The brain has amazing spatial ability allowing compensating for a lack of true 3d information to approximate the sensation and ability to function as if you can see 3d. The analog is that we really have two 2d images the brain 'creates' a 3d image from, there isn't really a 3d image to start with, but the basic piece of my point is that '3d' as we define it is two different 2d images + brain processing, if you can only take in one 2d image, you can't do 3d.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Researching 3D Stereoscopic Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The brain has amazing spatial ability allowing compensating for a lack of true 3d information to approximate the sensation and ability to function as if you can see 3d. The analog is that we really have two 2d images the brain 'creates' a 3d image from, there isn't really a 3d image to start with, but the basic piece of my point is that '3d' as we define it is two different 2d images + brain processing, if you can only take in one 2d image, you can't do 3d.
I don't usually read past the first page of posts, but I just had to read on to see how badly you guys were going to burn this post.
Discounting the rest of your statement, which I find intriguing, you obviously didn't read the entire article which added:
... meaning that multiple viewers could not only see it, but see it from separate or the same viewpoint as the primary observer. Sound rather nice to me, if they can manage it.
You make a good point except for one problem; because your wife (and others) is blind in one eye, she can't see 3D at all, not even the physical articles in front of her. Only people with two functioning eyes can see 3D and even then, many of those people cannot see the artificial 3D created by most current systems, particularly those 3D matrix pieces that were such a fad a few years back. If both eyes cannot see equally (i.e. both eyes of equal strength vs one eye visually stronger than the other) then most artificial 3D technologies are worthless.
I like the concept of providing a separate image to each eye, but how can you manage that unless you are able to actually focus on the individual eyes or use some form of software-controlled glasses? In all honesty, I am so nearsighted in one eye that the goggles idea really seems better than the projection method.
Sorry but what a ludicrous comment. I feel sorry for your wife but 3D isn't possible with one eye as I am sure you realize. Let me get this straight, you are saying because some people can't see 3D no one should? Should we all shut off sound as there are deaf people out there?
What a cool thought lol. But ... wait till the porn industry get hold of this technology!!!
As seen in the Economist...
I remember reading in the Economist a few issues back where they mentioned various companies that are working on this kind of technology. I don't remember what companies were working on it, but I don't recall seeing Apple's name, though they tend to be quite secretive with what they're working on
I think this technology will be best useful consumer-wise with a TV. I can see some people wanting a monitor with 3-d...but I almost think that it might be counter-productive to have 3-d images bouncing all over the place while you're trying to work. 3-d TVs sound cool.
I remember in the article that companies were hoping for medical/science applications, which I can see as being quite beneficial. Maybe if Apple is a company that can perfect the technology, they'd be nice enough to share it with other areas, such as the medical field? Who knows what Steve has in mind...
I remember reading in the Economist a few issues back where they mentioned various companies that are working on this kind of technology. I don't remember what companies were working on it, but I don't recall seeing Apple's name, though they tend to be quite secretive with what they're working on
I think this technology will be best useful consumer-wise with a TV. I can see some people wanting a monitor with 3-d...but I almost think that it might be counter-productive to have 3-d images bouncing all over the place while you're trying to work. 3-d TVs sound cool.
I remember in the article that companies were hoping for medical/science applications, which I can see as being quite beneficial. Maybe if Apple is a company that can perfect the technology, they'd be nice enough to share it with other areas, such as the medical field? Who knows what Steve has in mind...
This just reminds me of Batman Forever too much. This will truly be the brainwash device of the century!
Information representation, not gaming
I know it sounds great to make video games go 3D and other high end graphic eye candy. The problem though, is that the high end is high end already -- there isn't much computing power to spare for the certainly intensive task of real-time 3D imaging for a moving viewer. So if you want 3D tetris, sure thing, but if you want 3D Halo, it's just too expensive to build, and it will be for a good while.
3D would be amazing, though, for representing information. GIS, spreadsheets, graphs, topographic maps, organization of windows and spaces on your computer -- this could be amazing. Increasing the dimensions means increasing the number of variables you can cleanly represent at once, and since that tends to be about two, increasing to three is HUGE.
The question is, how much does the display cost?
I know it sounds great to make video games go 3D and other high end graphic eye candy. The problem though, is that the high end is high end already -- there isn't much computing power to spare for the certainly intensive task of real-time 3D imaging for a moving viewer. So if you want 3D tetris, sure thing, but if you want 3D Halo, it's just too expensive to build, and it will be for a good while.
3D would be amazing, though, for representing information. GIS, spreadsheets, graphs, topographic maps, organization of windows and spaces on your computer -- this could be amazing. Increasing the dimensions means increasing the number of variables you can cleanly represent at once, and since that tends to be about two, increasing to three is HUGE.
The question is, how much does the display cost?
Sorry if this has been replied to; I've not read the whole thread...
With 3d technology like what is being developed by Samsung, it would be possible two view two unique 3d images at once... or even two different images at that. Heres a demo video of it at CES 08.
How did you get that photo? You're not suppose to see that room until you become an Operating Thetan Level V!!!
Well the are working more closely with nvidia. And nvidia is pretty big on the realtime rendering and animation.
Sorry, but this would be an optional part to activate in OS X. You aren't going to screw the rest of use who aren't blind and can see in 3d by both eyes.
You offer that solution and continue to work on a solution to convince the optic nerve to be able to resolve this draw back or you help regenerate the dead optic nerve on the other side through genetic research.
I read an article recently though that explained how the brain of one eyed people can arrange the data so they can 'see' a pseudo 3D which is sufficiently accurate for them to manage in the real world. It explains how my grandfather drove a car for 50 years with sight in only one eye. Shutting one eye when you have two will not recreate this as the brain requires quite a while to learn this trick. Similar but different brain effects include being able to see correctly after a while (days I imagine) with glasses that invert the world. When eventually taken off the poor test subject has to relearn to see the correct way. Don't try this at home or after drinking alcohol.
Of course this must be true. We all use all of the tricks all the time but the brain choses to pay attention to the whichever "trick" is the best at any given time which can change at any time just by looking at something else.
We can percieve depth on TV and movie screens and none of use can perceive depth past a certain distance. We use other cues such as paralex relative size and focus and it turns out atmospheric haze. Stero vision is only usfull for close up tasks.
I guess you didnt read the description closely. This isn't just stereoscopic -- it's autostereoscopic. I've not seen this anywhere before.
Most of us have seen different forms of stereoscopic vision, from those "magic eye" illusions to the imax movie with michael jackson. At my college, they had an excellent stereoscopic visualization system that even had cameras for gesture input -- but everybody in the room had to wear polarized glasses.