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!

DVD Player Displays 2D Movies in 3D

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the and-i'm-sure-it-looks-swell dept.

Movies 219

Anonymous Writer writes "A company called Dynamic Digital Depth that wants to bring 3D television and movies to the mainstream claims to have developed a system that allows you to watch current 2D DVDs in 3D. They claim the TriDef DVD Player uses image analysis methods, developed by the company for their 3D content conversion service, to convert 2D video to 3D in real-time based on 3D depth cues in the original movie. It is the same company that produced the TriDef Movie Player software for the Sharp Actius R3D3 autostereo display notebook. "

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

I wonder (4, Funny)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248857)

if this will be succesfull The idea sounds cool though. Maybe even more cool for the porn fans out there :) (You know who you are)

Re:I wonder (4, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248887)

ME ???? SAY IT'S ME!!!

-

Re:I wonder (1)

technogeeky (780692) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248934)

Now all they need to do is make those 3d paper glasses and a vacumn attachment. Nah, this idea sucks.

GNAA IS DEAD.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9248862)

...and let the chips fall where they may.

Just got back from a lengthy road trip. As my GI tract has
learned, I do not respond well to defecating in filthy
roadside rest stops or any (usually nasty) bathroom within
a quarter-mile of a highway, so the colon tends to go into
suspended animation until I get to my final destination,
whereupon I've got about 5 minutes to get to a shitter
before things come to a head. Turtlehead, that is.
Makes for excruciating hotel check-ins sometimes, but
that's the way it goes.

Some people are addicted to drugs, liquor or porn. I'm
addicted to shitting in clean, comfortable surroundings.

At any rate, drove straight through from Tulsa to Houston.
Gut rumblings commenced at the Texas border, gaseous
expulsions just south of the D/FW metroplex. The last piss
break was accomplished successfully at the rest area just
north of Huntsville by the usage of a discreet duck-waddle
to keep the nether-load from shifting in transit.

The last 90 miles were not comfortable by any stretch of
the imagination. The turtlehead kept trying to poke out of
the balloon knot, accompanied by several cubic meters (it
seemed) of fundamental exhalations.

Once parked in the driveway, a sailor's rolling walk was
rapidly adopted to maintain cinching pressure on the
bunghole while still allowing leg movement to propel me as
fast as possible to the house. A spectacular plumbing
rupture almost occurred when I dropped the keys and had to
bend over to retrieve them. The last few feet to the
shitter were traveled in the manner of a sack-race, hopping
on two feet (backwards, mind you..) with pants around
ankles.

Expulsion of the compacted bolus was as gleeful as I
thought it would be. Fortunately it was unaccompanied by
the sharp stabbing pains of micro-tears in the rectum, just
a harsh goatse-like stretching followed by water splashed
up by the falling turd gently bathing & caressing the
abused sphincter.

Inspection of the monster revealed an undisputed wonder of
the grogan world. A two-toned log. The lower half
(expelled first) was a nice chocolate brown, all knobbly
and segmented, no doubt a result of an extended period in
the colon having all useful moisture extracted. The back
half was more of my usual Jif Creamy Peanut Butter color &
consistency, streaked here & there with festive strands of
tomato skins and corn hulls. The two halves were firmly
attached, holding together even through the long drop and
even some poking with the plunger. Velocity of the
evacuation was such that there as almost no residue left
on the ringpiece.

Altogether, it was one for the record books. Still, in
retrospect, I would probably be better off just crapping by
the side of the road...

3D? (5, Funny)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248863)

Hmmm.. so what happens if I watch Spy Kids:3D [imdb.com] on this? Will it upconvert me to 4D?

Re:3D? (5, Funny)

Walker2323 (670050) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248896)

You will see God.

Re:3D? (5, Interesting)

kunudo (773239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248990)

It would show you the entire movie at once, since the fourth dimension is time.

Re:3D? (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249201)

the fourth dimension is time.

Only in a model of the universe with three spatial dimensions.

/nitpick

Re:3D? (4, Funny)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249242)

Nah, just 4 spacial dimensions. Just try to picture this: A rectangle extended into 3 dimensions would be a cube. Now extending that cube into a 4th spacial dimensions by makeing all the sides into cubes, without any of the volumes of the cubes sharing the same 4 spacial coordinates.

