What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
58 Comments
- tryptonaut, on 10/27/2009, -0/+193d porn will be a bangin new market!
- Dougman82, on 10/27/2009, -1/+9Great... you know, with my one working eye, it always sucked when I was little and my friends would try to show me those Magic Eye images. It was silly, but I never could help but feel a little bad for myself because I couldn't see this super cool thing that everyone else could. But, I was able to deal with it - just a stupid picture in a stupid book, right?
Now all the cool stuff like movies, TV, and video games are going 3D. I'm just going to go have a pity party for myself now. - burrdugg, on 10/27/2009, -4/+11Mark my words, I predict the demise of 3D technology.
- lumio, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6I think something that would help move this along is if you could buy awesome stunner shades that also acted as 3d glasses. They could make it work im sure.
- TatsuTerror, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6That's been said about every emerging technology.
This isn't like the Blu-Ray v. HD DVD battle though. 2D v. 3D...3D will prevail once the technology reaches a certain caliber. And you can mark my words on that. - JulioChavez, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6or 3) You're one of these: "56 percent of those 18 to 38 years of age have one or more problems with binocular vision and therefore could have difficulty seeing 3D." In which case, "it might be time to see an opthamologist and get screened for amblyopia."
- ThraxyWaxy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5It's AMAZING. I saw a couple home-videos shot in low quality 3D and even that was really cool, so imagine when the big porn studios roll it out in high quality, POV takes on a whole new meaning.
- DaviDTC, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6They weren't just a stupid picture in a stupid book. They were ***** amazing. You should have seen!
- PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/27/2009, -2/+7I'm still really doubtful that a 3D solution that involves any kind of glasses will catch on to the point of color TV or stereo (meaning always on and available on everything). Until someone can walk into a room, turn on the TV and see a 3D image without any problems, it's just going to remain a gimmick, even if it becomes fairly common.
- theuniversal, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6"The other big hurdle is the whole stupid looking glasses argument -- which doesn't make that much sense since you'll be wearing them in the privacy of your own home."
Actually, the argument about the glasses does make sense. It's not just that they look stupid, but that they add one layer of inconvenience between your eyes and the screen. I bet that is one layer too many for the technology to become mainstream. - bewareofthecow, on 10/27/2009, -1/+6The glasses would make any 3D technology a deal breaker for me. Until they can solve the 'glasses' problem 3D is nothing more than a gimmick.
Finding some ***** glasses to put over top of your existing glasses, or managing to keep enough of these lying around for when people come over? And who is really going to bother using these things to watch TV?
Personally I'd much rather see a strong push to 1600p. Not only in displays but in producing CONTENT at that resolution as well. 1080p has been around for so long yet there is so little content that takes full advantage of it. I don't care if your blu-ray can stream a 1080p signal from the disk, if the content was produced at much lower resolution then all you are getting is an upscaled image (not the same). Still 90% of video games for both the PS3 and 360 are 720p. Most movies are still filmed with some sort of 35mm film which translates roughly to about 720p in digital. Display technology is not the problem here... it is time for content producers to catch up. - jeffambo, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Looks like plans have changed and the new focus is on money.
Like every ***** thing. - jimh542, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3check out WWW. Vuzix.com. They sell a reasonably affordable set of 3d glasses with LCD screens. I use the VR920 set to play PC games.
- bewareofthecow, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4And that will be after they get rid of the stupid glasses gimmick.
- 1Bad, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3When I wear the theater 3D glasses outside, everything is so much more 3D.
- Lucid00, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Yea, I don't think it'll really take off until they drop the need for glasses.
- RobotBuddha, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3If it makes you feel any better, my right leg and foot are a mess. I'd gladly trade you my eye for your leg if it were possible.
- RickScarf, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5So what about all the people who need to wear glasses to see clearly? Glasses on top of glasses does not work well.
- RobotBuddha, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3I hope they hurry, I'm tired of having to pay extra for this at the theaters. Or go to the theaters at all, for that matter.
- ChromaVita, on 10/27/2009, -2/+5I think one day it'll absolutely catch on. It might not be this technology, or any time soon but someday it will.
- lambda, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I'm waiting for 5D
- sd2001, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Oh, hello Betamax of the 21st century.
- lumio, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Wait are you kidding? Because I do, sometimes, and windshields and random things have this cool 3d effect to them.
- prompel, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Cost.
- smendezz, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3There was a Nvidia 3d stuff at my local Fry's, where you had to put the glasses and look at the tv. I tried it and it's one of these two:
1)It wasn't working (eventough the nvidia 3d accelerator was turned on)
2)It looked like the same *****. - fuzzynyanko, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3I wonder if people would actually deal with the glasses for 3d. If so, what would keep companies from putting tiny LCD/LED displays on them instead?
- jdtix, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Booger.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009 ... - linagee, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2If it's so easy, where is your mainstream product?
