I decided to post a little introduction to myself here: Ask me who I was last March, and I would have had WinBloze 7 Beta on my main computer and would have been part of Micro$uck's test project for WinBloze 7 and would have been excited about it. However, that changed as soon as my network adapter changed and the new one worked with Linux. As soon as I tested the new adapter with Mint (I'd say about a year ago, in July 2009) I began to really value Linux for what it is.
However, I knew about Linux long before that. I started with gOS 2, which was my first distro. I had tried it back in about February 2008. I first learned about Linux back in mid-2007, from an article in PCMag that spanned several pages. I had quite a hard time back then, and Ubuntu Hardy was no different than gOS.
So then what took me so long from knowing about Linux to finally becoming an active user? My house was nothing but Wi-Fi. My mother set a secure wireless network up back then, and I couldn't connect to it because my adapter (Linksys WUSB54GSC) wasn't recognized by Linux. I had the patience to continue.
Then, in June 2008, my family got hit by the economic collapse here in the USA: The mortgage on my old house doubled and my family had to leave because of the rate increase. So, we were stuck in a hotel room until my family and I could end up in a new house. That Christmas, I wanted a netbook, and got my wish (the one I'm typing on, an Acer Aspire One AOA110-1545). It came with Linux preinstalled, and I liked it all around.
From then to June 2009, I still had WinBloze on my desktop, as Linux still didn't work with my wireless network adapter. Then, in June 2009 as I said, I got a new wireless network adapter, and in July decided to test it with Linux Mint 7. It worked, even from the Live CD! Now,
However, I knew about Linux long before that. I started with gOS 2, which was my first distro. I had tried it back in about February 2008. I first learned about Linux back in mid-2007, from an article in PCMag that spanned several pages. I had quite a hard time back then, and Ubuntu Hardy was no different than gOS.
So then what took me so long from knowing about Linux to finally becoming an active user? My house was nothing but Wi-Fi. My mother set a secure wireless network up back then, and I couldn't connect to it because my adapter (Linksys WUSB54GSC) wasn't recognized by Linux. I had the patience to continue.
Then, in June 2008, my family got hit by the economic collapse here in the USA: The mortgage on my old house doubled and my family had to leave because of the rate increase. So, we were stuck in a hotel room until my family and I could end up in a new house. That Christmas, I wanted a netbook, and got my wish (the one I'm typing on, an Acer Aspire One AOA110-1545). It came with Linux preinstalled, and I liked it all around.
From then to June 2009, I still had WinBloze on my desktop, as Linux still didn't work with my wireless network adapter. Then, in June 2009 as I said, I got a new wireless network adapter, and in July decided to test it with Linux Mint 7. It worked, even from the Live CD! Now,
3DTV isn't really 3D if it isn't holographic
Posted 01-10-2011 at 10:06 PM by Kenny_Strawn
While I agree that TV is coming a long way in regards to how it is viewed, how clear the picture it is, and how many channels, it certainly hasn't come far enough in regards to 3D. How? Let me explain:
To view today's current 3D programming, you need glasses. You can still use 3D glasses on regular TVs! That means there's currently nothing a 3DTV can do that any current TV can't. Hell, I have even viewed standard-definition 3D DVDs on a 15-year-old set! It's really the glasses that make the 3D image, and they have *very* low resolution.
To truly make a real impression as 3D, you have to be holographic to the point where glasses aren't needed. This means a TV with an image that appears to "pop out" without the need for glasses. From what I have heard, such TVs have existed in Japan for years but have yet to exist in the United States. The reason for this is merely fear of change. The same fear that prevents Americans from switching to Linux! That's just *sick*.
The problem with this, however, is if those big media companies can come up with the nerve to create programming for this kind of TV. They probably will take a *very* long time to cooperate just like they did with everything else. But if it works, *yes*.
What do you guys think?
To view today's current 3D programming, you need glasses. You can still use 3D glasses on regular TVs! That means there's currently nothing a 3DTV can do that any current TV can't. Hell, I have even viewed standard-definition 3D DVDs on a 15-year-old set! It's really the glasses that make the 3D image, and they have *very* low resolution.
To truly make a real impression as 3D, you have to be holographic to the point where glasses aren't needed. This means a TV with an image that appears to "pop out" without the need for glasses. From what I have heard, such TVs have existed in Japan for years but have yet to exist in the United States. The reason for this is merely fear of change. The same fear that prevents Americans from switching to Linux! That's just *sick*.
The problem with this, however, is if those big media companies can come up with the nerve to create programming for this kind of TV. They probably will take a *very* long time to cooperate just like they did with everything else. But if it works, *yes*.
What do you guys think?
Total Comments 6
Comments
-
3D images that appear to pop out of a 2D surface is possible with a parallax barrier. I believe it's similar to the hologram cards that have a vertically interlaced picture and small prisms across the card.
However, you sacrifice pixels per inch per eye. 1920x1080p image now takes at least twice as many pixels. Half for one eye and half for the other... either that, your you would need the base screen 1920x1080 and a prism lcd overlay that was twice as many that shuttered the left and right eye... but that would be two LCD screens and not very efficient.
As for 3D TV's it matters on a lot of things. There may also be several 3D video encoding streams. One that had two video streams would have to be processed differently than one video stream that switched between left and right with every frame. There may also be something else going on with some others.
As far as glasses go, there are polarized and shutter. polarized works on any image that's formatted to display with those. Shutter will flash between left and right eyes and I believe, have to be in sync with the video source. In which case, either the TV or the playing device would have to transmit some kind of signal to the glasses. Also you have to have double the refresh rate on the TV with shutter glasses because each eye only views half the refresh rate. This means at least 120hz for a flat screen. CRTs can get a way with less because of the nature of the screen.
