SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it's-done-by-smoke-and-mirrors,-but-without-the-smoke dept.
Researchers have created a glasses-free 3D display prototype that exploits the limited number of viewing angles offered by movie theaters:
In a new paper, a team from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) and Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science have demonstrated a display that lets audiences watch 3-D films in a movie theater without extra eyewear. Dubbed "Cinema 3D," the prototype uses a special array of lenses and mirrors to enable viewers to watch a 3-D movie from any seat in a theater.
[...] The key insight with Cinema 3D is that people in movie theaters move their heads only over a very small range of angles, limited by the width of their seat. Thus, it is enough to display images to a narrow range of angles and replicate that to all seats in the theater. What Cinema 3D does, then, is encode multiple parallax barriers in one display, such that each viewer sees a parallax barrier tailored to their position. That range of views is then replicated across the theater by a series of mirrors and lenses within Cinema 3D's special optics system.
[...] Cinema 3D isn't particularly practical at the moment: The team's prototype requires 50 sets of mirrors and lenses, and yet is just barely larger than a pad of paper. But, in theory, the technology could work in any context in which 3-D visuals would be shown to multiple people at the same time, such as billboards or storefront advertisements. Matusik says that the team hopes to build a larger version of the display and to further refine the optics to continue to improve the image resolution.
Also at TechCrunch. MIT CSAIL video at YouTube (49 seconds).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @08:52AM
DHS/FBI/NSA gonna love this shit for gaslighting normals into becoming terrists. Keeping US fucking safe, from US!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:20AM
"The key insight with Cinema 3D is that people in movie theaters move their heads only over a very small range of angles, limited by the width of their seat."
"the technology could work in any context in which 3-D visuals would be shown to multiple people at the same time, such as billboards or storefront advertisements"
Which are contexts where the *key insight* no longer holds. So, was that a key insight or not - stop changing your story.
They just want some funding from the big pot of money that is advertising, that seems clear.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:17PM
Also, while the total degrees I can traverse may be small in absolute terms, they are huge when factoring in the degrees which make a difference... namely between my eyes.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:58AM
I agree that they can't even seem to get that right with the technology today without making a significant percentage of the population nauseous.
However, there is something they fail to account for. Couples like to snuggle with their significant others and that means leaning closer with their eyes between the chairs.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:07PM
The "key insight" is that you don't need to display the entire object from all angles, which is pretty obvious (at least in cinemas). You don't need want to view a movie from another angle depending on the seat you're in (e.g. guy has gun behind its back which half of the public sees, the other half doesn't). Billboards don't need this either (though it'd be pretty cool), you'd just see the 3-D image snapping back as you walk around.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:00PM
Drivers, please be sure to engage the autopilot as you view the 3-D billboards. Thank you.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:40PM
limited by the width of their seat. Thus, it is enough to display images to a narrow range of angles and replicate that to all seats in the theater.
What if I don't want to wag my head side to side? I'm not gonna do that. I might, or might not be willing to turn my head to look at a hottie. That is the concept behind calling someone a "head turner". So rather than my wife going all James Bond to figure out if I'm getting an eyeful, she can just see if I went to a dumb 3d movie and went all tai chi at the movie theater to get a glimpse of some fun parts. Although honestly after 20 years she probably doesn't need James Bond skills, she just sees a 10/10 walk by and automatically says something like "GD it VLM stop staring" or "look but don't touch". I'm getting to the age where my wife likes to tease me that I need an eye exam and I shut that shit test down with "I can identify a hottie at a hundred yards, get back to me when you catch me checking out someone far away who turns out to be a long haired dude" (Nothing personal, long haired dudes, but you're not my type)
WRT wiggling my head side to side, I was always a cat person when I was younger (although I'm catless at this moment) and domestic cats do the head wiggling thing they propose as a range finding mechanism. I'm pretty old and other than trying to mime "I iz a cat" or similar goofing around I have never felt the need to wiggle my head side to side, although I know its physically possible. I think there was a Bangles music video from the 80s, back when MTV was about music videos and not progressive propaganda, and in that video they wiggled their heads in that weird manner.
