It was blurry on purpose. Don't you people listen to the video? All those computers and cameras and receivers for a blurry image on accident? Get real people.
this is the kind of thing they would probably use in glasses free theaters. they would probably be able to do all 16 (or more) channels with one machine by now. if they can sharpen up the image this would be good for theaters.
This is the concept I thought would be the only practical way to make it happen without shutter/polarized glasses. It's remenicent of the old Nimslo 3D cameras and photos with the fresnel lens plastic surfaces. Only instead of 4 channels of parallax, this system has 16 and some in the vertical direction as well.
If you bought a "3D" tv that requires glasses then you wasted your money. The point of this video is that auto-3D is coming. You won't need the glasses.
this sparked my interest... but this is the best I've seen so far right above head tracking this is simple though which P's me off because I didn't think of it... anyways... this is only a LQ 16-imgs on the X axis, 0 on the Y... thing is, you can see the transition between them. if we change that to 25-imgs X, 17-imgs Y, and decrease the viewing range it'll be a much cleaner transition... however, diagonals will be a mess. odd numbers will give you a 0 image to go by
Long term usage of 3DTV on monkeys has show to send them insane... The human brain was never intended to process this kind of visual information... In one experiment exposing a monkey to 7days of 3DTV with no sleep the monkey just gave up on life and died, luckily scientists brought him back to life to watch more 3DTV.
A good 3-D TV which is probably around $2,500-$3,000 looks great! I was sceptical as well wondering why they were so cheap compared to when plasmas originally came out. I think the answer is that the hardware hasn't changed which is the major cost and the only big difference is the software running the TV that has changed. You also have to remember that the TV will communicate with the electronic 3D glasses you wear keeping the glasses in sync with the TV to create the 3D effect.
@tkrzysko A good 3Dtv doesnt need to cost $2,500-$3,000. I currently have a 60inch Mitsubishi 3Dtv that has 3D as good as anything i've seen yet. My tv only cost me $1000 and the 2D is fantastic.! With 2 pair of active shutter glasses and a Panasonic 3D player, I've only spent 1750 bucks. I think $2,500-$3,000 for a much smaller 3Dtv (or bundle) is overkill on our wallets!
Something aint right. Why is the 3D T.V.'s coming out (Sony, Samsung, etc..) only $3,000 ? That is ridiculously dirt cheap. They must suck ass or something. EVERY TIME through-out history when a ground breaking thing like this comes out it is usually extreme bread. 3K aint shit.. Something MUST be going on here that we don't know about. Is there more pro ones available elsewhere or something ?
Remember, when flat screen Plasmas came out they were 25k !! Mac Tower fully blown out now is 10k.
That's what I want. I don't want to look like a fucking idiot sitting at home with fucking ugly ass cheap plastic sunglasses on. I'm not going to buy a 3D T.V. until they bring out a 3D TV where you don't need glasses.
Now this is the future I have been dreaming about. It sounds like this is almost right in line with Back to the Future II 3D billboard. If only we had Mr. Fusion and hover cars. :)
very interesting, Im glad 3D has decided to be purely used for depth of far away objects, over the old pop in your face effect that doesn't work very well
This is pretty amazing technology, but I don't know if it will ever be viable to put together a camera with 16 lenses, or that there will ever be a theater willing to put 16 projectors in one auditorium. This is definitely a good example for what the future of 3D without glasses could look like, though.
I think wmatusik could have explained better why the camera is swinging back and forth and avoided half of the inane comments below . Several commented that it would be cool to project from 180 or 360 degrees around. Similar ideas to that were built and patented by Collender in the 1960's and 70's.
Interesting to see this in action. This idea of motion projection with a lenticular screen concept has a long history. It was originally patented by Ives in US patent 1,883,290 from 1932. This implementation is essentially a modernized version of Ives work using current technology - he used film. The concept has many features that are very compelling so it keeps returning through the decades.
I guess this works for only for the x-axis. For the y-axis, they also need to make a vertical parallax screen and use additional camera arrays lined up vertically so the viewers in a theatre balcony will be able to see a different image from rest of the crowd.
Is it just me or is 3D TV not really 3D? If you stand behind a TV you will not be able to see the back of a person so it's not 3D, until they release a TV which does this there is no real 3D TV.
This looks more like motion tracking which never looks 3D to me.
@FullCircle360D You are correct to some degree. The 3D effect that you get from holograms or stereoscopic images are not actually spatial 3D, but an optical illusion (which tricks your brain). However, it is the same effect that allows you depth perception in real life, which is binocular parallax, and in this case, also motion 3D allowing you to view the scene from different angles. I believe this display more closely resembles a hologram, than it does a regular stereoscopic image.
It is like the system of HOLOGRAFIKA, but they use a diffusing holographic screen instead. It is astonishing that with only six views you could get continuous-like horizontal parallax, because this does not happens with lenticulars.
