Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Has 3D Video Finally Arrived?

Posted by kdawson on Sun Nov 19, 2006 09:55 PM
from the red-and-blue-glasses dept.
Graphics Software Displays Media Movies Television Entertainment Games
pospisil writes to point us to an enthusiastic writeup on Tech.blorge.com about a 3D display technology just launched at the eGames Expo in Melbourne. The technology, from a company called Fountain Consulting, is set to ship in January. From the article: "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it. With a library of 500 current PC-based games titles converted to flawless 3D, and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD." There is no second source for this story. Exciting news if it pans out.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Has 3D Video Finally Arrived? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Slashdotted already (Score:5, Funny)

    by VanessaE (970834) <vanessaezekowitz@gmail.com> on Sunday November 19 2006, @09:58PM (#16909638)
    Jeez people, not a single comment and it's already slashdotted...give the rest of us a chance!

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Salvance (1014001) * on Sunday November 19 2006, @09:59PM (#16909650) Homepage Journal
    I'd truly hate to see what the adult entertainment industry would do with this one ... sure, there'd be some gems, but how many plots would revolve around having the stars "reach out and grab you" over and over.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by solitas (916005)
        Technically it's "stereographic" since the eyes are really viewing two flat images - you can't move your head to see 'around' the object. "Stereoscopic" is the way your eyes function when viewing real three-dimensional objects.
  • Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical. Now, if there was a way to transmit my chocolate, that would be something.

    • Ability to convert 2D television to 3D? I'm skeptical.

      So am I. It's probably some stuff based on a vague shape "recognition" and the Z-axis data is "extrapolated" depending on the shape of the "recognized" area, in other words I guess it can give results but pretty bogus results. Still I guess it might do it for a lot of average joes, I'd be surprised if we ever saw "2D television converted in 3D" being ever widely adopted, sounds like a useless gadget.

  • It's not slashdotted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NeonGoat (824596) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:03PM (#16909684)
    You need a 3D monitor to view the site.

  • My willingness to suspend disbelief... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:04PM (#16909694) Journal
    ... ends here:

    "and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television, as well as pre-recorded movies on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD."

    How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

    Will this be bundled with the Phantom? Launch alongside DNF?

    • How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

      Well I did some hunting and the company website [3dvisual.com.au] has this to say under "How does the Vortex works":

      By wearing 3D glasses you can turn many standard HDTV,plasma TVs, projector DLPs, CRTs on market today into a 3D displays. You can adjust the depth of 3D to your own comfort level without any confusing programming but simply clicking a button with the Vortex. The Vortex works either like a standard Windows based PC with mo

      • Except that what I cut and pasted isn't talking about getting 3D from a 2D display but rather from 2D content, the "pre-recorded DVDs" mentioned in what I cut and pasted. That's saying that I could toss in Toy Story and this technology will magically make it 3D.

        Getting 3D off of a 2D display is easy enough; the most common way people have tried to do it on PCs is the past is with flicker glasses (the screen rapidly alternates between left and right eye information, while you wear glasses with LCD lenses t
        • I think you missed my point, which is that yes, the whole thing is indeed complete bullshit - and they didn't even do a very good of trying hide it: their website and description of "how it works" is laughable. The least they could do is provide some pseudoscience explanation with a lot of big words in it, but they can't even manage that much.
    • There are too many stories that amount to nothing more than psudeo-scientific marketing spam, as you have so succinctly pointed out the summary is enough to debunk them.

      Slashdot Bullsit Meter (SBM): I propose each story be displayed next to a thin vertical SBM, users can vote with either a lightbulb icon at the top or a steaming bullshit icon at the bottom. The benifit of a bullshit meter is that it would make reading the summary as redundant as reading TFA. Further, if you could sort stories by BS ratin

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by x2A (858210)
        Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.

        A slashdot bullshit meter would in fact be, bullshit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)
      How can you "upconvert" 2D images to 3D when there is no 3D information to work with, hm?

