Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Dual-Layer 3d Monitors

arn

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
16,415
5,881
Per a Macsurfer link... Deep Video Imaging is planning on introducing dual-layer monitors this spring:

Siegel said the 3-D environment is created by pushing light through two flat-panel LCD screens using a process that doesn't distort the images. The dual displays are built one on top of the other - with space in between - into one case.

Siegel said the monitors vary in depth depending on the type. For example, the ActualDepth displays designed for information kiosks have a 40mm separation, while screens for small hand-helds have only 5mm of space. But the effect is similar, Siegel said.
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2002/04/01/dual-layer-3d-monitors/
Now why the "*ç% would you want two displays in one?? Unless there is really "special" reason... Imagine that in an iMac, an iMac with a gigantic 5 inch screen... YUCK!
 
Originally posted by dukestreet
There was already a thread on this,

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php3?threadid=3342

It seems cool, and its basically two monitors in one, so you save on deskspace.
Click to expand...

hmm... forgive me if i'm missing the point, but what's a real pratical application for this? couldn't someone just write a shareware app that makes windows on a normal screen translucent? i mean, i would find overlaid screens terribly annoying....i realize your eyes would focus differently, thus creating two points of reference, but is that worth thousands of dollars?

pnw
 
The two layers, actually two separate lcd displays, require two video inputs. Think of it as a photoshop file with two layers, the foreground has transparency on the white pixels, so what is below, shows through. The offset between the layers give a perception of depth, and if its done right, through software, you get 3D imagery.

The window gets a little confusing, there is no doubt, so you have to use it a bit to understand what's going on. Its not exactly practical for the average user, and at the $6k price, I'd rather have 2 22" Apple Displays. I'd love to see one in action first hand though.
 
Originally posted by paulwhannel


hmm... forgive me if i'm missing the point, but what's a real pratical application for this?

pnw
Click to expand...

The same one of buying a Ferrari... having a very expensive object that not every body can afford.
 
I think it's cool. The Mac OS UI was designed to give it the illusion of depth, and Apple could make a driver where the active window, or whatever pops up on top when using basic programs like the desktop, etc., and then they actually cast a shadow on the rest of the layers.

This would be a really cool technology for apple to incorporate into some of their displays. just think, 23 inches of HD in 3D... And note, they would only be seperated 4cm (40mm), and i'm assuming that it's just the LCD part, which is relatively thin. I believe that it would only require one backlight, sl just make the display a little thicker. That can be done without having it take up much more space. And, if the prices of LCD's ever fall, like they were suppoused to, we may see this type of stuff standard in 2-3 years.

BTW, I believe that comparing this new technology to a ferarri is a little out of whack. IBM's Big Blue, or any other super-computer with thousands of processors could be compared to a ferarri...
 
Originally posted by paulwhannel


hmm... forgive me if i'm missing the point, but what's a real pratical application for this? couldn't someone just write a shareware app that makes windows on a normal screen translucent? i mean, i would find overlaid screens terribly annoying....i realize your eyes would focus differently, thus creating two points of reference, but is that worth thousands of dollars?

pnw
Click to expand...

RTA! ;)

it means your screen actually has a physical depth - windows below the open window appear further away (essentially the idea of the transparency effect in aqua but with added depth)....or further examples being a your h/d structure appearing in 3-d, with enclosed folders further away. Now imagine UT with a truly 3-d element - even if it gives a small illusion of depth it'd be fun. hopefully this works without inducing massive eyestrain, however, I dont see it being hugely expensive - after all, it cant be any more expensive than a 23" cinema display! ;)


And the designer - well, kudos for the final comment in the article!
 
Ahah... now I understand.

The concept seems cool, but for me it would be a mess. How would you control which windows are transparant and which are not? I think it would become an engineering hell for Apple. If for example the dock is on the first screen and you minimize a window on the second screen the Apple engineers would have to put code allowing connections beetween both envoirments.

What about playing games? It might be cool if you have transparant effects in the game (like transparant wall in Oni), but for games like Quake I don't see how this could be usefull.

Last but not least, wouldn't this take a "great" tax on the system? I mean moving and minimizing transparant windows in 10 right now isn't really speedy, and if we are gonna have tons of them or even transparant windows over more transparant windows, I think we are going to have to wait a couple more years before OS 10's speed are adequate.
 
The only logical way of doing this is having the formost windows transparant, but what happens if the background of the page your using is a dark color with another related dark color. This would be hell cause you wouldn't be able to read anything and web designers would no more have any control how their site looks.

Just image a transparant photoshop window with your background seeping through! I don't know about the rest of you but I couldn't work like that!