They said "ethernet". Ethernet is a type of cable. Gigabit ethernet transmits up to 1 billion bits per second. You probably use these cables if you don't use wi-fi.
@plasticsandvich92 People already have 1gb/s connections in Korea and Japan at rates near 35$ per month.. And Europe isn't far behind with their 100-400mb/s connections
Gonna need a heatpipe exhaust form the house with this setup, jeeze.
Also, just the thought of one of those projectors getting out of calibration, ugh. I will admit that the image appears that it may look quite nice in person though. It would have to be MUCH less clunky, and yes, I realize this is a prototype.
@420squeeg also can you imagine setting up that beast? They would probably require you to have it professionally installed. I think this is far away from being sold commercially, but the idea is pretty sweet
Those cables hanging out of the ceiling tile are in violation of the 2008 NEC code (NFPA70E) and looks like your techs dont know anything. Neatness = professionalism.
what is hard is to project a picture in just one direction. A lot of people thought about that, the more views you will get the more clean it will be, and the more you will be able to have a 3D effect from all distances... but the more you will have data, that's why holography is fantastic, it can store all the data in a compact and simple way, you chose the analytical way, tha is huge.
people are getting this mixed up with 3D tv (as in stereoscopic images). what this is is essentially head tracking for a VR display but the way this is done is exactly like those little novelty hologram animated pictures that you get on bits of merchandise and what not, only this is displayed live rather than printed on. The only real benefit to this method over head tracking is that multiple people can look at it working at once
Seriously, this technology isn't that great, especially not yet. You can already play games in 3D. NVidia released LCD shutter glasses paired with an Nvidia card and a 120Hz or 240Hz LCD display, that will create 3D (like in the theatres) when playing a 3D games (which most are since the N64 came out). Any game that simulates 3D on a 2D display can be made stereoscopic, adding the depth.
This is an interesting technology. This would be really cool to see in video games, movies, and web-cams. But the image quality and the amount of data transferred needs to be overcome. Hopefully with the common saying of computers doubling in speed/power every year we should see this in the next decade or so as a standard feature.
So, why can't you take and have camera's 360 degrees around an object, then display them on a cylindrical lenticular display? Then you could have a 360° 3D image. Talk about Star Wars. We could make 3D calls to each other with this...LOL. Neat Idea. Go the extra step.
you can't do that cuz a lenticular display surface of about .1 focus points would be needed to make up for the displacement of parallitic angles of light from a 3-d space to a conceivably (but not virtually) 2-D space. Also the eye(or rather the brain) has no way of differentiating from perceived light (as in polarized 3-D screens) to the adjusted incident light that such a display would need to be viewed and it's refractive defect the light would incur as the light enters our eye-lens.
@Clowkin - then you never see anything in 3 dimensions at any time (not just in 3D movies), so it wouldn't matter.
People with one eye have no depth perception and gauge distance by size.
However, this type of 3D projection does not fully depend on binocular vision. By simply changing your position you would change your perspective on the picture, so there would be some sense of "space." But sitting still and watching this would afford the one-eyed viewer no advantage.
Well, the narrator says that the display provides *both* binocular parallax and motion parallax. With 16 different angles of the same video projected onto the lenticular, what happens is that different stationary observers will see different angles of the same scene. This also means your two eyes will see a slightly different angle, giving you binocular parallax while stationaryy. Additionally, since there are extra angles, you could walk across the screen and experience motion parallax.
No. They do that because you can't SEE the 3D effect on your computer, sitting here, watching it on Youtube. You can, though, see the effect when the camera moves. I think if you saw this effect in person (using two eyes, each focused on a different perspective), you would s**t bricks.
no u dumbass, its like when u're looking at the real thing, u dont have to move to side to side, they're just doing that to show how it works, stupidass get a brain
It looks really cool, but its not 3d as we know it. Really just a moving tv version of the lenticular stuff that Tool's Ænima album and hologram postcards have had rather then the 3d that we've seen in Avatar and what not. However, certaintly is still cool.
This is probably the most realistic approach I've seen for 3D viewing. I think this sort of approach will only get better as technological capabilities improve and give people what they really want: 3D HD viewing without needing to wear glasses.
lol. "You can't refute my argument so you barrage me with" bad language! plus ur being a typical american by saying jackass and douchebad-moron. I would guess your under 18. go argue with your class mates
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@zeoxzy That was far off. If I'm supposed to be a typical 18 year old American, then what are you? A 20-something year old English, uneducated idiot with a dead end job and no life?
its very cool in my opinion, BUT WHAT IF instead the had a scene in the middle of a big circle, of which is surrounded by cameras shooting the same scene. then projected onto a cylyndrical surface perhaps from the inside, so that one could see the scene in many different prospectives. much like how they perform the freeze frame effect in the Matrix series.