Anyway, I'm sure I'm missing a lot. But there is a lot more that goes into the technology than you think.
Not that I'm saying it's great or anything. I'm not impressed with stereoscopic images because the technology has been around for ever... just not the technology to bring it to flat screen TVs or even make it affordable/impressive enough for consumers.
Now... if you could create a truly clear pixel in the off state, then there isn't any reason why you couldn't stack layers of screens together and transmit a 3d image that way... but the screen would have to be as thick as your depth of filed and if your depth resolution wasn't high enough, you would have to be looking at it head on.
However this would be extremely expensive.
Perhaps... if we could electrolytically float charged particles of bio electric beads, we could effectively create 3d relief maps of trains.... Or mount it against a wall and you would get a relief map of the frontal view of the image.
I would think that would require many tiny little isolation tubes to isolate each bead, then a conductive wall to change the color of the bead, and an electrostatic field behind the bead to control the depth. Without having that great of a resolution, I believe we have this technology now. But that would be a lot of processing hardware/software just to do that effect.
Anyway, it's always better to be creative than to criticize
Posted 01-11-2011 at 04:01 PM by lumak 
Updated 01-11-2011 at 04:21 PM by lumak -
I think it would make more sense to draw the images separately (but overlapping) and then instead of laying out twice as many pixels together on one sheet use two sheets of pixels — one for the left eye and one for the right — on top of one another in such a way as to draw a holographic image. I'm sure it could more easily be implemented in tablet PCs than on TVs, but it's worth a shot. Who knows? Based on Google's remarks about Android 3.0, I'm sure many Android 3.0 tablets will actually have holographic multitouch screens!
Posted 01-11-2011 at 05:55 PM by Kenny_Strawn
-
LCD pixels are not fully transparent. One eye would always be dark. This is why the shutter glasses are always slightly dark; they are one large LCD pixel. And besides, even with two screens on top of each other, you would still need a parallax barrier. The tiny 1 millimeter (or however thick) the screen is would throw off the optics of the parallax barrier. You would have to perfectly align the screens and make sure they never move. Not to mention, you would have to shutter the screens. If both the left and the right are on the same screen divided by the barrier, then you can have a full refresh rate in progressive for both images.
Either way, considering that the technology exists for a 1 inch 1024x768 pixel screen, it's really not a bad thing to double up the pixels. The problem with higher resolution screens is it takes more processing power and more time to draw. Not to mention 3D games have to draw two pictures and have twice the memory. This is probably why the Nintendo 3DS is only going to be 800 x 240 (400x240 per eye). That, and Nintendo is more about making sure games run perfectly for the hardware they are designed for. Unlike some games on other consoles where they try too hard to make it look absolutely perfect but fail because it starts stuttering.Posted 01-12-2011 at 10:02 AM by lumak
-
One thing that I read somewhere but didn't think of before is that 3DTV is not quite like real 3D because in real life, your eyes have to change their focus to view objects at different depths, but in a 3DTV, your eyes are always focused at the same depth (the screen), no matter how near or far away the appearant object is.
The problem is that it's not known yet if when small children watch too much 3DTV, will their vision be permanently damaged because the lack of association between depth and focus?Posted 01-16-2011 at 03:55 PM by MTK358
-
What about merely covering a pane of glass with a parallax coating and project onto it from the rear? Or how about use interlacing (such as what you would find on 1080i screens) to render the left and right images onto the same screen? Just ideas.
Where 3D really matters in holographic style, however, is on toch screens like those on tablet PCs. It would in those cases allow completely realistic user interaction but would also require twice the computing and graphics power. Hopefully, however, with multicore ARM processors coming it won't be all that hard. And the nVidid Tegra would also be a good idea in this case.Posted 01-16-2011 at 11:26 PM by Kenny_Strawn
-
Technically, if you could produce that type of jacked up parallax coating, you could have a 1080p image that was really a left and right eye interlaced images. HOWEVER, that quality would be even more degraded than a normal 1080i image as normal 1080i changes which row is drawn on each frame. This is why you end up with the 'comb' effect when you don't process an interlaced video image properly. Why reduce the overall image quality when doubling the pixels per inch is better and easier for 1080p in both the left and right? Either way, the coating would have to be shaped like this:
/|/|/|/|/|/|
|\|\|\|\|\|\
/|/|/|/|/|/|
|\|\|\|\|\|\
instead of what I would imagine would be
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\
As you can imagine the first one would be far more difficult to machine. either requiring a mold or a time consuming laser cut. The one below would probably just need a strait line cut.
But! I have no idea if the one below is the way a 3D lcd parallax barrier would look. I just know this is how they look on hologram cards that are supposed to be for 3D pictures but often have an animation when moving from left to right.
As far as a touch screen 3d screen goes, you would still have a 2D touch interface. You can not have true 3d interaction until you have holograms. Well, headgear displaying 2 screens with left and right as well as motion tracking for hands is already possible. But head gear is annoying and nobody want to wear sensors on their hands.
On a related note, I saw and got to play with an interface tool that had an arm attached to a stylus. You could freely move the stylus without restriction but it was tied into a 3D scene and it would provide true barrier restrictions and textures. e.g. it would not let you pass through objects and rubbing the tip across the virtual surface would provide the same feed back. Ice would be smooth and slippery and wood or something else would feel rough and restricted. But that interface was looking at a 2D flat screen and the perceived depth had to be visualized by the user. Attaching that to an glove type interface could provide force feed back to your headgear. But if you could imagine. 2 primary arms and at least 10 minor arms attached to the primary arms. Lots of things to break.Posted 01-17-2011 at 10:56 PM by lumak