Warning: attemps to picture 4 dimensional objects may lead to brain damage. Symtoms are: inability to spel worts, Headaches and 1337-5p3ak abuse.
If you experience any of these symptons, don't bother to contact your doctor. you're done for.

Re:3D? (2, Interesting)

davFr (679391) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249482)

This was already studied and performed. Such a geometric figure is called a hypercube.
...I think it is also the title of an SF movie dubious sequel:o)

Re:3D? (0, Redundant)

Milo of Kroton (780850) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248993)

Well, the fourth dimension is time, so if you watch it, you'll have traveled forward in time by 2 hours.

Re:3D? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249041)

No. But it will upconvert Sylvester Stallone to someone who can act.

Re:3D? (1)

Gossy (130782) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249194)

I'm afraid movies without any concept of time wouldn't be much fun..

Re:Spy Kids:3D...Salma Hayek! (1)

neildiamond (610251) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249369)

Salma in 4D! Now we're talking. :)

Dubious (4, Interesting)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248875)

I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.

Re:Dubious (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248951)

I guess the bigger question is do we want it to put it in 3D when our brain already does.

Re:Dubious (2, Insightful)

bestguruever (666273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249007)

I won't believe it until I see it either, but it does seem possible to a limitted degree. What I imagine this as is using stereo seperation to enhance the existing depth cues.

Re:Dubious (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249072)

there is an easy answer, no one really wants to buy what nature already gave you, but if you can make it sound and feel better then what you already have, then people will buy it. (see marketing, capitalism, snake oil)

Re:Dubious (5, Insightful)

sinrakin (782827) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249089)

The principle seems straight forward enough. You don't have enough 3D info in a single frame, but you have lots of frames. So as objects move, or the camera pans, you can tell by their apparent positional shift how far from the observer they are. Assuming the software can recognize and track some basic objects, it can make reasonable inferences about their depth into the scene. How it then displays the depth is another issue.

Re:Dubious (5, Insightful)

varaani (77889) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249364)

Not really that reasonable. If you look at the results of current optical flow and disparity estimation algorithms, they're really not that great. Discontinuities of the image (edges) are a huge problem, as is the whole top-down/bottom-up/gestalt-ordeal, and these have not been solved in any satisfactory manner.

To reconstruct the 3D scene generating the 2D images is effectively to solve vision, in its entirety. In real time, no less. So I would guess that they're doing something quite simple. I'd love to see it, but the information on the site is quite scarce. I'm just hoping that someone is not manually pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Re:Dubious (5, Insightful)

moviepig.com (745183) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249094)

There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image.

There's plenty of info to construct a 3D-image. There's just not enough to construct the 3D-image.

Part of the bizplan likely involves consumers not caring.

TrueForm TM (3, Interesting)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249128)

Yep, and we know how well ATi's TrueForm(TM) works even when it has 3D data.

Automatically changing 1 thing to another without information is impossible. You must know enough about it (have enough prior information) to make resonable assumptions about how it should look. I suspect this technology is about 30 years away. Right along side face recognition.

Equally unbelieveing.

Re:Dubious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249154)

Not nessesarily. We're not talking about real life here, we're simply talking about tricking the eye into believing it is seeing something slightly 3 dimensional. Also take in mind all 3d movies are 2d images. And I'f you've seen some of the 3d imax movies you'd probably agree that what you see really does look close to real life. Here, we're mearly talking about an illusion, not a modal.

Re:Dubious (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249318)

We're not talking about real life here, we're simply talking about tricking the eye into believing it is seeing something slightly 3 dimensional. Also take in mind all 3d movies are 2d images. And I'f you've seen some of the 3d imax movies you'd probably agree that what you see really does look close to real life.

The usual "trick" is film with 2 cameras short distance apart. Then project in such a way that the right camera's image is only seen by the viewer's right eye and the left image is only seen by the viewer's left eye.
There are single camera techniques but they require shots to be carried out in certain ways.

Re:Dubious (2, Interesting)

hype7 (239530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249165)

I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.


What's going to be really fun is when their analysis gets it wrong, and puts something from the background "up close" in the 3d world, and vice versa. It'll be like watching a movie in a 3D version of those distorting mirrors from the circus :D

-- james

Re:Dubious (3, Interesting)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249219)

"I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image."