@CainStudios777 not good from an entertainment standpoint...
even if there is video for 360° you as the viewer would only be able to see about 180° (actually a bit less because it would be hard to see the sides)... basically you would miss half of the movie, no matter what you do
a similar thing would happen to technology like this that has multiple angles (altough to a lesser extend)
something for a viewer from the right wouldn't be visible for other viewers because it's behind something
yeah after i commented i really thought about that. to actually see the movie you would have to keep running around the cylinder looking like a retard.
It's cool, but the 3D effect is all "behind" the plane of the screen. Audiences will probably prefer the "coming at you" effect of current 3D movies, which make you feel like part of the action.
The most accessible and effective 3D technologies we will have first both involve glasses and are either using differentiated wave polarized lenses (those used by cinemas) or "shutter glasses" - these are what I anticipate will take of first.
The drawback with plarization is in displaying that image to people - current display technology can only be on 'direction' not 2 different which is what you would need.
Shutter glasses only require a 120hz+ display to alternate each eye at 60fps.
The idea of 3D viewing technology just will NEVER take THIS route. Mark my words.
When you think about it, what do you want to do when you are being entertained in front of the box - sway side to side all the time to remind yourself you can if you so choose? No. We sit still.
3D is DEPTH. Those blurry focal screens are inches(?) at most apart which makes it fundamentally flawed at creating EYE SEPERATION - Image if you are trying to view the depth of the grand canyon... not gonna work is it..
yo everyone, don't forget that this video was made at least 2 years ago... there have been huge and i mean huge advances in this technology. i cant wait til avatar comes on the big screen and blows this away
Well, it's a start. I mean, think about how computers first started, with a whole room full of equipment. Eventually, this sorta thing will probably be portable :D
this uses a large array of things to do the work but its just a prototype. im sure future designs will have all required things, save the transmission part included in one set (the main thing here is that each band be showing a different part of the scene, if those bands each DISPLAY an image, rather than REFLECT it, as is the case here, you can make the whole thing self contained, but you need a TV powerful enough to display 16 images at once (probably with 1 or more cell processors built in)
does the nuclear power plant that it's runs off included or have i got to buy it separately? 16 projectors 16 pc-s. But at the end of the day, the prototype of the microwave oven was about 1 tonns. And Honda's asimo was 213kg and could only walk 0.5km/h. Now it's some 60 kilos and runs 6km/h. We'll get there but don't run to the electronic store just yet.
could get more computers more projectors and more cameras and create a 16 by 16 grid to make a 3d image which also works by your head going up and down
Make the display 3D. Use fiber optics to allow 3D on each pixel. Each pixel will have 3 depths for each colour on each pixel. This is my idea and mine only. The display will need no glasses.
I have a 42" 3D display that does that already. The binocular paralax is achieve with a lenticular surface calibrated to make the images converge at 2 meters at least. Then, the lenticular can give you a pop up effect or a fish tank, I mean, the 3D can happen inside or outside the vessel.
jdiazyt you obviously don't care for advancing technology. I hope no one buys tv's, what a waste, who needs moving pictures when you got radio! I hope no one buys color tv's, what a waste, who needs color when you got black and white! I hope no one buys high def tv's, what a waste, who needs sharper video when got blurry video! *sigh*
1:38 ,, his project requires a lot of coffe!
sixstringmania 4 weeks ago
you might like this .facebook.com/pages/3D-TV/336808242998332?sk=app_49497528
blackpearled 4 weeks ago
It was blurry on purpose. Don't you people listen to the video? All those computers and cameras and receivers for a blurry image on accident? Get real people.
alc84 2 months ago
try syncronizing thoes projectors and cameras....
MrTpengineer 3 months ago
Cool Technology!
GrisDismation 3 months ago
3d boobies
olegario39 4 months ago
this is the kind of thing they would probably use in glasses free theaters. they would probably be able to do all 16 (or more) channels with one machine by now. if they can sharpen up the image this would be good for theaters.
Speedj2 6 months ago
i don't prefer shutter glass type. headache really killing me. so i like FPR type.cause they have certificate to no flicker. what a coOOLL~~~~
gatoha5000 8 months ago
This is the concept I thought would be the only practical way to make it happen without shutter/polarized glasses. It's remenicent of the old Nimslo 3D cameras and photos with the fresnel lens plastic surfaces. Only instead of 4 channels of parallax, this system has 16 and some in the vertical direction as well.
basspig 9 months ago
hÌhi_áñý_gúYs_wànt_tØ_chât_wîth_mÉ
CutauuCandrana891 10 months ago
will I have 16 computers, 16 TVs, 16 webcams and tons of cables?
hope not :)
TuxInWine 10 months ago
I'm sure they will make a 3D tv that doesn't require glasses at all... Prob with 2 projectors instead of many... But we will see
489035002 1 year ago
It is time for porn
altu892 1 year ago 21
What a creep effect. Reminds me of a dream.