      "Smart" algorithms can make some pretty good guesses based on the same kind of information that the mpeg compression algorithms use to create motion vectors. Yes, the motion vectors in mpeg are 2D in the plane of the screen, but add in some smarts to recognize "objects" that get bigger (approaching) and smaller (receding) and you've got enough info to do some pseudo 3D. If you can recognize rotation then you can do so
      • If that were all that is needed to upconvert any 2D images to 3D, we'd all be watching all shows with those goofy glasses on.

        Simply putting the glasses on doesn't change the fact that what you're watching was fimled from only one perspective at a time. No stereoscopic photography = no stereoscopic picture.

      • Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (Score:4, Informative)

        by ResidntGeek (772730) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:27PM (#16909874) Journal
        That's 3D data. As for the ACTUAL plausibility of the concept, I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye. Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult.
        • "Obviously it's possible to extrapolate 3D from 2D, just difficult."

          So's quantum tunneling a person through a wall.

          What we're talking about here is a fairly complicated function of the human brain. Considering the difficulty and expense involved in getting a computer that can handle walking, why should I believe that anything short of big iron can figure out how to do this, let alone on the fly?
        • Hold a small object and toss it back and forth from one hand to the other. Trivial, right?

          Now try it with one eye closed.

        • Re:My willingness to suspend disbelief... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Joe Random (777564) on Sunday November 19 2006, @11:02PM (#16910126)
          I should hope the GP doesn't lose all depth perception when he closes one eye
          Humans compensate for this in several ways. One is to move the head slightly side-to-side. This parallax information can help you in determining distance. Here's an example [sunpig.com]. Note that this requires extra information, so it's not useful in the case of upsampling 2D to 3D.

          Another method is to notice when one object occludes another. That could possibly be automated, but you'd need some very sophisticated image recognition and tracking technology. Possibly some pre-processing, too, to avoid objects suddenly "jumping" along the z axis as their size changes force their calculated distances to be modified.

          There's also the fact that we tend to know the relative sizes of various common objects, and comparing that to their perceived sizes can give rough distance information. That would require image recognition technology of a degree that we don't currently have, though.

          So it looks like occlusion is probably the only method that could glean 3D info from a 2D source with any degree of accuracy, and I can't imagine that that's be very accurate or, indeed, always possible. Plus, I suspect the results would look like a pop-up book, with different portions of the image represented as flat objects on different planes rather than 3D objects.
        • If I remmember correctly, if the brain is used to the item you are looking at, even looking with one eye you will ahve the eprception of depth, NOT because one eye is enough, but because the rbain "remember" it. Now try the same (only 1 eye) in an unfamiliar item or environment, that the brain cannot recognize.
      • 3D from single photos has been available for a little while, mostly working with geometric content lines to establish likely 3d patterns, then mapping the image onto that pattern. It's possible that they're using color and focus clues as well, though I don't know about that part.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA [youtube.com]
        It's a pretty impressive technology. If you could do the analysis 60 times per second, you could have a convincing system for single-perspective 3D in most circumstances.

        I wish I could rem
  • If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable. For people who can't see it here, http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&do_pdf=1&id=7242 [itwire.com.au], is a link to a PDF version of the text. I'm curious as to whether or not laptops will be able to use this technology. Pretty sure it's no but I can always hope they'll make something available...

  • Sure.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by andy753421 (850820) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:05PM (#16909706) Homepage
    "and even the ability to convert 2D live television into 3D live television" I hear their also adding a feature to 'zoom' and 'enhance' grainy pixelated feeds into high quality 1080p as well.
    • I think they're also adding Enemy-Of-The-State-o-vision, so you can rotate a person in a video capture completely around and see the contents of a messenger bag! It's 3D-eriffic! I can't wait!

    • Sure it works! (Score:4, Funny)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:14PM (#16909780)
      Expect any 2D to 3D conversion to work about as well as those B&W to colour conversion filters you could get back in the 50s and 60s. The tecnology they used was called "faith".
    • Well, they'll probably just do a CSI-style "reverse algorithmic" that'll just clean it right up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by x2A (858210)
      It's not that far fetched. There are all sorts of cues you can use to tell depth and then you can extrapolate an "off by 5 degrees" image; slightly stretch some pixels and shrink others for one eye, and the other way round for the other eye, will make one eye seem to see more of one side, and the other see more of the other.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEQELp0uqA [youtube.com] (jump to around 2:30 to see example)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA [youtube.com] (more examples)

      And these use a single picture to work from. If y
  • "The Vortex Home Entertainment System isn't just set to revolutionize 3D forever, they have revolutionized it."
    Well, thank goodness for that.

