New idea for passive 3d monitor

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by RandomBloke, Jul 23, 2010.

  1. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB
    Hey,

    Had an idea that I thought I'd share. Maybe it's been thought before, although I'm not aware of it. Let me know what you think!

    It's inspired by the glasses-free technology of the nintendo 3DS, but scaled up to the size of a pc monitor (of any size!). As I'm sure you all know, the reason that the nintendo 3DS can be 3D without requiring glasses is that different images are received by the left and right eyes. As a consequence, this means that there is a very (very!) narrow viewing angle, and the screen has to be very small (which is why it can only used for handheld equipment).

    So, imagine having a 2D array of 3DS's in front of you mimicing a pc monitor (ugly, but bear with me...). Now in order to get the 3D effect correctly, they would all have to be directly facing your head. Note that it is only neccesary to pivot about the y-axis, i.e. up-down pivoting is not neccesary for this technology since our eyes are separated horizontally, not vertically. Also, all of the 3DS's would all have to be the same distance away from your head (again, left-to-right), in order to have a uniform 3D effect across the array. So in effect, you've created a tube-like monitor in front of you (or if fully extended around you, it would be like a pod).

    So, my idea is to construct a big screen (not a bunch of 3DS's, lol) that is bent in one direction to form a kind of semi-circle (or quarter-circle or whatever), and uses the same technology as the 3Ds to create the 3D effect. This would require the user to remain in a fixed position at the focus of the screen in order to properly benefit from the 3D effect.

    Further expanding on this idea, the screen could be flexible (to some relatively small degree), allowing the user to decide how far away from the screen they want to be. We all know that flexible screens are out there in development, so the technology exists to do this. The feasible range of distances would be directly related to the manufacturing process used to construct the screen (i.e. how small they can get the fabrication process without inducing too much error), which will determine pixel density. That, combined with screen size, will determine potential pixel resolution.

    Further expanding this idea (we're now talking ultra expensive, not for home use unless you're insanely rich), you could have a huge "screen" which goes in a full circle around you, going from floor to ceiling, creating a circular pod-like room. This room would place the user into full immersion of a computer-generated environment. While the idea of doing this with standard screens has been toyed with in the past (and possibly even done?), this idea would allow the user to be placed into a full 3D environment all around them. Wouldn't that be incredible! I bet theme parks would buy it.

    What do you think? Flexible 3D screen that doesn't need glasses!
     
  2. thecake90

    thecake90 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Nvidia 1060GTX
  3. inklimited

    inklimited Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 6850 900MHz
  4. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB
    @inklimited: the camera to sense the position of the user in the 3DS allows software to adapt in order to allow the user to "see around the corners" of the screen. However, I believe it does not actually effect the hardware. Neither does it improve the viewing angle - the hardware would have to adapt in order to improve the viewing angle, which would make the manufacturing process much more expensive, I would imagine. So, the camera is great from a software point of view, but not an improvement for the technology.

    However, it would be interesting if a (pair of) camera(s) could be situated on the screen, and have the screen mechanically tilt in pseudo-realtime in order to ensure that the viewer's head is always at the focus of the screen. A bit crazy, but hey, it's worth a thought!

    @thecake90: I am aware of a few prototypes of glasses-free screens that are out there. However, just because there is one technology, doesn't mean that other technologies should not be tried and are redundant. This is particularly true in this case, as there is no glasses-free 3D monitor technology that is deemed to be brilliant enough to take the market by storm and end up in everyone's homes - until there is, new technologies need to be invented in order to stimulate progress! All technologies have advantages and disadvantages. For example, the link to the big 3D TV that you posted has major disadvantages that would rule it out for people like myself: narrow viewing angles - the screen would not scale to bigger sizes, as the edges of the screen would be outside of the viewing angle - that is why the user has to be located 10ft from the screen! So, in order to make it so that you could have it on your desk, the screen would have to be scaled down massively, so that it would actually be really quite small (around 10x less pixels, if the technology was converted directly). So, we're talking roughly 2-3 times the size of the 3DS screens. So, it's great if you want it as a TV, and want to sit exactly 10ft from it, but will be rubbish as a PC monitor because you can't have it 3ft away from you on your desk. I was trying to avoid some of these problems by having a curved screen in my idea. The concave screen allows the distance to be reduced between the viewer and the screen without compromising screen size, pixel resolution, or 3D effect. Does that make sense?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2010

  5. inklimited

    inklimited Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 6850 900MHz
    I would imagine that a screen displaying two images simulaneously would result in a viewing angle of zero.

    Also... stereoscopy hurts my eyes.
     
  6. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB

    No, the viewing angle (and comfort/discomfort) will be determined by the implementation of the parallax barrier. See here if you don't know what that is:

    http://mediakick.org/2010/06/21/nintendo-3ds-how-it-works/

    Also, if stereoscopy hurts your eyes, then either you haven't tried a good 3d solution, or you haven't set it up correctly!
     