Unless of course I have misunderstood the whole concept :eek: :( :confused:
 
Originally posted by Pants

after all, it cant be any more expensive than a 23" cinema display! ;)
Click to expand...

The 17" version goes for $6000, almost twice as much as a 23" Apple Display.
 
Can't be more expensive than the 23" Cinema Display

BTW, Dell is having a sale on monitors, including a flat panels:
21" NEC/Mitsubishi with 1600 by 1200 resoution is $3347.
23" Apple with 1920 by 1200 res is $3499. Once again Apple has a better product for equal or less money than even Dell (like the iMac). If this continues even the loudest whiners may eventually get the message. Apple has the quality, design, beauty, innovation, user experience, AND price now.
 
Why would I want to spend a ton of money flying to California in a noisy cold dangerous airplane when I could just take the train?
 
Originally posted by wwworry
Why would I want to spend a ton of money flying to California in a noisy cold dangerous airplane when I could just take the train?
Click to expand...

Have you looked in what Amtrak is charging for cross county trips? You might still take the plane.
 
Re: Can't be more expensive than the 23" Cinema Display

Originally posted by sjs
BTW, Dell is having a sale on monitors, including a flat panels:
21" NEC/Mitsubishi with 1600 by 1200 resoution is $3347.
23" Apple with 1920 by 1200 res is $3499. Once again Apple has a better product for equal or less money than even Dell (like the iMac). If this continues even the loudest whiners may eventually get the message. Apple has the quality, design, beauty, innovation, user experience, AND price now.
Click to expand...

It would be a real poke in the eye to the peecee crowd if they even knew about it. No advertising of the fact to the masses.

As for the transparant monitor, I assume it consumes alot of system resources, but graphics cards are more than 10 times as powerful as a few short years ago and I have a graphics card that cost $1800 which is silly compared to the recently announced Radeon 8500 for $299 ($150 with trade-in).

Also as soon as this thing moves from the cool prototype stage to any level of production it will certainly cost less than twice a normal LCD screen of same size. The drivers will evolve as well and yes, it may be linited in the tasks it is suited for, but so many people buy computer products for pure ego it would not surprise me if alot of people bought them.

Thus the LCD shortage of imacs is likely to continue for some time to come :)

Rocketman
 
Originally posted by dukestreet
Have you looked in what Amtrak is charging for cross county trips? You might still take the plane.
Click to expand...

Oh, and the train stops at every podunk town between here and there. If you have to change trains, expect huge delays. Finally, you think the plane is noisy, at least it doesn't honk every couple of miles.

Clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk!!!

That gets pretty annoying after a while, especially when the guy in front of you hasn't showered, the lady and her ADHD brat next to you are screaming at each other, and the prick behind you keeps kicking your seat.

At least on an airplane everyone is uncomfortable and the ride ends sooner.
 
It's simple physics.

My guess would be that it would imploy the same principle as a 3D movie theator.

Polarized light.

One lcd would shoot light vertically and the other horizontally. Lcd's are already polarized. Yes even yours.

This would, however, require the use of "3D glasses".

Just a thought

-Thomas
 
Got to be a joke

This has to be a joke. It makes no sense. Everything on the front layer becomes magically translucent? You can see through the movie to the email app below? This would be a feature? "This movie is really great. I wish that damn Aunt Martha would quit sending me email though. It keeps messing up the picture."
 
Jeez, yer all missing the point.

It works like this:

Split the refresh between the two......perhaps even alternating vertical stripes one pixel wide like the old spinning slit-wheel. It's not about translucent windows it's about REAL DEPTH in the OS.

In reference to Quake: It would be immeasureably useful to have real depth with no annoying goggles. Think about what it would do for CAD, Adobe Atmosphere, any 3D app.

Any open GL application can do this. Formac used to do a video card with 2 channels. 1 channel went to the monitor, the other to a set of LCD glasses that got half the frames. It was AMAZING. If Apple does this with a monitor it would be INCREDIBLE. JefHAtfield may remember us playing Quake3 with that setup on a G4 at Computerware.
 
Originally posted by mcrain
Clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk, clickety clank, clickety clank, clickety clank, Honk, Honk!!!
Click to expand...

see this proves my point about the plane.
 
Last Quote

About 3/4 through the article, it states that Siegel was on the original Mac design team. Following is a great quote by him:

"Windows is a great rip-off of the Mac OS. My life has been spent looking for technology that would really make a difference like that."

This should really benefit the Mac community, as I'm sure he'll be gunning for Mac support from Day 1. Which is how it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back