Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Has 3D Video Finally Arrived?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the red-and-blue-glasses dept.

200

pospisil writes to point us to an enthusiastic writeup on Tech.blorge.com about a 3D display technology just launched at the eGames Expo in Melbourne. The technology, from a company called Fountain Consulting, is set to ship in January. From the article: "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it. With a library of 500 current PC-based games titles converted to flawless 3D, and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD." There is no second source for this story. Exciting news if it pans out.

cancel ×

200 comments

Slashdotted already (5, Funny)

VanessaE (970834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909638)

Jeez people, not a single comment and it's already slashdotted...give the rest of us a chance!

Re:Slashdotted already (5, Funny)

Attaturk (695988) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909664)

Yeah! I mean how the hell are we supposed to debunk vaporware if the even hype is vapor! =D

Re:Slashdotted already (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909670)

Shut up, faggot.

Re:Slashdotted already (5, Funny)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909860)

The implications of that are fearful. Slashdotters might be starting to read the articles before commenting!

Re:Slashdotted already (1)

Mr. Picklesworth (931427) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910268)

Yah, not even the [mirrordot.com] mirrors [nyud.net] have it!

This brings up an important question though: How the heck could the web site for such a revolution crash so easily?

Darnit, this is one of the few times I was actually planning to RTFA.

It really tough to say (1)

vikaskumar2020 (947413) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910792)

IP-TV will become more interactive now. And this session has great impact on tech of 2007.

Uh oh (5, Funny)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909650)

I'd truly hate to see what the adult entertainment industry would do with this one ... sure, there'd be some gems, but how many plots would revolve around having the stars "reach out and grab you" over and over.

Re:Uh oh (0, Redundant)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909672)

You could, you know, not buy the stuff if you're worried what porn might be made with it.

Re:Uh oh (2, Insightful)

gaijin99 (143693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909770)

He wasn't worried about porn being made with it, he was worried about bad repetitive porn being made with it.

Re:Uh oh (3, Funny)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910226)

there's non-repetative porn? URL?

Re:Uh oh (3, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910318)

Yes, I have some exciting non-repetitive porn for you...

Feast your eyes on this....

A half-man half-goat raping an entire campus sorority of devil worshiping pre-med ninjas!

The action never stops!

Oh, you already saw that one before....

Well, I've got nothing.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Krakhan (784021) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909844)

Ya, but that would require him to withdraw from the internet entirely. So I don't think that will happen, since he's posting on slashdot after all!

Re:Uh oh (3, Funny)

Xolom (989077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909984)

since when do pornos need plots?
they'd be better off without the awful acting and poor dialogue
hours of fun, pure sex, no plot

the "reach out and grab you" idea sounds like something off the 100 worst porn titles of all time list (http://members.shaw.ca/stayasyouare/tohwpmt.html [members.shaw.ca]

Re:Uh oh (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910180)

>they'd be better off without the awful acting and poor dialogue
>hours of fun, pure sex, no plot

Friday night at University! (for econ. majors)

Re:Uh oh (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910192)

Actually, I think I'd rather like to see with the adult entertainment industry would do with this one.

The site is down, but I found this link (5, Informative)

siddesu (698447) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909674)

Meh (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909866)

It's stereoscopic, not really 3D. Shouldn't be too hard for a new game, if assume the viewing equipment. But how do they convert existing TV?

Re:Meh (2, Informative)

solitas (916005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910088)

Technically it's "stereographic" since the eyes are really viewing two flat images - you can't move your head to see 'around' the object. "Stereoscopic" is the way your eyes function when viewing real three-dimensional objects.

Re:Meh (3, Funny)

mpaulsen (240157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910406)

I only have one working eye, you insensitive clod. None of those 3-D things work for me.

3D TV (2, Funny)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909676)

Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical. Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something.

Re:3D TV (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909820)

Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.

