP3's id tags off of the internet w/o netwok connection...

Dude, that must be something I've gotta be aware of :-)

Anyways, that's sorta what I did with an old PC...
http://www.caicara.org/pumar/Projects/MP3_Hi-Fi_Co mponent/mp3_hi-fi_component.html [caicara.org]

3d display cube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283496)

an array of photophosphoric cubes arranged in 3D space will do!!!

what's next? 4D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3283505)

The engineers from "Actual Depth" should study phisics of laser-maded holograms, which are really alike 3d images. Two LCD are not needed, instead they need much higher resolution in order to create optical interference. Otherwise it is not 3D and it will not work on the market.

First commercially available multi-dimension? (1)

Richard_Davies (250599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283508)

I've used a multi-dimensional monitor for years!
Admittedly, it's only got 2 dimesions, but is a
hell of an improvement over that one dimensional
SOAB I'd been using beforehand.

Other multilayer displays (2, Informative)

Richard Kirk (535523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283510)

The second-generation plasma panel displays used to have up to four layers. The plasma panel cells are like little neon lamps - they are only stably either on or off, so to get greylevels (becuse they didn't switch very fast), the makers stacked up several layers, with a 50% grey filter between them. The most significant bit plane was at the front, the next one was behind it, and so on. There was a subtle 3-D effect too, but it was hard to see a real use for it.

I also remember another device where a mono LCD used a colour CRT as a backlight. At the time (about 1985) this offered high black-and-white resolution, and the ability to display CMYK (inverse RGB, and black), which was quite interesting at the time. The CRT had a thick front plate, so the LCD was clearly 'floating' some way in front of the CRT image.

A holodeck, it ain't. Even quite modest volumes contain an awful lot of voxels. Think how many little cubes you get in a bag of sugar.

The magic of 3-D... (1)

d0s (550629) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283525)

this could turn goatse into a "hole" new experience

I've tried this device, (5, Informative)

ProfessorPuke (318074) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283529)

and the misconception most people will have is that it's supposed to display some kind of 3-D data. The only way it can be considered a "3d output device" is if you only need to output 3D shapes that happen to consist of two parallel rectangles separated by 3cm.

Traditional 3d hardware includes 3d accelerator cards, immersive-display goggles, stereoscopic LCD goggles, crystal-ball type volumetric displays, and the (theoretical) realtime hologram projector. But the problems those devices attempt to solve are almost completely distinct from what the ActualDepth display is meant for. (Well, except that a truely effective hologram projector could emulate any other display technology...)

The point of ActualDepth is to allow your computer to present you more visual information in the same space. If you run traditional software that's not aware of the special screen layout, you can just use the multi-monitor feature of the OS's gui system (in X11 they call it Xinerama) to assign some windows to the front screen and some to the back. That way you can look at both of them at once, and for instance can read the online manual for a game at the same time you play it full screen, or operate a 3d-modeller in the classic 4-way parellel projection while a textured preview of the object sits on the back display. Anything that you'd do with dual-monitors, you can do with this, but using less physical real estate, and, more importantly, with less time to focus your vision from one to the other. Both screens are centered in your field of view at the same time, so there's no looking back and forth nessecary.

It's likely that without modifications, your GUI interface will only allow the mouse to switch between screens by you dragging it across one edge of the screens, where it considers them seamed together. That is irritating and unintuitive, so you'd want to use one screen as more of a read-only device, showing useful data but rarely needing interaction.

Elsewhere, someone asked if this effect can be emulated in software just by alpha-blending on image on top of another. You could try this, but it wouldn't really work. At the points where the foreground image is solid (thick black text), the background will be completely obscured. But with "actual depth" between the displays, the stereo-graphic effect of dual-eyeballs comes into play. Assuming the foreground image is mostly line-art or text and doesn't consist of large regions of solid color, then for every pixel in the background image, at least one of your eyeballs will have an unobstructed line of sight to it. You remain aware of the contents of both displays with no additional perceptual effort.

The device I tested had a touch screen attached in front, and the window-manager (well, Microsoft Windows(tm)) was configured so that a single-click on a titlebar would shift a window 1024 pixels left or right, effectively toggling it between the front and back displays.

To begin to recoup some of the enormous pricetag for ActualDepth hardware, though, you'd need to run software that's aware of the display's special characteristics. (The code doesn't need to link any special drivers or new APIs, but it does need to be aware that graphics drawn at (X-1024,Y) will appear floating over (X,Y)).

Essentially what the application should do is allocate one display for data, and one for meta-data. That is, if you're word-processing a document, the back display should always give a WYSIWYG preview of the output, and the front display should present all the filenames, font names, editing markup (including those automatically-generated spellchecker warning scribbles), section breaks, margin, column boundaries, etc.

I'd really like to see what user-interface innovations would pop out if the programming public got to play with these monitors for a while, but at the current price, that's just not going to happen. (ActualDepth should sponsor some free-software authors to modify their code to exploit their displays- until they get some sample applications out there, potential users won't understand the benefits).

Very Limited 3D (1)

diggem (74763) | more than 12 years ago | (#3283530)

Sure it can do 3D, but only in two planes. It's true and real 3D but so limited, what's the use? It's not 'infinite' planes as could be done with high resolution, high color, antialiased STEREO images and those 'annoying' glasses.

Now, I will say that the 'stacking' of related app data is kinda cool, but you really could get that from a single monitor. If you've seen WinXP in action, the mouse pointer creates a shadow over the desktop. Looks 3Dish. True it isn't in two planes, but who cares?

Sorry, but I'll keep my $6000 bux and buy a sweet rig and some glasses for true stereoscopic vision first. I wear glasses normally so wearing a different pair doesn't bother me at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?