There is, kind of. Ever see those purple/orange glasses? There's an episode of Married With Children that was filmed to take advantage of those glasses. Thing is, you can't tell they filmed it that way if you're not wearing the glasses. It's not like the red/blue glasses that make a nauseating dual pattern on the screen. It looks like regular footage. I'm not 100% certain how they work, but I think they key off the highlights of the actors/objects they filmed. If I'm right, then most movies would be succeptible to this as fairly standard lighting creates those highlights. If that is right, then you could fake depth via an image processor.

Take what I'm saying with a grain of salt here, I'm using a lot of 'ifs'.

Re:Dubious (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249230)

I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.

Especially given that human brains have a vast amount of "world knowlage" to draw on.

Re:Dubious (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249349)

Actually quite a lot of work has been done in generating polygonal geometry from entirely two dimensional information. If the subject rotates you can get an awful lot of info just by picking out points, recognizing them as they move across the screen, and tracking their relations. This of course is nontrivial, and the subject of much debate at siggraph. I am not a graphics programmer type, but a friend of mine (well he was a friend before he loaned out some of my shit to someone who lost it, failed to replace it, and then disappeared anyway, now he's just this guy I used to know) is and he had amassed quite a bit of literature on the subject.

Presumably they're doing the lightweight version of this, generating a more or less accurate height field from the results (geometry is not useful in this case) and then separating the colors based on the height field, giving the illusion of depth. Your brain is capable of figuring out what is or isn't in the foreground (unless deliberately fooled due to nifty camera work and/or CGI) but it doesn't make you think there's depth where there isn't. In most cases that is a feature, because you won't be fooled like Wile E. Coyote and run into a painting at full tilt if you have depth perception available to you. But, it does slightly diminish the entertainment value of video.

Re:Dubious (2, Interesting)

sklib (26440) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249375)

I didn't RTFA either, but i'm betting that the "3D" algorithm does nothing more than tell what's in the foreground vs what's in the background using optic flow, render the foreground stuff "closer", and render the background stuff "farther", with small holes filled in.

Urp... (1)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248880)

3D always makes me nauseous. Does it come with barf bags?

Re:Urp... (5, Interesting)

jsupreston (626100) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249003)

I'd be really interested in this if it were to make it to Imax. Due to my eyesight, the 3D glasses are useless to me...except for giving me one of the worst migraines I've ever had in my life.

To clarify my situation, I am legally blind in one eye WITH corrective lenses (20/200). The only time I've ever experienced a 3D Imax movie, I was able to see the flickering which I assume is acutally multiple projectors at different refresh rates or something similar to generate the 3D effect. Since my optic nerves didn't know how to handle that kind of image, I got a migraine that lasted for several days.

Re:Urp... (1)

Zach Fine (12869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249116)

It sounds like you were subjected to the LCD-glasses style of 3D Imax projection. You would probably have a much better time with the version that uses polarized lenses -- I know I prefer it greatly for similar reasons (no headache, no flicker), but for some reason the LCD shutter glasses method is much more common for projecting 3D.

Re:Urp... (1)

JET 666 (28153) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249443)

its cheaper. For the lcd every other frame is seen by one eye so you have one print and projecter. For the polarized system you need two projecters and a left and right print, the right is polarized one way and the left the other.

Re:Urp... (1)

AdrainB (694313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249241)

You need a special monitor to view the 3D image. It doesn't display 3D on a regular TV. It won't work with IMAX because IMAX is film, and this is video. It would be amazingly expensive to build a 3D video display the size of an IMAX screen.

First Post? (-1, Redundant)

Durginus (761823) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248882)

Dvd porn in 3D? Sounds dangerous

Re:First Post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9248957)

OMFG! I Just got a moneyshot right in the face!!!11!!eleventy-one!!~!1TWO

Extra dimensions don't come free, folks! (4, Funny)

_14k4 (5085) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248888)

This "extra dimension" must be copywritten; I only paid for two. What should I do about this? Call my lawyer? Oh dear. :(

Re:Extra dimensions don't come free, folks! (1)

AstroAndy (781184) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249013)

You better watch out watching music videos on MTV, the RIAA will find a way to sue you for pirating that 3rd dimension!