So am I. It's probably some stuff based on a vague shape "recognition" and the Z-axis data is "extrapolated" depending on the shape of the "recognized" area, in other words I guess it can give results but pretty bogus results. Still I guess it might do it for a lot of average joes, I'd be surprised if we ever saw "2D television converted in 3D" being ever widely adopted, sounds like a useless gadget.

Re:3D TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910012)

I'm wondering if it will be analagous to the "color TV conversion kits" our parents' generation saw.

Re:smell TV (1)

jftitan (736933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910316)

batter chances than Smell-O-Vision

  Man the first foot commercial... and its all over!

Re:3D TV (1)

Fallorn (784422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910564)

I experimented with a set of 3d shutter glasses some couple of years ago, and they too had the ability to convert 2d video to 3d, It seems the way they did that was by comparing frames to determine movement of individual pixels ( a cue to depth perception that I should know the name of but my psych professor is no doubt dying a little inside instead ) and by comparing relative movement of the pixels it determines the depth of the pixels.
It wasnt perfect, but It actually wasnt half bad, and depending on the video being watched, really quite fun.
Furthermore the glasses interpreted 3d at the driver level, and was able to convert some games to 3d ( i remember Painkiller was especially impressive for this for some reason )
So while I dont see anything really new here, Im really curious to see what advances the technology has made, if any.

Re:3D TV (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910402)

Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something

Dude, Wonkavision has been around since '64.

Re:3D TV (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910410)

Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.

I was once skeptical of many things too. Then I received the word from The Creator of the Universe, The Total Mind and Total Energy of All. With the divine secrets revealed in the sacred text [thepiratebay.org] , I replaced the polluting engine in my car with a Magnogen Motor...uh, well...I'm in the process of replacing it. I can't seem to get the damn thing to work right, but I'm sure that's my fault.

In any case, now I know that anything is possible, even the transmission of your so-called "chocolate".

It's not slashdotted... (5, Funny)

NeonGoat (824596) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909684)

You need a 3D monitor to view the site.

Re:It's not slashdotted... (1)

huckda (398277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910510)

that's just funny ... my bet is everyone's monitor is 3 Dimensional ...

Yawn. YAAWWWNNN (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909690)

Here is a link to the "OMG JUST A COUPLE MORE DAYS UNTIL RELEASE" website that Tony's taken out for his company.

http://www.3dvisual.com.au/ [3dvisual.com.au]

The glasses look like the same old headache-inducing crap that no one wants to wear while watching TV.

Re:Yawn. YAAWWWNNN (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909708)

The 3D logo looks like a pair of boobs covering a grin.

Re:Yawn. YAAWWWNNN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909766)

Vaginaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Re:Yawn. YAAWWWNNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909788)

Watching TV (for extended periods) induces headaches as it is. Small price to pay? I think that's self-evident.

My willingness to suspend disbelief... (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909694)

... ends here:

"and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD."

How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

Will this be bundled with the Phantom? Launch alongside DNF?

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909758)

different colors can be assigned different depths, much like the 3d glasses that came with your crayon set a decade ago.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909870)

If that were all that is needed to upconvert any 2D images to 3D, we'd all be watching all shows with those goofy glasses on.

Simply putting the glasses on doesn't change the fact that what you're watching was fimled from only one perspective at a time. No stereoscopic photography = no stereoscopic picture.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (3, Informative)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909874)

That's 3D data. As for the ACTUAL plausibility of the concept, I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye. Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910022)

"Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult."

So's quantum tunneling a person through a wall.

What we're talking about here is a fairly complicated function of the human brain. Considering the difficulty and expense involved in getting a computer that can handle walking, why should I believe that anything short of big iron can figure out how to do this, let alone on the fly?

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Will_Malverson (105796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910062)

Hold a small object and toss it back and forth from one hand to the other. Trivial, right?

Now try it with one eye closed.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910108)

Still trivial. Were you trying to reinforce the parent's point?

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910380)

OK, I did that. Why didn't you?