- DaviDTC, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Already being made.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2it was a sailboat all along...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIw06mkP5E8#t=3m49s - VinceIP, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2It's kind of ironic that 3D entertainment has actually been around since the 1920s, and it's just now being integrated into gaming.
- QuantumSingular, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Nvidia 3d vision is unbelievable! I've been playing Fallout 3 with it on a 52" DLP and I'm absolutely in love with it. Like the article said, it's hard to convey how incredible it is until you've experienced it first hand. This is unquestionably the best thing any gamer could buy. Unfortunately, the entry level price is a little painful.
- bewareofthecow, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Absolutely.
- EtherGnat, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2"I do not understand why the industry is doing this... as the whole point of 3D is to bring people to the theaters."
You realize there are different industries at play here, right? I'm pretty sure the major point for Samsung, Panasonic, Mitsubishi and the like is making profit for themselves. Sure there is some crossover with companies like Sony that have a stake in what happens with theaters, but I still don't see why an entire technology should be held back just to save one struggling industry. - Dr3w, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Here's some info on that badass 3D Panny concept pictured at the top of the article: http://gizmodo.com/5220145/panasonic-camcorder-pac ...
- ramalingamn, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1what is a 4D?
our normal world is 3D.
If we see normal films with our bare eyes, it is 2D.
If we put the 3D glasses and see the outside world it will be 4D! - jimrooney, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2Call me when you can do it without glasses.
Till then it's the same old sh*t. - aztecgames, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1If you own an xbox360 then you can see just how far 3d display tech has come.
Stereo3D Gallery is an indie game which demonstrates some various techniques used to display 3d to the user.
Anaglyph - The old red/blue glasses everyone has seen.
Wiggle Stereoscopy - Where the image stereo pair is alternated to produce a 3d image.
Crossview - This mode produces the best image quality if you are able to do it. You get a true hd stereoscopic effect which most resembles the image quality discussed in this article.
Glasses are only required for the anaglyph picture sets.
You can download direct here:
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/games/media/66ac ... - cathicks, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Our industry is far from struggling. ;)
- homercles337, on 10/27/2009, -3/+43D TV did so well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s that im certain this time its bound to be different. Right?
- chriswilson08, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1The complicated part is in the panel, not the glasses. You either have to have a panel with double the response rate of current panels to show twice as many pictures, which probably isn't practical as of yet, or you have to display the picture twice as many times by doubling the pixel count. My only point is they seem to be over complicating things with the glasses, although they probably have a good reason, I'm just not sure why.
- cathicks, on 10/27/2009, -4/+5I do not understand why the industry is doing this... as the whole point of 3D is to bring people to the theaters.
-Someone working in 3D animation - Astrad, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Panny is a nickname for panavision...just saying....
- srg13, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1"Most movies are still filmed with some sort of 35mm film which translates roughly to about 720p in digital. "
No.... You can get a fully detailed scan of a 35mm negative at about 4K - after that, you just start see the grain in more detail. That's four and a half times the resolution of 1080p or about 10 times 720p though ( calculation, assuming frame aspect is 16:9 (which is 1.78:1) - http://www.google.com.au/search?q=(4096*2304)%2F(1 ... ).
Now, while quite a few movies are scanned at 4K, almost all go through the digital immediate process at 2K, which is a quarter the res of 4K. Still, this is about 10% higher resolution than 1080p and 2.6 times the resolution of 720p.
There's no way that 35mm camera neg or a master print would translate to 720p... - linagee, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Samsung. They've had 3D ready DLP TVs since 2007 now.
- linagee, on 10/27/2009, -0/+15D porn will be awesome!
- FishHammer, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Just give me the name of the first company expected to successfully make this work so I can start investing. If it's anything like Google my $0.20 shares will appreciate slightly.
- truck87bp, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1A Team in California did this 30 years ago with a VCR and a new twin lens camera and you didn't need glasses. Japan put a stop to it because they had bought the rights to the VCR recording head Patents. Put the firm out of business. Its taken this long to figure out how to do it Digital.
Thanks JAPAN. - hypogenic, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Summed up the taste of coke perfectly.
- bewareofthecow, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Obviously it is almost impossible to accurately compare real film to digital in terms of resolution. Just because you 'scan' the film at a higher resolution doesn't mean it improves the quality of the picture. In order to do that you would need to film at a larger frame size, like IMAX. Anyone who has watched The Dark Knight on blu-ray at 1080p can testify to the enormous difference between the IMAX scenes and the standard 35mm scenes... On my 133" screen at 1080p I can say the difference is night and day. My point is that there is still very little content that takes advantage of the 1080p resolution and 35mm is a limitation of that.
I'm sure it is very cost prohibited to use IMAX for standard motion pictures, so perhaps it is time Hollywood find a technology other than CCD to digitally replace film? -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 