2kliksphilip 1 year ago
enough coffee on the desk? 1:35
CarusoProductions 1 year ago
If you bought a "3D" tv that requires glasses then you wasted your money. The point of this video is that auto-3D is coming. You won't need the glasses.
ftrewser 1 year ago
Tcll5850 1 year ago
Long term usage of 3DTV on monkeys has show to send them insane... The human brain was never intended to process this kind of visual information... In one experiment exposing a monkey to 7days of 3DTV with no sleep the monkey just gave up on life and died, luckily scientists brought him back to life to watch more 3DTV.
dsuk 1 year ago
@dsuk dude try staying up for a week. doing n e thing would suck. Dumb Sh*t
jon5148911 1 year ago
@jon5148911
god,fucking 12 gauge, what you think?
MrJnrhunter 9 months ago
Interesting, Could motion parallax be derived using a spherical mirror and aberration correction?
kokopelli314 1 year ago
I bet in 10 years time we will have this on our mobile phones, technology is moving so fast
Fedluke 1 year ago
nice, but i think a bit blury
seindich 1 year ago
A good 3-D TV which is probably around $2,500-$3,000 looks great! I was sceptical as well wondering why they were so cheap compared to when plasmas originally came out. I think the answer is that the hardware hasn't changed which is the major cost and the only big difference is the software running the TV that has changed. You also have to remember that the TV will communicate with the electronic 3D glasses you wear keeping the glasses in sync with the TV to create the 3D effect.
tkrzysko 1 year ago
@tkrzysko A good 3Dtv doesnt need to cost $2,500-$3,000. I currently have a 60inch Mitsubishi 3Dtv that has 3D as good as anything i've seen yet. My tv only cost me $1000 and the 2D is fantastic.! With 2 pair of active shutter glasses and a Panasonic 3D player, I've only spent 1750 bucks. I think $2,500-$3,000 for a much smaller 3Dtv (or bundle) is overkill on our wallets!
bujoun76 1 year ago
Something aint right. Why is the 3D T.V.'s coming out (Sony, Samsung, etc..) only $3,000 ? That is ridiculously dirt cheap. They must suck ass or something. EVERY TIME through-out history when a ground breaking thing like this comes out it is usually extreme bread. 3K aint shit.. Something MUST be going on here that we don't know about. Is there more pro ones available elsewhere or something ?
Remember, when flat screen Plasmas came out they were 25k !! Mac Tower fully blown out now is 10k.
InfDogRag 1 year ago
oh god... love to see adult content on that thing lololol
Suzuhira1987 1 year ago
awsome
xsmooth69x 1 year ago
the grafik isnt good
MrBigbasta 1 year ago
pff a waste of money if you ask me the only thing you wil get from it is a headache
LegionShade 1 year ago
so if we want holograms we need 1000 cameras pointing at a see thru projectcor screen ... copyright biotches
awsomejoeawsome 1 year ago
That is the saddest workspace I have ever seen... So gray, so many cables.
MagnusRulerHardt 1 year ago
That's what I want. I don't want to look like a fucking idiot sitting at home with fucking ugly ass cheap plastic sunglasses on. I'm not going to buy a 3D T.V. until they bring out a 3D TV where you don't need glasses.
FATLACE420 1 year ago
@FATLACE420
Then don't buy it nobody is forcing you. I'm sure Samsung or Sony isn't trying to hurt you cool tv watching pose.
godofthisshit 1 year ago
@FATLACE420 hear hear! autostereoscopic ftw!
hpnosam 1 year ago
Now this is the future I have been dreaming about. It sounds like this is almost right in line with Back to the Future II 3D billboard. If only we had Mr. Fusion and hover cars. :)
joshuaki3 1 year ago
F-ing awesome. I want it now.
joshuaki3 1 year ago
I can not wait for this to become mainstream. But that will take some years.
iamcharming2008 1 year ago
Very aforable.
vjrei 1 year ago
price? lol
worldtravel101 1 year ago
Its like a real time electronic lenticular hologram :)
brandon9271 1 year ago
And they called me mad!
mooreentstudios 1 year ago
wtf man to much future for me...fkin trekkis
katodmx007 1 year ago
very interesting, Im glad 3D has decided to be purely used for depth of far away objects, over the old pop in your face effect that doesn't work very well
Sypran 1 year ago
This is pretty amazing technology, but I don't know if it will ever be viable to put together a camera with 16 lenses, or that there will ever be a theater willing to put 16 projectors in one auditorium. This is definitely a good example for what the future of 3D without glasses could look like, though.
Timstuff 1 year ago
sweet
cdoftx 1 year ago
this is cool u can really see the depth and 3dness on this.
but it seems a bit much for 3d images. sometimes less is more so i think should try to scale it down somehow overtime.
Danyo2k6 1 year ago
lol wow
dark2koneko 1 year ago
It would bee awesome to have 1080p web cams 1080p projectors and 1080p porn
svampebob007 1 year ago
their is a sence of 3d even on the normal screen, wow
destinysx 1 year ago
Wonderful work! Certainly the way of the future! I can't STAND shutter glasses and their annoying flicker!
barriebrown 1 year ago
expencive as heck. i bet.
tracemaster100 1 year ago
I think wmatusik could have explained better why the camera is swinging back and forth and avoided half of the inane comments below . Several commented that it would be cool to project from 180 or 360 degrees around. Similar ideas to that were built and patented by Collender in the 1960's and 70's.