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (3, Interesting)

Joe Random (777564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910126)

I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye
Humans compensate for this in several ways. One is to move the head slightly side-to-side. This parallax information can help you in determining distance. Here's an example [sunpig.com] . Note that this requires extra information, so it's not useful in the case of upsampling 2D to 3D.

Another method is to notice when one object occludes another. That could possibly be automated, but you'd need some very sophisticated image recognition and tracking technology. Possibly some pre-processing, too, to avoid objects suddenly "jumping" along the z axis as their size changes force their calculated distances to be modified.

There's also the fact that we tend to know the relative sizes of various common objects, and comparing that to their perceived sizes can give rough distance information. That would require image recognition technology of a degree that we don't currently have, though.

So it looks like occlusion is probably the only method that could glean 3D info from a 2D source with any degree of accuracy, and I can't imagine that that's be very accurate or, indeed, always possible. Plus, I suspect the results would look like a pop-up book, with different portions of the image represented as flat objects on different planes rather than 3D objects.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Omega Blue (220968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910314)

Well, depth perception generally involves the use of both eyes - that's why we have two.

You may also notice that there is a difference between the real thing and an image of the real thing.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910440)

Well, depth perception generally involves the use of both eyes - that's why we have two.

I thought it was in case you poke one out, you still have a backup.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

SupremeOverlord (76353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909812)

Theoretically, on a scene where the camera is panning, you could have one eye see one or two frames ahead of the other. It would look like both eyes seeing it from different perspectives.

I admit that this would be a very limited and not very good way to get 3D, but it's the only way I can think to do it.

That sounds very close, actually (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910206)

3D from single photos has been available for a little while, mostly working with geometric content lines to establish likely 3d patterns, then mapping the image onto that pattern. It's possible that they're using color and focus clues as well, though I don't know about that part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA [youtube.com]
It's a pretty impressive technology. If you could do the analysis 60 times per second, you could have a convincing system for single-perspective 3D in most circumstances.

I wish I could remember the names of the companies, but I know there are "traditional" 3D screen display manufacturers working on upsampling using the additional depth cues of between-frame camera movements, which the above example did not take advantage of.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910602)

> Theoretically, on a scene where the camera is panning, you could have one eye see one or two frames
> ahead of the other. It would look like both eyes seeing it from different perspectives.

This does work, as long as the camera is panning perpendicular to the scene, and nothing in the scene is moving too much over those few frames.

I know a guy who made a stero pair this way, from video of Celine Dion singing that Titanic song. They said it couldn't be done, but he proved them wrong! Hahaha!

a 3D shower of jizz and liquid shit... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909834)

...covers you from head to toe. Some enters your mouth as you breathe in the delectable smells.

ps: please don't be so negative. Most likely it's a story of bits of information with various holes that was upconverted into an article and a submission. Plus, maybe there is eye trickery involved. Like wearing blue and red glasses!

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909876)

How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

Well I did some hunting and the company website [3dvisual.com.au] has this to say under "How does the Vortex works":

By wearing 3D glasses you can turn many standard HDTV,plasma TVs, projector DLPs, CRTs on market today into a 3D displays. You can adjust the depth of 3D to your own comfort level without any confusing programming but simply clicking a button with the Vortex. The Vortex works either like a standard Windows based PC with mouse and keyboard or a gaming council with a video game controller. The Vortex takes the hassle out of making 3D work so you can easily enjoy 3D to its fullest.

so I'm guessing it "works" rather like this [brunnerbiz.com] , or perhaps this [magneticth...agnets.com] or... well you get the idea. I've seen email business proposals from Nigeria that are more trustworthy and convincing than what this company is offering.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909966)

Except that what I cut and pasted isn't talking about getting 3D from a 2D display but rather from 2D content, the "pre-recorded DVDs" mentioned in what I cut and pasted. That's saying that I could toss in Toy Story and this technology will magically make it 3D.

