What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
86 Comments
- somebodyscream, on 11/02/2009, -1/+62"When I was your age, we only had 2 dimensions on the TV, and it was a big deal when high-definition became the standard. You kids these days with your 3D and your laser boats..."
- jman583, on 11/02/2009, -1/+56They're called holocrafts, gramps....
- HisNoodly, on 11/02/2009, -4/+40Finally, 3D for those of us lacking stereo vision.
Yes, people lacking two comparable visual fields see in 3D just fine. We just glean all our information from parallax - from differences resulting from micro head movements - rather than from comparing what each eye is seeing. This makes standard '3d glasses' tech completely useless for us.
Best thing I've seen (and that I *want*) is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw - leon1337, on 11/01/2009, -12/+35Parallax sound like something you would take when you're constipated.
- vsujohn2, on 11/02/2009, -1/+16Ass Pimples, in GLORIOUS 3D High-Definition!
- replaysMike, on 11/02/2009, -2/+14great for porn.
- Amadeus2490, on 11/02/2009, -0/+11It's like I can just reach out and finish him off myself!
- lambda, on 11/02/2009, -0/+73D? I'm waiting for 5D.
[crickets] - PCMichiana, on 11/01/2009, -1/+7Sweetness! Dugg
- inactive, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6Cool, but no motion.
- Coufu, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6Uh why are you getting buried? That's even better and more accessible today than the original submission.
- b1kerguy, on 11/02/2009, -1/+6when photography first started, there was no action either, give it time and people will adapt it to sports
- inactive, on 11/01/2009, -1/+6That was pretty cool.
- NeoTechni, on 11/02/2009, -1/+6never
- glendower, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4well, if you have ever played a game in 3d (not shudder glasses or polarized light, but two separate outputs) then you would understand. Zombies running right at you, the helicopter chase in HL2, and high speed racing all make you want to ***** yourself.
- sickswaystop, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4Um, anyone else expecting to see a moving picture- as in some type of video? I wanna see how a football game will look in 3D.
- HisNoodly, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4Yes. They must be hunted down and tortured until they rethink their priorities.
- aceallways, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3too bad two years later no developers are picking up on it...
- NeddieSeagoon, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3So how would you actually film something in 3D for this thing? Standard 3D cameras only shoot from 2 viewpoints. If this displays a slightly different image for every possible viewpoint, wouldn't you need a special camera with a huge array of lenses?
- zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3yes
- Tddupre, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3Where's my jetpack?
- crazysamz, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3These comments suck!
- DoctorPeptalk, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3i don't really understand the push for 3D tbqh...
- nubnub, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2because I'm going to be moving around when I'm watching stuff
- Mexrocker, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2I've seen a demo of the Toshiba 3D TV... it wasn't that great and it looked blurry at times. After a few minutes my eyes started to hurt, hopefully this isn't a big issue.
- zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2actually it would work but with less effect. it would be like the video
since the camera only has one lens. it could still work without stereo vision - fragMasterFlash, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Its in the trunk of my flying car.
- Amadeus2490, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Parallax stool softener.
- Skootles, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2http://www.instantcrickets.com/
- tgc1, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2This was the first thing I thought of. That guy was a genius in figuring this out. And the tech demo was incredible!
- ushere, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2wow - i can watch all the crap that's on tv in 3d!? i can wait.....
- inactive, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2of course. but there was no motion.
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2I guarantee some parts of you will be moving when watching 3D porn.
- Coufu, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2This is only going to work for computer-rendered images. If you want to watch porn/football game in 3D, they're going to need to have cameras pointing from every conceivable angle and sync them all to point at a single location (like how they did the special effects in The Matrix). I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Cool, nonetheless. - HisNoodly, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2All the time. You don't keep your head rock-still when watching, Information from tiny-unnoticed head movements is enough to provide a wealth of 3d info. Also, since your eyes do indeed have a fixed distance between them, they will indeed be getting different images.
- zeiben, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Sure you will...only very slightly, up and down, but rapidly, and at a consistent pace
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Which was when?
- Cogboy, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1This plus shutter/polarised glasses for video games would be fantasic.
true 3d with parallax with only a stereo render. :O - zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1actually you don't have to move around because you have two eyes you could still see the parallax effect
- jarjarbinx, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Time to save up for a 100" Parallax TV!
- zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1actually you could add motion but that would need 16 video cameras one for each projector and they also need to keep adjusting the cameras to keep the object in focus cause if you don't it would have some sort of cross-eye effect but instead of just doubling the image but making 16 of them
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Dude works for Microsoft, I would be willing to bet they are exploring the possibilities of what he has done and are probably developing their own proprietary system.
I could see them integrating this into Project Natal and also into a standalone device. - zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1i agree even though you have to carry them and the possibility of losing them the glasses are compact, cheap and only uses two cameras while this would probably be expensive and we could still use the glasses
- Myztry, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1You wouldn't have to move. It's perspective dependant which means each eye gets a different perspective which gives the 3D effect. You would also see an entirely different perspective than someone who is viewing from the other side (left vs. right vs. up vs. down). What you see isn't just dependant on the offset of your eyes but also on your viewing position which is the only effect they show and identical to what I first saw back in the 80's with wall mounted holograms.
They fail to show motion which is what would makes it a video/movie rather than a still 3D picture. - zack852, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1exactly my point well kinda but you get the idea
- HisNoodly, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Well this IS digg... :p
- JoeRW, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1I contest that DLP projector @85hz with shutter glasses delivers on par, especially if you sit 6ft from the wall.
- Ghostwo, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1You'd need 16 cameras. At least until computers can seamlessly generate the missing data based on two images, or they develop a 'parallax camera'. This whole thing reminds me of that 'Paycheck' movie....
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is