RLinNC 1 year ago
Interesting to see this in action. This idea of motion projection with a lenticular screen concept has a long history. It was originally patented by Ives in US patent 1,883,290 from 1932. This implementation is essentially a modernized version of Ives work using current technology - he used film. The concept has many features that are very compelling so it keeps returning through the decades.
RLinNC 1 year ago
BU Nİ ARKADAŞ YA...!!!
Bumudur yani bırak Allasen tabiki olmamış yazık harcadınız paraya emeğe ya.
moz1966 1 year ago
super
muraturile 1 year ago
Very cool! But I doubt this will ever be practical enough to be made possible for commercial use.
jesperc20 1 year ago
wut a mess of cables get a mac
ronmann606 1 year ago
I guess this works for only for the x-axis. For the y-axis, they also need to make a vertical parallax screen and use additional camera arrays lined up vertically so the viewers in a theatre balcony will be able to see a different image from rest of the crowd.
superslave750 1 year ago
They are on the right track. Still needs a bit more work.
navyboydjray 1 year ago
My eyes hurt like fuck from watching this, but it's cool.
ddlanz 1 year ago
Is it just me or is 3D TV not really 3D? If you stand behind a TV you will not be able to see the back of a person so it's not 3D, until they release a TV which does this there is no real 3D TV.
This looks more like motion tracking which never looks 3D to me.
FullCircle360D 1 year ago
@FullCircle360D You are correct to some degree. The 3D effect that you get from holograms or stereoscopic images are not actually spatial 3D, but an optical illusion (which tricks your brain). However, it is the same effect that allows you depth perception in real life, which is binocular parallax, and in this case, also motion 3D allowing you to view the scene from different angles. I believe this display more closely resembles a hologram, than it does a regular stereoscopic image.
crookedtool 1 year ago
@crookedtool oh right that makes sense, thanks for explaining it :)
FullCircle360D 1 year ago
It is like the system of HOLOGRAFIKA, but they use a diffusing holographic screen instead. It is astonishing that with only six views you could get continuous-like horizontal parallax, because this does not happens with lenticulars.
lunazzi 1 year ago
a gigabit internet network??? holy dope imagine if we had that
plasticsandvich92 1 year ago
@plasticsandvich92
They said "ethernet". Ethernet is a type of cable. Gigabit ethernet transmits up to 1 billion bits per second. You probably use these cables if you don't use wi-fi.
You're an idiot..
RecipeForhate6655321 1 year ago
@plasticsandvich92 People already have 1gb/s connections in Korea and Japan at rates near 35$ per month.. And Europe isn't far behind with their 100-400mb/s connections
ddlanz 1 year ago
@ddlanz wooot? we just got the 10 mb connection in brazil xD
plasticsandvich92 1 year ago
excellent work!
1888junkteam 1 year ago
good work!
thugdoutDUNN 1 year ago
Gonna need a heatpipe exhaust form the house with this setup, jeeze.
Also, just the thought of one of those projectors getting out of calibration, ugh. I will admit that the image appears that it may look quite nice in person though. It would have to be MUCH less clunky, and yes, I realize this is a prototype.
420squeeg 1 year ago
@420squeeg also can you imagine setting up that beast? They would probably require you to have it professionally installed. I think this is far away from being sold commercially, but the idea is pretty sweet
ebouwman034 1 year ago
That's awesome, but LOL, it will revolutionize the porn industry. LOLOLOL
matthewtaylorbrown 1 year ago
Those cables hanging out of the ceiling tile are in violation of the 2008 NEC code (NFPA70E) and looks like your techs dont know anything. Neatness = professionalism.
CalicoatMaker 1 year ago
@CalicoatMaker go back to being a hall monitor LOL jk :D
randomdude3824 1 year ago
what is hard is to project a picture in just one direction. A lot of people thought about that, the more views you will get the more clean it will be, and the more you will be able to have a 3D effect from all distances... but the more you will have data, that's why holography is fantastic, it can store all the data in a compact and simple way, you chose the analytical way, tha is huge.
kalish86 1 year ago
people are getting this mixed up with 3D tv (as in stereoscopic images). what this is is essentially head tracking for a VR display but the way this is done is exactly like those little novelty hologram animated pictures that you get on bits of merchandise and what not, only this is displayed live rather than printed on. The only real benefit to this method over head tracking is that multiple people can look at it working at once
gleneth00 1 year ago
Seriously, this technology isn't that great, especially not yet. You can already play games in 3D. NVidia released LCD shutter glasses paired with an Nvidia card and a 120Hz or 240Hz LCD display, that will create 3D (like in the theatres) when playing a 3D games (which most are since the N64 came out). Any game that simulates 3D on a 2D display can be made stereoscopic, adding the depth.