Getting 3D off of a 2D display is easy enough; the most common way people have tried to do it on PCs is the past is with flicker glasses (the screen rapidly alternates between left and right eye information, while you wear glasses with LCD lenses that alternate between making the left and right lens opaque). But with PC games you have 3D information to work with, the same information your video card is crunching to begin with to curn out those polygons. But to say you can get this not from a game but from a movie is just plain fanciful, almost as fanciful as their claims to be including 150 games with the hardware.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910008)

I think you missed my point, which is that yes, the whole thing is indeed complete bullshit - and they didn't even do a very good of trying hide it: their website and description of "how it works" is laughable. The least they could do is provide some pseudoscience explanation with a lot of big words in it, but they can't even manage that much.

Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910134)

Dude, awesome link. I've been looking for a massively overpriced water blender forever.

Swi

Install a bullshit meter next to each story. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909934)

There are too many stories that amount to nothing more than psudeo-scientific marketing spam, as you have so succinctly pointed out the summary is enough to debunk them.

Slashdot Bullsit Meter (SBM): I propose each story be displayed next to a thin vertical SBM, users can vote with either a lightbulb icon at the top or a steaming bullshit icon at the bottom. The benifit of a bullshit meter is that it would make reading the summary as redundant as reading TFA. Further, if you could sort stories by BS rating, you could pick out the best regardless of size. Of course this doesn't mean that there will be anything worth reading on slashdot but at least you could find that out faster.

Re:Install a bullshit meter next to each story. (2, Insightful)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910644)

Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.

A slashdot bullshit meter would in fact be, bullshit.

Interesting (2, Informative)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909698)

If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable. For people who can't see it here, http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&do_pdf=1&id=7242 [itwire.com.au] , is a link to a PDF version of the text. I'm curious as to whether or not laptops will be able to use this technology. Pretty sure it's no but I can always hope they'll make something available...

Re:Interesting (4, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910052)

If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable.

Well yes, it must be reputable: I mean it was posted to the front page of Slashdot. I presume it works by using 25x compression [slashdot.org] encrypted with quasar one time pads [slashdot.org] powered by free energy [slashdot.org] , or possibly quantum physics disproving [slashdot.org] cold fusion from blacklight power [slashdot.org] . Or, well, something like that. And ultimately that's a very limited sampling (based on what I could remember, or find with a few minutes searching) of the pure pseudoscientific bullshit slashdot so eagerly posts.

Sure.. (4, Funny)

andy753421 (850820) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909706)

"and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television" I hear their also adding a feature to 'zoom' and 'enhance' grainy pixelated feeds into high quality 1080p as well.

Re:Sure.. (1)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909746)

I think they're also adding Enemy-Of-The-State-o-vision, so you can rotate a person in a video capture completely around and see the contents of a messenger bag! It's 3D-eriffic! I can't wait!

Sure it works! (3, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909780)

Expect any 2D to 3D conversion to work about as well as those B&W to colour conversion filters you could get back in the 50s and 60s. The tecnology they used was called "faith".

Re:Sure it works! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910222)

Once we have 3D video, are we going to get bad 3D conversions of old movies coming out like the bad colorization we've seen for B&W movies?

Re:Sure.. (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910264)

Well, they'll probably just do a CSI-style "reverse algorithmic" that'll just clean it right up.

Re:Sure.. (2, Interesting)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910750)

It's not that far fetched. There are all sorts of cues you can use to tell depth and then you can extrapolate an "off by 5 degrees" image; slightly stretch some pixels and shrink others for one eye, and the other way round for the other eye, will make one eye seem to see more of one side, and the other see more of the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEQELp0uqA [youtube.com] (jump to around 2:30 to see example)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA [youtube.com] (more examples)

And these use a single picture to work from. If you have a moving picture, you have even more information to work with. There may be small artifacts of cause, but these could easily blend out when applying to a moving picture.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909710)

"This just in: perpetual motion machine doesn't stop; gives off extra energy!"