Re:Extra dimensions don't come free, folks! (1)

Scratch-O-Matic (245992) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249179)

Copyrighted.

It's 'copyright' not 'copywrite'.

Not trying to be an ass...I wouldn't bother if I didn't see the same mistake all the time.

Re:Way cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249332)

Give you a taste ... Holla. Ain't no stoppin me. Copywritten, so don't you copy me.
Missy Elliot [pandora.be]

I remember this... (4, Insightful)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248893)

I remember reading about converting 2D movies to 3D when I was at primary school. Since then I've been through secondary school, two university courses and two jobs, and I'm still no closer to being able to watch the things.

Still, I look forward to being able to read ten years down the line about an amazing new device that can display current 2D movies in 3D.

Press Release (2, Interesting)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248894)

Since Sharp was mentioned.. here is a press release I dug up. Unfortunately, there is no datestamp to indicate when this was posted.

DDD AND nWAVE PICTURES SIGN DISTRIBUTION DEAL FOR 3D CONTENT [sharp3d.com]

SO what happens if... (0)

Microsift (223381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248899)

You watch a 3-D movie on this thing do you watch it in 4-D? (really 5-D)

Would that signal the Apocalypse, or just the Age of Aquarius?

Wrap your mind around that...

Re:SO what happens if... (1)

PsiPsiStar (95676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249277)

Yes, you watch all 3D movies in 4D (the fourth dimension being time).
Technically, 2D movies are 3D pictures, just that they use time as the 3rd dimension instead of depth.

p.s. Everything is a signal of the apocalypse. We've been having them for 2000 years.

Meh (-1, Offtopic)

jrwillis (306262) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248900)

Sounds like snake oil to me...

Re:Meh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249019)

Snake oil? where do i get that? hurry and tell me, im drying up!

hot 3d action! (4, Funny)

welshwaterloo (740554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248903)

tsk.. I think we all know what kind of movies every ./er is thinking of right now..

Yup.. Hot Linus action... In 3D!!

Independent review? (4, Insightful)

Joseph Vigneau (514) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248905)

Has there been an independent review on this technology? I notice all of the links in the story point at the vendor's web site. Until then, call me a skeptic

Or is this just an ad story?

Re:Independent review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249357)

Its just an ad story

3D Movies (1)

AstroAndy (781184) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248910)

Oh great, now I'm gonna be ducking and dodging when I watch my Sci-Fi shows. Although Stargate in 3D would be pretty damned cool.

Video Games (3, Funny)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248914)

Imagine if this could work for video games.

That would make Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball all the much cooler to play

Re:Video Games (2, Informative)

cardshark2001 (444650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249161)

Imagine if this could work for video games.

There are a couple of different stereo 3d shutter glasses that work for games on your computer which are already 3d, like quake3 or unreal.

They work by cutting the effective frame rate in half, and rendering each frame twice from a different perspective, and flashing the image into each eye on alternate frames.

Not sure if I explained that very well, but I've seen the "Revelator" (now defunct) in action, and I must say the results, while not perfect, are very impressive.

Re:Video Games (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249389)

There's a standard for these things ("stereographics") that uses a 3-pin mini-din. They're LCD shutter goggles as you say. The only problem with them really is that the flicker gets pretty noticeable. The higher your refresh rate, the less this will be true, but I don't know what the maximum refresh rate of the glasses is. I think my display will do 640x480 at 120Hz or something, if I had those glasses that's probably how I would play (and with antialiasing also) assuming the glasses could keep up.

Re:Video Games (1)

Haydn Fenton (752330) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249221)

Although you've been modded funny, I think that's a damn good idea.
If they can do this for TV and DVD, surely it can be done for games.. so why not? It would surely make games hellish more fun and intresting.
Might put your aim off a little though..

Re:Video Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249290)

Most games *are* 3D, rendered to 2D for display, so of course it's possible with games.

This 3d-movie crap on the other hand will never work...

Re:Video Games (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249328)

First thing we do... bring back Descent.

what does it add? (5, Interesting)

trix_e (202696) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248924)

I can't imagine what this would actually add to the viewing experience. It's a novelty at best, and a distraction from the experience as it was originally intended at worse.