drkblze 1 year ago
exfuckinzacktly at last someone like me who's not impressed 2
wtf now ps3 usually do FW x.xx every month right now its takin too long to make a new update sayin 3.20 will include 3d patch who gives a fuck
i just want 3 things from sony: upgrade the flash and java to keep up in every FW n include arabic encodin........ TBC
theuncanspan 1 year ago
i mean its a shame i used linux (ubuntu) on my ps3 n it supported arabic full character wtf is impeding sony man someshit in life really fucks u up
theuncanspan 1 year ago
The point is to find something where you dont have to wear the glasses. The 3D via glasses technology has been around since the 50's
grottylittlewanker 1 year ago
cool now i only need 18 beamers and 18 pc's :)
TNG128MB 1 year ago 5
lol porn will fuckin OWN
JuanPapaNicolao 1 year ago 16
really cool =)
dersqrc 1 year ago 2
This is an interesting technology. This would be really cool to see in video games, movies, and web-cams. But the image quality and the amount of data transferred needs to be overcome. Hopefully with the common saying of computers doubling in speed/power every year we should see this in the next decade or so as a standard feature.
andwhatelse 1 year ago
So, why can't you take and have camera's 360 degrees around an object, then display them on a cylindrical lenticular display? Then you could have a 360° 3D image. Talk about Star Wars. We could make 3D calls to each other with this...LOL. Neat Idea. Go the extra step.
y2kboylmp 1 year ago 2
you can't do that cuz a lenticular display surface of about .1 focus points would be needed to make up for the displacement of parallitic angles of light from a 3-d space to a conceivably (but not virtually) 2-D space. Also the eye(or rather the brain) has no way of differentiating from perceived light (as in polarized 3-D screens) to the adjusted incident light that such a display would need to be viewed and it's refractive defect the light would incur as the light enters our eye-lens.
lilmurfer 1 year ago
haha fuck usb, firewire ftw!
HeWillSeeTheBigBoard 1 year ago 4
What if I only had one eye?
Clowkin 1 year ago 76
@Clowkin then it is possible that you could possibly be a pirate..
xBBOYxSHYNExXFx 1 year ago
@Clowkin you would see it in 2d
mrljthedj 1 year ago
@Clowkin Then buy another an external one with USB 2.0 connection.
GreatestHooligan 1 year ago
@Clowkin if you have one eye, you won't be able to see 3d in real life
ttttkk1 1 year ago
@Clowkin... unfortunately you won't be able to perceive the depth of images, even... real life. Sorry in that case :(
DtorBill 1 year ago
@Clowkin then it wouldn't work with you. if people has one single eye problem, they wouldn't could see different
MrRallemulle 1 year ago
@Clowkin Then you're lucky that you have an easy answer to give people when you want to explain why you don't care about the 3D fad.
Timstuff 1 year ago
@Clowkin if you had one eye I think it would look like this video. still pretty amazing.
MrKarlalfred88 1 year ago
@Clowkin - then you never see anything in 3 dimensions at any time (not just in 3D movies), so it wouldn't matter.
People with one eye have no depth perception and gauge distance by size.
However, this type of 3D projection does not fully depend on binocular vision. By simply changing your position you would change your perspective on the picture, so there would be some sense of "space." But sitting still and watching this would afford the one-eyed viewer no advantage.
ArxVirtus 1 year ago
@Clowkin Win
MattafixTm 1 year ago
@Clowkin you would have more to worry about than tv quality
lokilokibar 1 year ago
@Clowkin
great question dude! answer: you will not waste 3000 bucks for a 3D LCD TV if you had only one eye.
chamstehri 1 year ago
@Clowkin Then you'd see the effect in exactly the same way as the camera in the video does (with motion parallax).
Snedd99 1 year ago
@Clowkin Then you need to upgrade.
psychonaut25 1 year ago
@Clowkin but if you had no hands and wanted to jerk off
part2themovie 1 year ago
@Clowkin you can move our head around to see it in different angles lol
vrshowdown 1 year ago
@Clowkin You can't view 3D with one eye cuz both eyes need see slightly different images to create the illusion.
Branuelmo 1 year ago
@Clowkin
take care till bionic eyes reaches good resolutions.
liadon666 1 year ago
@Clowkin Well, the camera has one 'eye' and that worked. It's motion parallax (Relative to position) rather than stereoscopic (Dual lens).
jonnybeats12 1 year ago
@Clowkin LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
calito0010 1 year ago
would be cool to watch a movie and it's like looking out your window
JPnijmegen 2 years ago 3
cool like new idea illusion concepts too
billpage 2 years ago
So you have to move side to side to watch tv in 3d. haha.
TheHappyKamper 2 years ago
Well, the narrator says that the display provides *both* binocular parallax and motion parallax. With 16 different angles of the same video projected onto the lenticular, what happens is that different stationary observers will see different angles of the same scene. This also means your two eyes will see a slightly different angle, giving you binocular parallax while stationaryy. Additionally, since there are extra angles, you could walk across the screen and experience motion parallax.