There is no second source for this story. Exciting news if it pans out.

From the article snippet: "even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television"

Come on, don't bullshit me.

From the Department of Redundancy Department... (2, Funny)

IronTeardrop (913955) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909718)

"The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it."
Well, thank goodness for that.

Re:From the Department of Redundancy Department... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909808)

This one fooled me for a while too, but it is not actually redundant, only poorly worded. Perhaps it should read:

"The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just SET to revolutionize 3D forever [in the future], they have [already] revolutionized it [in the present]."

Bah humbug (1)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909720)

Definitely in the "If it sounds too good to be true ..." area. Jeeze guys, could you exercise a little critical thinking before fan boying all over it?

Re:Bah humbug (1)

lostngone (855272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910428)

WHAT he said it didn't suck, Must me a fanboi! Please, just because someone says something doesn't totally suck doesn't make them a fanboi.

/.'d (4, Funny)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909722)

Maybe when we have this new OMGWTF 3D technology, this text will look so 1337 I won't care:

Error establishing a database connection

This either means that the username and password information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the database server at localhost. This could mean your host's database server is down.
  • Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
  • Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
  • Are you sure that the database server is running?
  • [this really should be here] Did your page just get pwned by Slashdot?

If you're unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your host. If you still need help you can always visit the WordPress Support Forums.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909734)

Video games are lame, and have failed to evolve into an interesting form of entertainment. There are much better ways to waste your free time.

Others are already doing this (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909736)

Article text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909738)

Forget high-definition, the future is in high-def 3D

eGames Expo Melbourne Australia: I've seen the future, and it's in 3D. This technology has threatened to sweep the world many times over the past few years. But new US technology, developed in Silicon Valley and exclusively launched worldwide at the eGames Expo in Melbourne prior to its global launch on January 1, 2007, blows all the misconceptions away and finally launches the true era of high-def 3D for movies, games, TV and more.

Remember having to wear those red and blue glasses to watch 3D movies at the cinema? 3D was big for a time in the early days, but predictions that everything would be filmed and displayed in 3D simply haven't eventuated beyond the IMAX theatre and early adopter computer users who have downloaded 3D drivers for their NVIDIA graphics cards.

Now a new 3D technology called the Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it. With a library of 500 current PC based games titles converted to flawless 3D, and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD DVD.

Besides making their own modifications to existing high-end NVIDIA cards and putting it into their own PC systems, which will sell pre-loaded with 150 top PC games, Windows XP (with Vista to come) and a special interface that can be controlled from a games console controller (in addition to being easily controlled by a standard keyboard and mouse), Fountain Consulting also aim to sell a pack for US $150 that allows anyone with the same hardware to modify their own system to make it 3D compatible.

The number of people that already have the high-end equipment required is huge, as true gamers are not only growing in number, but always want the best technology to deliver the highest quality gaming experience, so sales of the upgrade kit are likely to be huge.

But if you just want to buy a ready made system, the Vortex Home Entertainment System computers with all the 3D capabilities demonstrated at the show will be on sale in 2007, in different configurations. They had their systems on display powering the 3D displays, with gamers eagerly playing titles such as Star Wars Battlefront II, the latest Quake and many, many others. The eGames Expo show is still on for one more day - Sunday the 19th at the eGames Expo held in the Melbourne Exhibition Centre as I write, so if you want to see it for yourself, come on down and check it out.

It's also compatible with existing high-definition TVs and projectors - all you need is a pair of 3D glasses from any manufacturer - the Vortex has been designed to seamlessly work with them all. It also works with any of the new 3D televisions from Sharp, Panasonic, LG, Samsung and others, where you don't need any glasses at all.

You really need to see a demo of the system playing the latest games, in 3D, with a pair of standard 3D glasses (similar to those handed out at IMAX or Real D cinemas), to truly appreciate how much better your favorite game looks in 3D. The depth, the explosions, the action and the detail is enhanced to a new 3D level.