I remember going to see "Jaws 3D" when it came out when I was in high school. After the first floating fish went by and you got over the urge to reach out and try to grab it... well you had 2 more hours of that. woo hoo.

Who cares?

Re:what does it add? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249067)

I can't imagine what this would actually add to the viewing experience.

a 3rd dimension for one thing...

Re:what does it add? (2, Interesting)

not_a_product_id (604278) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249080)

I have to agree. Maybe if a movie was specifically shot FOR 3D but appart from that, why? Godfather in 3D, Jackie Brown in 3D - what the hell does that give us?
I'm not talking about pr0n here, obviously. ;-)

Re:what does it add? (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249418)

I'm not talking about pr0n here, obviously.

Obviously. Every porn movie is "shot" for 3D. So to speak.

Re:what does it add? (1, Funny)

Fearless Freep (94727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249319)

The 3D effects were the *least* of Jaws 3D's problems

More power to them! (4, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248969)

I've always been a 3D freak - I've played Anaglyph 3-d Quake [iprimus.com.au] , I collect stereograms [eyetricks.com] and routinely watch documentaries in 3-D IMAX [neaq.org] .

I'm also firmly believe that VR and 3D displays are the Next Big Thing (TM) - atleast I hope it is. So I say more power to Sharp, DDD and other folks who're trying to make my dream a reality.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced by their "image analysis" based on depth cues:

hey claim the TriDef DVD Player uses image analysis methods, developed by the company for their 3D content conversion service, to convert 2D video to 3D in real-time based on 3D depth cues in the original movie.

As far as I can see converting current 2D media to 3D would require a great deal of human intervention - there's only so much that you can glean from image analysis (possibly hidden edges, object sizes and other CG cues). The bottom line is that it would take a human to tell if which of the two objects on the screen are supposed to be closer to the viewer. That alone IMHO would kill any efforts to bring this to the mainstream media business - it would be more fruitful to focus on cheaper/better techniques to create new 3D media.

Re:More power to them! (1)

parksgm (723709) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249058)

Hate to let you know this about your sig, but:

"life" - is actually the whim of several TRILLION cells to be you for a while

I guess you could be seriously unendowed though...that might make up the difference in your case.

LOL

Re:More power to them! (1)

bestguruever (666273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249117)

Agreed, the media needs to be 3d from the start. There are plenty of optical illusions that would keep a human from from accurately determining which of two objects is closer. I think that artifacts with this system would be very annoying

Flash (2, Funny)

Gettinglucky (655935) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248974)

Great another item beside my tv flashing 12:00 endlessly !

Re:Flash (3, Funny)

lightsaber1 (686686) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249446)

Except this one looks like it's flashing in the middle of the room....watch your head.

What would be cool is.... (2, Interesting)

HogynCymraeg (624823) | more than 10 years ago | (#9248988)

Having another 8 bits of information for depth. You could then do this easily. Not sure how the hell you'd capture that info though.

It is possible.. (2, Informative)

StacyWebb (780561) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249074)

to capture the information based on filters. This filter would "pre" read the clip information and then convert the "blurry" or background images and then move the primary "focal point" image further towards the "front" of the clip.

Re:What would be cool is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249081)

It seems like a good idea, but if you've ever played with one of those pin-art grids the limitations will immedately spring to mind. How do you deal with transparent objects? etc...

Re:What would be cool is.... (1)

PsiPsiStar (95676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249312)

Would that work with current tech though? Wouldn't it just be easier to have two adjacent cameras filming the scene from 2 locations, and just have a player which uses these tracks to create images for your right and left eyes?

The obvious market (-1, Redundant)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249000)

C'mon folks this is obviously geared towards the porn market, like the majority of new technology these days.

Hmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249001)

But... does it play ogg files?

Sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249016)

Great.

Now what's this going to cost me? About $1,000,000 USD?

stop the insanity (2, Interesting)

MasTRE (588396) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249017)

Can someone shed some light on this subject? This to me seems like the perpetual-motion machine. Some company always claims you will see in 3D w/o using glasses. Is this theoretically possible? I mean without actually recreating a 3D scene in front of you, is it theoretically possible for a 2D device to make you see in 3D w/o any special apparatus that you put in front of your eyes? It seems like the holy grail of 3D.

3d without glasses (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249145)

Yes this is possible. All you need to do is make sure that each eye sees a different image, which is *possible* without glasses.

