Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wouldn't it be far better to get a pair of those LCD screen glasses than have to somehow hold this to your face? I know you can get some that plug into the iPod dock connector; dunno if they support 3D, but surely that's the next logical step?

At least make the content for this work with other viewers (like the aforementioned glasses) if you hope for more than a dozen people to try any of it!
 
Since when did a big theatrical movie become the same thing as a toy?

I HATE 3D movies and would simply not buy a ticket if that's all a theater offereed. Yet I think this toy looks awesome.

Why are most people here acting like it's the same thing? I don't see the connection between the two.
 
Of course the real question that people should be asking with this is, "why the hell would you put a touchscreen device inside a pair of goggles?" How the heck are you supposed to do anything with it if you have to take off the glasses any time you want to click?
 
In other news, Mattel Inc. sued Hasbro and Apple for patent violations. "Unfortunately, we are forced to take steps to protect the intellectual property of our Viewmaster family of products," said a Mattel spokesperson.
 
Actually it's from a whole lot earlier than the fifties, but yeah, Hollywood tries to revive 3D every decade or so, but never really succeeds. I wonder when they'll realize that no one really cares.

If you really want to go back far, 3D movies go all the way back to silent films while the Edison motion picture patents were still valid. There are articles and notes in the Edison archives describing a polarized lens system where the audience would hold up a stereoscope like device to a screen to see 3D shorts that were a few minutes long.

No film has survived the test of time and was said to only have been shown in one theater in New York; I believe in the summer of 1910. Knowing Edison it was someone else's idea he had paid to develop in his name.
 
Last edited:
Since when did a big theatrical movie become the same thing as a toy?

I HATE 3D movies and would simply not buy a ticket if that's all a theater offereed. Yet I think this toy looks awesome.

Why are most people here acting like it's the same thing? I don't see the connection between the two.
Because this "toy" would only be useful for watching 3D movies on the iPod or still images since it essentially eliminates the primary input of the iPod, the touch screen. The only practical application I could see for this would be for those augmented reality apps where you could navigate by the accelerometer, gyroscope and GPS. You couldn't even use this for an FPS without some type of additional input for a firing mechanism.
 
I just saw the WIndows Phone ad where everybody is tripping all over themselves while staring at their phones. So I guess Hasbro saw that ad and said, "Hmm. We could make those people look even stupider!"
 
I wonder what kind of virtual/augmented reality stuff you could do with this. How about watching 3D movies? That would be awesome.

This could also be a tool to view 3D graphics while designing them, making it easier to feel the sense of depth...
 
I just saw the WIndows Phone ad where everybody is tripping all over themselves while staring at their phones. So I guess Hasbro saw that ad and said, "Hmm. We could make those people look even stupider!"

I see this as a kids, freaks and geeks market. All are used to being watched at a distance by mature adults that usually decide not to talk with them.
 
Pfft at the 3D naysayers, gaming in 3D can be pretty special. Even using something as basic as Analglyph can look incredible in the right game. Minecraft for example.

I cant imagine this working for gaming though as you've blocked off all the controls by sticking it in a pair of binoculars. :D

I'm all for 3D progress, and I think it'll take the Nintendo 3DS to really get people to accept 3D finally. Within 5 years we'll have good 3DTVs that dont need glasses too I'd imagine.. I'm avoiding being a 3DTV early adopter for that reason but I'm still a bit jealous of the gaming potential. Just because something failed in the past due to limited tech doesn't mean it's an inherently bad idea.
 
I'm in the same boat. I'm pretty much stuck with glasses and I don't see how this gadget could possibly work well with glasses.

Binoculars work with glasses, so why not?

This reminds me of an Apple patent from April 1st.

I don't understand all the 3D haters in the forum. 3D is finally getting done right. This isn't a fad, it is the technology maturing. For those of you who get headaches in the theatre, it is most likely due to the low quality glasses they give you (or you just don't hold your head straight). There are higher quality glasses (around $100) that you could buy if you have trouble with the visual defects in the "free" glasses.

On a small screen, like the iPhone, they should be able to add glasses-free 3D someday. There is a small sweet spot with this technology, so being able to move the device around is important. I'm not sure how easy it is to watch for a long time though. They may also be able to use some sort of eye tracking to automatically send the image to each eye someday. I suppose if you could turn the brightness down to a decent level you can already do 3D by holding the iPhone extremely close to your face and sending a different image to each half of the phone.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.