I was also shown some video clips of a football match, a home video of someone driving their car (with a standard video camera bolted onto one of the seats to capture the vision as you're driving down the road) and some TV commercials that were all effortlessly converted into 3D. Watching a football match on 3D on a huge 70-inch projected screen, using a standard video projector is so good, it simulates the feeling of being there more than anything I've ever experienced.

So, who is the creator of this amazing new 3D technology, what led to it's development, and what is the website to find out more information? The story is quite amazing, click on the next button below to find out!

The CEO and Founder of Fountain Consulting, Tony Welch, is a visionary 27 year old who has an amazing story to tell. His grandfather was a photographer who specialized in stereoscopic photography many years ago, and it was he that got Tony thinking about images always in 3D.

Tony's mother also purchased Tony a 'Tomy 3D player' when he was 5 years old in 1984. The Tomy 3D is a series of 3D video games which included the tank game where you shoot planes from the sky. As you can see from this Google search, they're still around.

Astoundingly, Besides eerily and perhaps prophetically almost having the same name as young Tony himself, this 3D viewer was so exciting to Tony that he told his mother he would one day make it possible for us all to watch TV in 3D. I'm sure his mother thought he was just dreaming, but a mere 22 years later, Tony and his company have made it a reality.

It's taken Tony and his team 3 years to perfect the technology to a stage where it is ready to launch onto the world stage in early 2007. He has a team of 5 people, and has also worked with 15 other major companies to make his vision come to life.

Tony is no slouch when it comes to computer and technology, before embarking on his 3D adventure, he was an automation engineer for Cisco Systems.

The taglines his company has already used to describe the experience include: "We bring the excitement of theme park 3D into your living room", and "It's as fun to watch as it is to play."

The existing Fountain Consulting website only has a limited amount of information available, but does have some descriptive information and contact details if you want to get in contact directly.

There is an amazing new website coming on the 1st of January, which you'll find from the Fountain Consulting website, but I've been sworn to secrecy as to what it's called, so you'll just have to wait until January 1 to find out. However don't bother if you want to invest, Tony already has a number of investors and others trying to buy the company out already, with a local Australian distributor already appointed, called Direct2U Australia under the brand name 3DVisual.
Lest you think this is yet another 3D adventure that will turn into a misadventure, the visuals I've seen of high-definition 3D in games, movies and TV cannot be denied, and the world will soon see all of its video in three dimensions.

Are you ready?

Re:Article text (3, Informative)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909980)

This is a steaming pile of BS right here.:

"You really need to see a demo of the system playing the latest games, in 3D, with a pair of standard 3D glasses (similar to those handed out at IMAX or Real D cinemas)"

Those IMAX glasses are designed to work with polarized 3D sources. The lenses are designed to only let one orientation of polarized light in, call it 0 or 90 degrees. One lens is rotated 90 degrees to the other, so each eye sees a separate polarization. Two projectors are used, each projecting different polarizations.

So basically, this company has apparently figured out to get your existing monitor or TV to magically display two orientations of polarized light, simultaneously! And the best part is, they are modifying the graphics card, not the display, to do it!

This whole article smells like an elaborate troll.

Re:Article text (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910286)

Actually, they use an LCD-based polarizer and only one projector. It lowers the perceived frame rate, but it's cheaper and easier than trying to line images from two projectors up perfectly.

Re:Article text (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910812)

Go look up the word "similar". You'll notice it's similar, but not identical, to the word "identical".

Once you understand what the word "similar" means, and how it is different to the word "identical", re-read the sentence you call BS on.

How many does this make? (4, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909774)

Revolutionary 3D systems are anounced about as often as Bigfoot sightings and pan out about as often. I'll believe it when I see one.