All the techniques i'm aware of do depend on a very particular viewer location though.

Re:stop the insanity (1)

bestguruever (666273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249249)

There are many ways to create 3d without glasses. You can even do better than fake stereopsis. Imagine a flexible screen being moved by a sine wave (ie a low bass note from a speaker). Then imagine either a vector display or a crt with high enough refresh rates that you could display near objects at the peak of the wave and far objects at the trough.

Re:stop the insanity (1)

SafariShane (560870) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249391)

I personally have seen 3D without glasses, and so have tons of folks. When I used to work at Innoventions (Epcot, Disney) we had a 3D display unit of the earth, and yes, there it was, in 3D floating for all to see. Thousands of people saw it daily, so plenty of people know this technology exists. I just wish I remember the name of the manufacturer. I'm sure someone will post it. I think the same company had also done a star wars chess game that looked just like it did in the movie.

Re: 3d (4, Funny)

leenoble_uk (698539) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249022)

Looks flat on my monitor. This is crud.
Just like all those digital HDTVs they keep advertising on telly. They look no better picture wise than my 14" portable.

Re: 3d (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249266)

You are kidding, right?

I was skepical myself of how "great" HDTV could be until I was at walmart by some off chance, and they had an HDTV program on this time rather then a regular signal... and it ... was... amazing. Much more so then I had seen before... thought before.

If you really have that opionion, then you havent REALLY experienced HDTV yet.

Re: 3d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249283)

"Just like all those digital HDTVs they keep advertising on telly. They look no better picture wise than my 14" portable."

You are so naive for a slashdotter. For stuff to look good on an HDTV, you have to have HD programming. By you saying "Telly," I suspect you are from the UK, where HD programming is very lacking. If you watch cr@p on an HDTV, it will look very similar to your 14" "portable."

BUT if you watch the FA Cup final (let's assume it is broadcast in HD and you have an HD tuner and an HDTV), it will look 100x times better on the HDTV (Again, with proper settings) over watching the game on your 14" "portable" picking up the SD (Standard definition) signal...

Before you bash HDTV's, you really should do your homework, especially if you are a true slashdotter...

Within the realms of possibilty? (1)

BigglesZX (734765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249052)

Surely a realtime playing device like this cannot build something 3D out of something 2D? We as humans have to look twice at some things to tell their depth on screen, and in real life you'll note that it's very hard, if you close one eye, so how is a machine going to work this out, in real time, with a 2D video, and no discernable knowledge of the subject or context?

Any in any case, will people buy it? Are 3D glasses and green-red IMAX films not good enough? :-P

Requires display? (2, Interesting)

Unnngh! (731758) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249071)

From browsing through the site, it would appear [ddd.com] that this requires a special 3D display to work properly. So it looks like yet another stereoscopic display algorithm for converting 2d images into split frames for each eye, but designed to work without the stupid glasses or heavy goggles.

I'd be more interested to see how the 3d display work, myself.

And this is new? (3, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249073)

I worked on a system like this for broadcast TV and VHS tapes back in the mid '90s. Consumers didn't want stereoscopic 3D then and I doubt they want it now.

Meh (4, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249085)

If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread. Once there is truly impressive 3d displays that can be widely deployed, the content will come naturally.

As an aside, I'd love to see Pixar render out a version of Finding Nemo for IMAX 3D - I think it'd be amazing, and would be a relatively small cost. If it was a success, they could do their whole catalog.

Re:Meh (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249410)

If 3d was impressive enough to sell lots of units, they'd still be making lots of 3d movies. They aren't, because the technology for displaying 3d is still not impressive enough nor widely spread.

There's also the difficulty that the shooting needs to be specifically planned for 3D. Otherwise there is a risk of the result looking silly or even inducing motion sickness.

Re:Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249440)

that was an impressive post.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249509)

They cannot re-render into 3D because all 3D movies are composites where many seperate renders were put together to create a final image. They don't just render the whole scene. There is also a large amount of painting done to add other effects and to remove glitches in the render.

this would look great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249098)

on my 2d flat screen!