Uejji 2 years ago
No. They do that because you can't SEE the 3D effect on your computer, sitting here, watching it on Youtube. You can, though, see the effect when the camera moves. I think if you saw this effect in person (using two eyes, each focused on a different perspective), you would s**t bricks.
Volatus 2 years ago 32
Comment removed
jasonfish07 1 year ago
@Volatus Looks like one of those scratchy holographic things.
RTWSonataRTW 1 year ago
@Volatus Hehe, yes... incredible... I also thought so... you can perceive it on your display.
DtorBill 1 year ago
no u dumbass, its like when u're looking at the real thing, u dont have to move to side to side, they're just doing that to show how it works, stupidass get a brain
thirdmotion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck you
TheHappyKamper 2 years ago
not a bad aproach...but...soon 3d is gonna be a standard like bluray and high def...i see them coming...in a good way tough!
jonivtec25 2 years ago
Toshiba has shown an interesting system on CES, you should check it our on wired.
Rimber6 2 years ago
It looks really cool, but its not 3d as we know it. Really just a moving tv version of the lenticular stuff that Tool's Ænima album and hologram postcards have had rather then the 3d that we've seen in Avatar and what not. However, certaintly is still cool.
radiolocke 2 years ago
This is probably the most realistic approach I've seen for 3D viewing. I think this sort of approach will only get better as technological capabilities improve and give people what they really want: 3D HD viewing without needing to wear glasses.
rbush2271 2 years ago
awesome!
VJVidolic 2 years ago
May be 3D but the picture still looks like crap
perfume444 2 years ago
evolution in progress :D
spikonaleash 2 years ago 2
WE DON'T NEED 3D TECHNOLOGY.
When you watch a movie or look at a picture, you don't think about the surface being flat - your mind percieves it in 3D automatically.
Why?
BECAUSE OUR BRAINS ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN MOST PEOPLE REALISE.
3D movies are heavily distracting. It looks like you're watching a popup book.
Suck my balls 3D.
RoscoMalosco 2 years ago
@RoscoMalosco lol
ichtioz 2 years ago
right!! and i suppose u speak for everyone on earth, if u don't like 3d, don;t watch it. simples
zeoxzy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@zeoxzy Don't "simples" me you fucking jackass.
You can't refute my argument so you barrage me with sarcasm - thus making you a fucking idiot douchebag-moron.
RoscoMalosco 2 years ago
lol. "You can't refute my argument so you barrage me with" bad language! plus ur being a typical american by saying jackass and douchebad-moron. I would guess your under 18. go argue with your class mates
zeoxzy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@zeoxzy That was far off. If I'm supposed to be a typical 18 year old American, then what are you? A 20-something year old English, uneducated idiot with a dead end job and no life?
RoscoMalosco 2 years ago
um... a 16 year old english at sixth form. so u can't really insult me.
zeoxzy 2 years ago
u owned him
MrForcorrie 2 years ago
@zeoxzy HA! Exactly. You're a highschooler who thinks you know everything. So shut your stupid little mouth you brat.
RoscoMalosco 2 years ago
says the one who persistently replies to messages trying to start an argument. well i can't be assed with it
zeoxzy 2 years ago
its very cool in my opinion, BUT WHAT IF instead the had a scene in the middle of a big circle, of which is surrounded by cameras shooting the same scene. then projected onto a cylyndrical surface perhaps from the inside, so that one could see the scene in many different prospectives. much like how they perform the freeze frame effect in the Matrix series.
CainStudios777 2 years ago
@CainStudios777 not good from an entertainment standpoint...
even if there is video for 360° you as the viewer would only be able to see about 180° (actually a bit less because it would be hard to see the sides)... basically you would miss half of the movie, no matter what you do
a similar thing would happen to technology like this that has multiple angles (altough to a lesser extend)
something for a viewer from the right wouldn't be visible for other viewers because it's behind something
eXist2048 2 years ago
yeah after i commented i really thought about that. to actually see the movie you would have to keep running around the cylinder looking like a retard.
CainStudios777 2 years ago
It's cool, but the 3D effect is all "behind" the plane of the screen. Audiences will probably prefer the "coming at you" effect of current 3D movies, which make you feel like part of the action.
creativepath1 2 years ago 2
i'm dizzy
dellwon 2 years ago
The most accessible and effective 3D technologies we will have first both involve glasses and are either using differentiated wave polarized lenses (those used by cinemas) or "shutter glasses" - these are what I anticipate will take of first.
The drawback with plarization is in displaying that image to people - current display technology can only be on 'direction' not 2 different which is what you would need.
Shutter glasses only require a 120hz+ display to alternate each eye at 60fps.
cozmium 2 years ago
The idea of 3D viewing technology just will NEVER take THIS route. Mark my words.