  • /.'d (Score:5, Funny)

    by neuro.slug (628600) <neuro__@ho t m a i l . com> on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:07PM (#16909722)
    Maybe when we have this new OMGWTF 3D technology, this text will look so 1337 I won't care:

    Error establishing a database connection

    This either means that the username and password information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the database server at localhost. This could mean your host's database server is down.
    • Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
    • Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
    • Are you sure that the database server is running?
    • [this really should be here] Did your page just get pwned by Slashdot?

    If you're unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your host. If you still need help you can always visit the WordPress Support Forums.

  • Others are already doing this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:08PM (#16909736)
    http://www.tridef.com/products.html [tridef.com]

  • How many does this make? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:13PM (#16909774)
    Revolutionary 3D systems are anounced about as often as Bigfoot sightings and pan out about as often. I'll believe it when I see one.
    • Why are the answers to every Slashdot story ending posed as a question always, "NO." ?
      I would really like a story filter that removed any title with the "?" character.
  • "Smellevision replaces television: Carl Stalling sez, 'It will never work!'" [wikipedia.org]

  • If they claimed it for games only it might be real (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:33PM (#16909920) Homepage

    It's straightforward to do this for 3D games, because the system has real depth information. Just use shutter glasses [ray3d.com] and render alternate frames with the viewpoint shifted by one eye separation distance. That's easy, and looks good if the system can render upwards of 70 fps.

    But any scheme for converting existing 2D content to "3D" will probably fall somewhere between "looks stupid" and "generates splitting headaches".

    Stereo vision doesn't do anything useful for objects more than a few meters away. It's most useful for close work, which is rare in games. It's more useful for mechanical CAD, medical imaging data, and similar stuff you need to view close up. Which is why 3D movies, TV, games, etc. never really caught on.

  • Don't worry disbelivers. (Score:3, Funny)

    by BaronSprite (651436) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:45PM (#16909994) Homepage
    Ben Affleck will take this apart and make a better one in about 5 minutes.

  • flicker++ (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lucas teh geek (714343) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:54PM (#16910066)
    haha americans, for once I can say I was there... and it sucked. perhaps it'd be useful if you want to induce epileptic fits in people, but honestly, the "3D Video" stall was really lame. people would pick up the glasses, look for a while wondering why nothing happened, then someone would point out then needed to be infront of the little sensor/projector thing. so they'd move in front of it, and think to themselves "wow, this looks like crap and is giving me a headache" and put the glasses back down. total turnaround time of about a minute.

  • Not as good as it sounds (Score:5, Informative)

    by zik (160926) on Sunday November 19 2006, @11:05PM (#16910146) Homepage
    I was at the eGames expo on Friday and tried out the 3d display. My thought was "Oh, someone's still doing the LCD shutter glasses?". It was just the same old technology from years ago as far as I could see. The only new thing was that they'd made a clever driver which hooked into DirectX so existing games could be used in 3d.

    Sorry guys, there was no 2d->3d conversion at all.

    • Re:Article text (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cutie Pi (588366) on Sunday November 19 2006, @10:43PM (#16909980)
      This is a steaming pile of BS right here.:

      "You really need to see a demo of the system playing the latest games, in 3D, with a pair of standard 3D glasses (similar to those handed out at IMAX or Real D cinemas)"

      Those IMAX glasses are designed to work with polarized 3D sources. The lenses are designed to only let one orientation of polarized light in, call it 0 or 90 degrees. One lens is rotated 90 degrees to the other, so each eye sees a separate polarization. Two projectors are used, each projecting different polarizations.

      So basically, this company has apparently figured out to get your existing monitor or TV to magically display two orientations of polarized light, simultaneously! And the best part is, they are modifying the graphics card, not the display, to do it!

      This whole article smells like an elaborate troll.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.