Re:How many does this make? (1)

matthewcraig (68187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909822)

Why are the answers to every Slashdot story ending posed as a question always, "NO." ?
I would really like a story filter that removed any title with the "?" character.

matthew craig is a pedophile (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909912)

read up on him at http://literotica.com/forum [literotica.com]

How many does this make?-Three! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910072)

"I'll believe it when I see one."

The problem is not everyone can see 3D. Remember those magic eye books?

Re:How many does this make? (1)

kestryn (222463) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910160)

... and see one in Best Buy with Panasonic on the label, for that matter...

Yes, (1)

Sizzlebeast (987883) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909824)

But does it run linux in 3d? ;)

In the year 2000 (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909848)

"Smellevision replaces television: Carl Stalling sez, 'It will never work!'" [wikipedia.org]

If they claimed it for games only it might be real (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909920)

It's straightforward to do this for 3D games, because the system has real depth information. Just use shutter glasses [ray3d.com] and render alternate frames with the viewpoint shifted by one eye separation distance. That's easy, and looks good if the system can render upwards of 70 fps.

But any scheme for converting existing 2D content to "3D" will probably fall somewhere between "looks stupid" and "generates splitting headaches".

Stereo vision doesn't do anything useful for objects more than a few meters away. It's most useful for close work, which is rare in games. It's more useful for mechanical CAD, medical imaging data, and similar stuff you need to view close up. Which is why 3D movies, TV, games, etc. never really caught on.

Not unreasonable... (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910310)

The Sega Master System sold 3D games with shutter glasses. The system actually worked really well except for objects close to the screen, as you'd get rather severe image separation if you were at all too close to the screen or if your television was bigger than they had expected.

The Virtual Boy also provided real stereoscopic 3D images, though the instruction manual mentions on 5 of 7 pages that it will probably make you nauseous. And they weren't kidding.

On the other hand, work from Carnegie Mellon [youtube.com] earlier this year showed that it is possible to create reasonably usable 3d images from a single 2D snapshot, assuming your snapshot contains sufficiently geometric imagery for the system to make guesses about the form. With the additional depth cues of a moving camera, and limiting the 3D to the location where the image was shot, the final 3D image could come out rather well, albeit using large strokes rather than fine brushes.

And admittedly, that's where 3D shines. Small geometric details are lost to most 3D... that's why normal maps are sufficient for most geometric details rather than full modeling, because the parallax effects are far more minor than the large color changes. Likewise, on platforms like the Virtal Boy or shutter glasses on your PC, the difference between a left-eye image and a right-eye image is so fine that using flat cardboard cutouts for each eye would be sufficient, assuming the cutouts were of good enough internal representation to make you think you see the additional depth. Just like you don't need to model the depth in a character's eye when a nice textured normal map would suffice, you wouldn't need to render the image at that level of 3D detail for a stationary dual eye image. Just make shure the person-shaped blob aligns in front of the building-shaped blob at roughly where you would expect it to assuming that the ground was flat. That's all most people would be able to discern anyway.

I saw it at eGames Expo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16909976)

It's not that good. Seriously. I mean yeah, it's cool, you look at it and think WTF?? That stuff looks like its sticking out of the screen like I'm wearing 3D glasses, but I'm not wearing 3D glasses! But after a while you think "geez that's blurry", and you soon notice that it suffers from the same problem as early LCD screens; move a little to either side and the screen goes all dark.

It's a promising start though, I look forward to what they can come up in a few years once all the problems have been worked out. And when they've got a better demo than the Team America DVD!

Don't worry disbelivers. (3, Funny)

BaronSprite (651436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16909994)

Ben Affleck will take this apart and make a better one in about 5 minutes.

oh yeah? (1)

SuperStretchy (1018064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910036)

Well I got cellophane glasses out of a cereal box that work just fine! Results are debatable, but Alyx sure looks fine in Red/Blue.

flicker++ (3, Interesting)

lucas teh geek (714343) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910066)

haha americans, for once I can say I was there... and it sucked. perhaps it'd be useful if you want to induce epileptic fits in people, but honestly, the "3D Video" stall was really lame. people would pick up the glasses, look for a while wondering why nothing happened, then someone would point out then needed to be infront of the little sensor/projector thing. so they'd move in front of it, and think to themselves "wow, this looks like crap and is giving me a headache" and put the glasses back down. total turnaround time of about a minute.

what a disappointed load of shit (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910130)

enough said, lets move on.