Something more comedic is this will be punishment for people who stand up during a movie and walk around (to get popcorn or go to the can or whatever). They are going to get soooooooo seasick watching the images wiggle as they walk in semi-darkness. I would not be surprised if people puke. I'm not implying seasickness is funny, but the funny part is no one seems to have considered this failure mode? Or the funny part is they don't care, I mean they put in 25 minutes of previews and advertisements and charge $20 for two sodas and a tub of popcorn (which I'm told is actually pretty cheap compared to the rest of the country) and the movies are all shitty remakes of reimaginings of sequels from 30 years ago, yet people are still dumb enough to go, so F it, if we make them puke they'll still keep going.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:27PM
I do the head wiggling thing because I have limited vision in one eye. In traffic it is a little annoying because I need at least 1 head movement to compute distance, 2 to compute speed, 3 to compute acceleration.
I really should wear my "reading" glasses more. They give me "3D" vision in real life. Trees look way better in 3D.
Incidentally, I have never been very impressed with stereoscopic video. This proposal may allow me to wear corrective lenses while watching a stereoscopic movie.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:15PM
Incidentally, I have never been very impressed with stereoscopic video.
Few are because it isn't true 3D. Sight doesn't occur in the retina, it occurs in the brain and has far more information than the retina provides. There is, of course, stereoscopic vision, but also rangefinding and clues to 3D that "3D" glasses can't provide.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:42PM
Those still exist [3dstereo.com]. Had to revise my search terms to avoid "3D" and "Video" (used "Stereo animation").
According to Wikipedia, those work by magnifying small image strips. The resolution required may be prohibitive to do the same thing with video. Though the stereoscopy article reminded me that the Nintendo 3DS [wikipedia.org] pulled it off.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 26 2016, @05:21PM
The team's prototype requires 50 sets of mirrors and lenses, and yet is just barely larger than a pad of paper
When I was a kid, lets say 1980, we could buy postcard sized action pictures where there was a ribbed lens (usually vertical) relying on the focus moving as your head went side to side.
So a picture was printed in high res and it was glued to the ribbed lenses and then as you tilted the pix you saw the millenium falcon move and shoot or the dukes of hazzard jump or whatever.
There is probably a name for this printing technique although I have no idea what to google for and have not seen this in stores for some time.
Its was not terribly expensive. The kind of thing a kid would have on his pencil box (assuming kids today have pencil boxes) or it would be a rather expensive postcard sized pix like the cost of two candy bars.
Anyway I would imagine a ribbed array of 300 linear lens could be stuck to a HDTV to give the same effect, so you'd see a slightly different image based on the angle from the display.
I wonder what is so complex about this system such that it requires stacks of optical gear to do about the same thing.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:23PM
The ribbing is called a lenticular image/lens. You can still see them around.
That technology has been used for 3D TVs, but it tends to only work well from one viewpoint. I have a 3D camera that uses that as the display, but you have to line up really well. It pops when it works. The most famous example is this is how they do 3D on the Nintendo 3DS.
Unlike other sterographic images, I found it really hard to create prints that worked with it. You can buy blank lenticular sheets, I think on Amazon. They come in a variety of pitches.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:43PM
Yes I can verify that is the word to google for.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:41PM
Ever since there was such a thing of a digital photograph I've been waiting for a true holographic screen, and the knowledge and technology is there but no one has put it together yet. All you would need would be a high resolution LCD screen backlit by a laser. The LCD screen would hold the moire pattern you see when you look at a hologram in normal light.
A color screen might be a little more trouble to produce, but they had film holograms in a college physics class back in the late seventies and even though the laser light was red, the holograms were amazing. FAR better than the "3D" we have today, which isn't really 3D but only a component of 3D. Holograms give you everything except color.
The drawback to holography is that when you're taking the picture there can't be any light at all except for the split laser beam.
A holographic movie on a theater-sized screen would be problematic, since holograms are true 3D. People on the right side of the theater would see a slightly fifferent angle than someone on the left side. Great for television-sized screens, though.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday July 29 2016, @11:22AM
Electronic, motion holograms are being worked on: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21643058-affordable-moving-holography-may-not-be-too-far-away-light-end-tunnel [economist.com]
As with film holograms, coherence length may be a problem for imaging large objects. The size of the largest objects that can be imaged is similar to the coherence length.
Another difficulty may occur in imaging moving objects. A very slight motion can spoil a hologram.