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: 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.