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

Head Tracking Allows Glasses Free 3D on iPad

smithrh said:
Quite a few people don't have good depth perception, or none at all.

People with unequal strength eyes will oftentimes grow up without much depth perception, to no ill effect.
Click to expand...


Yup, I fall into this category. I have good vision from the perspective that it's sharp and I can see at different focal lengths, but I had a muscle weakness in my eyes as a child (partially corrected via surgery). As a result, 3D doesn't do a lot for me. The loss of brightness and slight lens glare is not worth the trade-off for the (for me) barely noticeable 3D effect in movies.

But something like this seems quite interesting.
 
Nice, just like Nintendo 3DS, I hope the next version of iOS will have support for 3D..
 
I think some people are missing what makes this such a unique concept. Unlike gyroscope controlled 3D illusions, with this you can sit your iPad on a flat, unmoving surface and still perceive the 3D space by moving your head only. You can't do that with gyroscope based modeling.
 
Mooey said:
This is a misnomer. It is not glasses-free 3D. No image is protruding from the screen. Also, the Wii has done this already. It looks a lot better in that it tracks not only your head but your depth of field.

Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
Click to expand...

Well, yes...

The Nintendo 3DS is based on stereoscopic so it is 3D within a certain viewing distance (adjustable, but fine with a small gaming portable with not as much processing power).

I would imagine this sort of thing requires a dual-core A5 processor/graphics?
 
Small White Car said:
So?
Click to expand...

When you are looking at 3D with glasses, the image protrudes from the screen. In essence, when you are looking at 3D without glasses, the image should protrude from the screen. Since there's no protrusion, this qualifies as a misnomer.
 
Ah, computer vision guys. We know that from Grenoble there are very strong developments in this area. I am working more in Image Processing with some usage of computer vision... new ways of communication and latest developments in machine learning and computer vision sometimes sprang out in quite surprising solutions!

Definitely, it will be interesting to see how it will develop.

Though, i love more that music in background :)
 
i'm quite impressed at how well this works! Never thought of using the front facing camera to track the face and display an image accordingly....

Shame my 1st gen ipad doesn't have a ff camera.
 
Ruahrc said:
While a neat technology, it's a bit of a stretch to really call this "glasses-free 3D". Unlike the 3DS, where actual illustion of depth is present, this is just changing the perspective on a rendered 3D object on the screen based on head position. The image that the left and right eye sees are the same, thus no actual "3D" effect.
Click to expand...

To be honest, you have just countered your own argument, none of the 3D technology is actually true 3D, its all illusions. They both have the 3D effect just done in different ways. I'm not saying the 3DS isn't great but it only gives the effect if you look straight at it.
 
Mooey said:
When you are looking at 3D with glasses, the image protrudes from the screen. When you are looking at 3D without glasses, the image should protrude from the screen.

Since there's no protrusion, a misnomer.
Click to expand...

3D - Meaning the illusion of width, height, and depth.

This has all 3 of those.

Who says the screen has to be at the back of the depth instead of the front? I mean, clearly you do, but why?

Both kinds of 3D imaging have an illusion of depth. Why does the direction of that depth matter?

I saw Tangled in the theaer in 3D. About 10% of the effects 'popped out' at me. The other 90% of the effects seemed to be behind the screen. Did Disney consider Tangled a "10% 3D movie?" I doubt it.
 
Just to clarify this:

This effect has a) nothing to do with the accelerometer or gyro; b) nothing to do with the effect seen in Nintendo 3DS c) nothing to do with perceiving depth.
What looks amazing on that video because it is 2D is actually a not very convincing effect. The problem is, that the display is NOT a 3D display. Don't get this wrong, there is no 3D functionality built in the iPad 2 whatsoever, so both of your eyes will see the same picture, so that you won't think that this is 3 dimensional at all.

If, however, this technique could be combined with a new display technology that works like the (pretty bad btw) display of the 3DS, BUT with some kind of moving "sweet spot", this effect could in fact trick your eyes in a very convincing way (and would be the first 3D display technology that would convince me). There are I think already patents for a display like that. I think they even are from apple.

(Sorry for the english btw, not a native speaker)
 
Small White Car said:
3D - Meaning the illusion of width, height, and depth.

This has all 3 of those.

Who says the screen has to be at the back of the depth instead of the front? I mean, clearly you do, but why?

Both kinds of 3D imaging have an illusion of depth. Why does the direction of that depth matter?

I saw Tangled in the theaer in 3D. About 10% of the effects 'popped out' at me. The other 90% of the effects seemed to be behind the screen. Did Disney consider Tangled a "10% 3D movie?" I doubt it.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that this isn't 3D. I'm arguing that this video is deemed as glasses-free.
 
ventro said:
This 3D tech is not as cool as it looks in these videos. Both your eyes receive the same image, so your brain knows its not 3D. Nothing will look like its "popping" out of your screen at you.
Click to expand...

I like this better than the 3D requiring glasses. As somebody else clarified 3D is being able to see all three dimensions.

Let's hope that if they do it, there is an option to switch it on or off

Thinking about battery life.
 
hismikeness said:
Coupled with a higher res screen, this will be awesome, IMO.
Click to expand...

You hit it on the mark, but here is the big question what kind of video processing would it need to do retinal which is what I figure you mean to make it all smooth. that is a lot of pixels to run.

Anyone have ideas?
 
SgtPepper12 said:
Just to clarify this:

This effect has a) nothing to do with the accelerometer or gyro; b) nothing to do with the effect seen in Nintendo 3DS c) nothing to do with perceiving depth.
What looks amazing on that video because it is 2D is actually a not very convincing effect. The problem is, that the display is NOT a 3D display. Don't get this wrong, there is no 3D functionality built in the iPad 2 whatsoever, so both of your eyes will see the same picture, so that you won't think that this is 3 dimensional at all.

If, however, this technique could be combined with a new display technology that works like the (pretty bad btw) display of the 3DS, BUT with some kind of moving "sweet spot", this effect could in fact trick your eyes in a very convincing way (and would be the first 3D display technology that would convince me). There are I think already patents for a display like that. I think they even are from apple.

(Sorry for the english btw, not a native speaker)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure no-one thought that apple released the iPad 2 forgetting to say that it was 3D compatible, but this surely gives a way to pseudo 3D, which is pretty neat, better to have a cool even if fake 3d effect on a 2D screen if they can refine this method
 
Adam- said:
To be honest, you have just countered your own argument, none of the 3D technology is actually true 3D, its all illusions. They both have the 3D effect just done in different ways. I'm not saying the 3DS isn't great but it only gives the effect if you look straight at it.
Click to expand...

All I know is that this one hopefully will not give me a major headache:p that is one thing I can't seem to get over when I watch 3D on tv after say 30 or so minutes I start to get headaches (or eye strain never can be sure) so no thanks I rather have higher resolution than 3D any day. Now when do we get of this 3D and go 4K:D
 
Mooey said:
Since there's no protrusion, this qualifies as a misnomer.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but at the 1 min mark where the "targets" are being shown, they definitely look like they are protruding/jumping off the screen. I certainly don't have any experience or knowledge of this technology, but as far as I am concerned that is 3D.
 
I love it, I imagine someday Apple will build something like this into the OS for all applications to use. Awesome.
 
kiljoy616 said:
All I know is that this one hopefully will not give me a major headache:p that is one thing I can't seem to get over when I watch 3D on tv after say 30 or so minutes I start to get headaches (or eye strain never can be sure) so no thanks I rather have higher resolution than 3D any day. Now when do we get of this 3D and go 4K:D
Click to expand...

haha, i'm getting abit of a headache reading all these posts...
 
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