  7. inklimited

    inklimited Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 6850 900MHz
    Even playing Crysis hurts my eyes. I have progressive myopia, which just means my eyes will keep getting worse and worse until I'm blind or something. If I can't get a sharp focus on something my eyes go crazy and the muscles ache. Too many shader effects in Crysis confuses my bad eyes. :p

    That parallax barrier reminds me of looking through a key hole. I will have to find one to look at so I can be more objective.

    I still like the camera idea used on the DSi. I could use that in FPS games to look around corners, for instance. Iron sights would also be a lot more fun. ;)
     
  8. Mufflore

    Mufflore Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,556
    Likes Received:
    679
    GPU:
    Redacted by NDA
    This exists in a different form http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/.
     
  9. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    277
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080GTX STRIX
    Didn't have a problem with it in games where each eye had 60fps, but in the cinema I could clearly see framelag on occasions and if avatar took half an hour longer, I would've ended up with a migraine.
     
  10. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB
    I agree - it is very important for 3D images to have a high fps. In particular, 60fps for passive solutions (that is, 60fps for each eye), and 120fps for active shutter glasses.

    @Corrupt: yes, I agree about Avatar. Brilliant movie, loved it. 3D was great. But why on earth didn't they film it at a higher fps? That's what really annoys me - why bother making things HD if the frame rate is rubbish! I think that there should be a HD standard that implies a high refresh rate; 24-30fps is just not enough! Particularly in fast action scenes - ruins the film experience. I know that there are blu-ray formats that allow higher fps, but why is it not standard for movies to be filmed at >30fps?!
     

  11. Kalish colt

    Kalish colt Active Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS 5870
    It's like this because this frame rate is required for the cinema's resolution. That's why movies' camera panes are slower than a conventional recording for example ok?
     
  12. scoter man1

    scoter man1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,725
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1070ti
    I was gonna say, why the heck do the active shutter glasses look like crap? I put them on at bestbuy and I could see the image flickering in both eyes. It was driving me crazy. Makes sense if movies are under 30fps.
     
  13. dcx_badass

    dcx_badass Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,983
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Palit GTX 1060 6GB
  14. Mufflore

    Mufflore Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,556
    Likes Received:
    679
    GPU:
    Redacted by NDA
    Either
    1) you are are very sensitive to fast flickering
    2) they cant set it up for toffee
    3) the glasses were not compatible with the TV used (ie they cant be synced properly)
     
  15. dcx_badass

    dcx_badass Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,983
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Palit GTX 1060 6GB
    Nah I'm not sensitive to it (60hz is fine etc.), I was trying it in PC world and it was flickering badly, they said it's due to the lighting used in shops (florescent tubes etc.) that mess with it.
     

  16. Laykun

    Laykun Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x EVGA GTX670 4GB
    Notice that they don't move the 3DS around a heck of a lot? This because there are serious latency issues when it comes to eye tracking. It's all done through software and takes multiple cycles to actually figure out where the users eyes are. It's done through software because there is no dedicated silicone for this type of mechanism, and I doubt there ever will be.

    The idea of a 2D array of 3DS is novel but ill informed. You'd be better off strapping a Wii mote to your head and using that for headtracking on a normal screen. There are also commercial tracking units http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/ (The trackIR5 for example).
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  17. SnooSnoo

    SnooSnoo Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Intel HD510
    The Holodeck idea is in AMD/ATi roadmaps.
     
  18. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB
    I should clarify that my idea was not actually a 2D array of 3DS - that was just a tool with which to help people visualize the idea. Rather, it would indeed be a single screen that was engineered using a parallax barrier (similarly to a 3DS). So, it would pretty much look like the flexible monitor in the "Attached Thumbnails" box below.

    It would indeed be possible to do this on a flat monitor, and use head tracking equipment. However, in order to do this, the parallax barrier would have to be non-homogeneous (i.e. spacing between barriers would not be equal throughout the screen) in order to focus on a single point (your head), which would allow the screen to be flat rather than concave. Then, you would be limited to a very specific distance from the screen (say 3ft, for a desk monitor), based on the separation of the parallax barriers (but at least it wouldn't have to be 10ft away like the existing solution - this is one of the advantages of the flexible screen, i.e. with a flexible screen you can choose how far away you want to sit!).

    In order to use a head tracker with parallax barrier technology effectively, the head tracker software would have to shift the parallax barrier left-to-right in quasi-real-time as the user moves their head. Since this involves the engineering of precise and quick moveable screen in front of the pixel display, that could prove to be a bit of an engineering challenge. The question would be: which is easier and cheaper to manufacture: flexible screen with homogeneous parallax barrier, or flat screen with heterogeneous software-shiftable parallax barrier?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  19. RandomBloke

    RandomBloke Banned

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 780 Ti 3GB
    Yeah, that looks cool. How much would it be to have one of them at home, even if it was commercial during our lifetimes? lol. We can only dream!
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010

Share This Page