Not as good as it sounds (5, Informative)

zik (160926) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910146)

I was at the eGames expo on Friday and tried out the 3d display. My thought was "Oh, someone's still doing the LCD shutter glasses?". It was just the same old technology from years ago as far as I could see. The only new thing was that they'd made a clever driver which hooked into DirectX so existing games could be used in 3d.

Sorry guys, there was no 2d->3d conversion at all.

Um... (1)

midkay (984862) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910168)

"The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it."

Right. That makes total sense. The power of article submission moderation has prevailed!

AWESOME! (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910178)

as soon as they make it work with a console, I can have reason to dodge back and forth in Unreal Tournament 2004 when it's 4v1 and all I've got is a biosludge gun! It'd seriously be sweet if they added sensors that could detect you, which of course they have (you know, the black suits with white ping pong ball thingies) Ever since DDR and now the new tilt controllers, gamers are going to be moving around like crazy, especially with the development of 3D display technology. I would totally go for a sword fighting VR setup without a dumb helmet weighing me down.

Dog damn it! (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910198)

They had to come out with this just after I got my 60" HDTV. It's so EXPENSIVE staying current!

j/k

3D != 3D (1)

scovetta (632629) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910252)

As many other posters have pointed out, this is not real 3D. If it were, I would be able to move to the side and look *behind* the characters in the show. Such information simply isn't there, and can't be faked. They can play games like with the colored glasses, but that's about it.

Now, if they could convert some of these movies to make them GOOD, that would be something.

YoU 7ail it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910356)

and coKders [goat.cx]

FAKE (1)

dailynerd (1029514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910368)

This is fake, and here is why: The same author wrote an article at iTWire. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7242/52/ [itwire.com.au] Where he refernced: Vortex Home Entertainment System (as the system) and http://www.fountainconsulting.com/products.htm [fountainconsulting.com] (as the company) The list of Exhibitors from the egamesexpo in australia: http://blog.egamesexpo.com.au/static.php?page=exhi bitors [egamesexpo.com.au] Hmm... not listed as an Exhibitor

Problems with gaming (1)

smileytshirt (988345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910416)

These types of glasses have been around [edimensional.com] for a long time now. But the main sticking points with games remain:

  • You get half the FPS (each frame needs to be rendered once for each eye)
  • Motion sickness is often a problem
  • Games can appear blurred
  • Edges of screen cannot be rendered properly in 3D (you get images only one eye can see)
  • Only 3D aspects of games are supported. Dialog boxes, text, HUDs all will not work properly unless they are drawn as part of the 3D model (which they usually never are)
They would be a novelty for a few minutes, but no self respecting gamer would use them.

(plUs `one Informative) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16910458)

Love ofg 7wo is

YouTube Video (1)

Ididerus (898803) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910636)

Not sure if this is the same thing (sites out so can't check), but here is a video of something similar off of YouTube. Looks pretty authentic to me... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdY98GH7sQ [youtube.com]

I just wish I could read it... (1)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910716)

Wow....it just got posted and I already cannot get the pages. Therefore, I have no idea if this is some sort of processing technology or a display system, using mirrors, holographic, stereoscopic glasses or anything else. Thus I shall rely on the comments already posted...which don't actually tell me much. Kudos to Slashdot! Another two web servers have been brought to their knees!

how does that go again? (1)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 7 years ago | (#16910728)

hmmm. i think it goes something like: smoke and mirrors.
i have to invest in some of them. everyone's buying it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...