I want to use this to mess with the audience (2, Interesting)

CatPieMan (460995) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249127)

IF this technology comes to market, I could imagine some anime people thinking it would be fun to play around with this and make things look all weird (so that the background is right in your face, while the foreground is far away - or a person whose leg is near you, but whose face is far and have objects pass each other in ways that would look fine in 2D but would look weird in 3D).

In short, this could bring us a whole new world of experimental film. Interesting, if true.

-CPM

Can I get my web content in 3D?? (1)

Resident Netizen (769536) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249157)

Reading /. in 3D- how exiting!

Enhanced for stereo, colorization... (3, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249184)

OK, I'm curious to see it--but I don't believe a word of it. My brain is capable of converting 2D presentations into 3D using depth cues. I suspect my brain is better at it than their software is. And that wherever their software falls short, there will be an intense mental irritation factor.

In the fifties, a sound engineer whose name escapes me devoted a _lot_ of effort to applying electronic filtering to add a stereo effect to Toscanini's recordings, with the idea that he was preserving them for posterity. Toscanini's recordings and reputation have survived, but it's noteworthy that all the CD remasterings are in mono.

I don't think I've seen any upsurge of interest in "colorized" black-and-white movies, either.

I would expect automatic 3D to suffer from the same issues as colorizing: problems at the edges where things are entering the frame, problems with things that are in the background and hence out of focus, scenes that consists of thousands of moving objects (crowds, tree leaves flexing in the wind, sunlight glancing off rippling water) where the cues are imprecise and the computational effort needed to track thousands of objects is intense...

Super cool stuff (1)

kihbord (724079) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249189)

I can just imagine the processing speed required for all those computations. How about getting some of those speed in my 3D card!

More detail (3, Informative)

Overt Coward (19347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249212)

Article containing more info [digitmag.co.uk]

Choice quote:

But the result isn't quite like viewing something truly filmed in 3D. Most of the 3D effects are "from the screen backwards, (with) no off-the-screen effects," Harman says. This could be a disappointment to aficionados of 1950s guilty-pleasure flicks, who know that the whole point of watching a 3D movie is to see various objects (mostly monsters) popping out of the screen.

so many 'D's... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9249215)

In short: Dynamic Digital Death's 'TryDeath' DVD Player plays 2D DVDs in 3D by converting 2D video to 3D based on 3D death cues.

Lots of Research on this (5, Informative)

Roger_Wilco (138600) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249224)

Binocular disparity only works out to a few metres distance. Beyond that you use different cues. Consider some papers by my supervisor, for example: A laminar cortical model of monocular and binocular interactions in depth perception [journalofvision.org] , Neural Dynamics Of 3-D Surface Perception: Figure-Ground Separation And Lightness Perception [bu.edu]

What about animation? (2, Interesting)

Morrisguy (731956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249231)

Sure I'll be able to watch 3d live-action movies on this thing, but what about hand drawn 2d animation?

I would assume that the 3d image is generated by comparing the different hues and contrast between pixels or elements in an image. How would this work with animated characters, where most areas are colored in a same uniform color? Would it look like your're looking at a bunch of cardboard cutouts in front of a backdrop?

Then again, cardboard cutouts pretty much describe most of the characters I see in modern movies anyways...

Cyber-Opti-Grab anyone? (1, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249262)

Sorry - I just have this image of all the edxecs running around demoing this thing looking like Bill Macy in "The Jerk"...

R3d3! (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249376)

" software for the Sharp Actius R3D3 autostereo display "

Actually it's RD3D, but damn R3D3 would have been a cool name for that product. Heh.

Test image (4, Funny)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249419)

I've found a good test
image [meridian.net.au]
for this technology.

Website vague - Patent more vague (2, Interesting)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9249451)

The website blurs the line between discussing the automatic conversion of 2D movies (like the ones I have sitting by my DVD player right now) and 3D movies recorded in a standard 2D format DVD. I have no problem believing that a 3D movie encoded into a standard DVD can be viewed in full 3D. However, I was curious about the 'patented technology', so I went to the USPTO site and read the patent [uspto.gov] . It appears from the patent that the result of conversion from 2D to 3D is that it will take various 'objects' in the 2D image, outline them, and raise them off the screen. I have a strong feeling that you will get a Duke Nuk'em 3D image out of it, not the 3D you'd expect for the price of the 3D monitor and their converter system. I can't see that catching on.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?