When you think about it, what do you want to do when you are being entertained in front of the box - sway side to side all the time to remind yourself you can if you so choose? No. We sit still.
3D is DEPTH. Those blurry focal screens are inches(?) at most apart which makes it fundamentally flawed at creating EYE SEPERATION - Image if you are trying to view the depth of the grand canyon... not gonna work is it..
cozmium 2 years ago
this looks like the TV in back to the future 2
goqwertygo 2 years ago
sounds complex
HardKore5250 2 years ago
nice concept. by the way, the display back projector or front projector?
ClampInMotion 2 years ago 2
imagine a complete circular camera setup like this ...
DarkLightGenesis 2 years ago 2
Alioscopy 3d displays sell fine now, much easier to work with than all this machinery. Very interesting though.
tuberic1 2 years ago
Give it 10 Years
OfficialNeilGard 2 years ago
yo everyone, don't forget that this video was made at least 2 years ago... there have been huge and i mean huge advances in this technology. i cant wait til avatar comes on the big screen and blows this away
patrickwilliamson29 2 years ago
There's no way that mainstream television will start filming all
its programmes with 16 cameras, unless they are together no larger than one current camera. This is for novelty screenings in art galleries only.
feckingbillgates 2 years ago
why not?
HardKore5250 2 years ago
Use your intelligence to figure out why not.
feckingbillgates 2 years ago
come on?
HardKore5250 2 years ago
Happy New Year anyway.
feckingbillgates 2 years ago
3 dimensional television, that would be awesome.
zork2001 2 years ago 2
Well, it's a start. I mean, think about how computers first started, with a whole room full of equipment. Eventually, this sorta thing will probably be portable :D
HeapsGoodProductions 2 years ago 9
oh so true.
rerere284 2 years ago
this uses a large array of things to do the work but its just a prototype. im sure future designs will have all required things, save the transmission part included in one set (the main thing here is that each band be showing a different part of the scene, if those bands each DISPLAY an image, rather than REFLECT it, as is the case here, you can make the whole thing self contained, but you need a TV powerful enough to display 16 images at once (probably with 1 or more cell processors built in)
tuseroni 2 years ago
does the nuclear power plant that it's runs off included or have i got to buy it separately? 16 projectors 16 pc-s. But at the end of the day, the prototype of the microwave oven was about 1 tonns. And Honda's asimo was 213kg and could only walk 0.5km/h. Now it's some 60 kilos and runs 6km/h. We'll get there but don't run to the electronic store just yet.
scarabeus79 2 years ago
if only I watched tv while moving back and forth.
d1incharge 2 years ago 5
blurry and what happens if i move my head up and down ,, nothing. i dont want that in my house. i must say good idea work on it more
forbbbi 2 years ago
could get more computers more projectors and more cameras and create a 16 by 16 grid to make a 3d image which also works by your head going up and down
LandyGerhardt 2 years ago
brute-force.. i suppose it makes sense if several people are looking at it. otherwise thats huge redundancy for one viewer :)
walter0bz 2 years ago
talk about ultimate gaming experience, COD in 3D, thatd be epic
9noitulover 2 years ago
Nice idea, but it seems kind of time and money consuming. Still though, I think it would be cool to play COD in 3D.
narutofan4064 2 years ago
-_-
i hope the retail version don't need all these other stuff to make it work -.-
JUST the tv :D
computergeek836 2 years ago
Make the display 3D. Use fiber optics to allow 3D on each pixel. Each pixel will have 3 depths for each colour on each pixel. This is my idea and mine only. The display will need no glasses.
jimisback 2 years ago
I think the TV stations whit cameras and all the concept alredy created will take some time to change.
DiogoPesce 2 years ago
Nice dancing.. poor resolution and motion tracking
thelostlibertine 2 years ago 2
Lokks prety afforable... LOL
I have a 42" 3D display that does that already. The binocular paralax is achieve with a lenticular surface calibrated to make the images converge at 2 meters at least. Then, the lenticular can give you a pop up effect or a fish tank, I mean, the 3D can happen inside or outside the vessel.
vjrei 2 years ago
jdiazyt you obviously don't care for advancing technology. I hope no one buys tv's, what a waste, who needs moving pictures when you got radio! I hope no one buys color tv's, what a waste, who needs color when you got black and white! I hope no one buys high def tv's, what a waste, who needs sharper video when got blurry video! *sigh*
svendixon 2 years ago
Comment removed
jdiazyt 2 years ago
hahahaha you can't stop advancement in technology, this is already happening buddy whether you like it or not
nelishoofd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And you're a fucking idiot, when the next gen gaming consoles come out with 3d ready graphics, dont go out and buy a 3d ready tv you BITCH
teknorave 2 years ago
Comment removed
jdiazyt 2 years ago
Just shut your bitch ass up
teknorave 2 years ago
and I suppose you think colour TV and stereo sound are a waste of money too?
Fernoe 2 years ago