| Author | Message | ||
     guest Rating: N/A |
Anyone tried it? http://iz3d.com/ | ||
| Prune Rating: N/A |
Not this particular one, but at the 2005 Siggraph I checked out all the autostereoscopic technologies, and I have to say they still have ways to go. One sad thing is that the three major improvements that monitors in general need are by different companies, and it's going to be a long time until we see them together. You don't realize how far regular monitors are from what's needed until you see a high dynamic range monitor. You don't realize the colors you are missing until you see an extended gamut display. So, when will we see these two combined with decent stereoscopy? All the technologies are in place, but due to draconian patent law and trade secrets, these won't come together for another, say, 20 years. And let's not forget that stereo is not the only depth cue. There are three, and in order of importance to 3D perception they are: 1) occlusion (that's of course taken for granted), 2) stereopsis, and 3) accomodation (eye focusing). Volumetric displays have 2) and 3), but they lack 1), which makes them only useful for scientific visualization. Holographic displays have all three depth cues, but active ones are this far limited to terribly small resolutions due to the complexity of processing and optical implementation. If a display system that is the inverse of the lightfield/lumigraph camera system can be built, it would satisfy all three, i.e. be like a true window into a virtual world. In the end, it's only a more direct connection to the sensory organ that can fully reproduce real life -- retinal projection type stuff. This is analogous to what is the case with sound. No speaker setup and signal processing can do as good crosstalk cancellation and match the head-related transfer function as a system using headphones in the ear canal (ever listen to binaural recordings convolved with your own HRTF?) | ||
| stereoboy Rating: N/A |
their monitor is NOT autostereoscopic | ||
| Charles Rating: N/A |
Prune: There are at least a dozen depth perception cues, only one of which requires image motion. The physiological cues are binocular parallax, convergence, accommodation, and monocular movement parallax. The static psychological depth cues are relative size, relative height, linear perspective, texture gradient, overlapping, aerial perspective, and shadows/shades. Motion parallax is a psychological cue that applies only to moving objects. | ||
| Prune Rating: N/A |
I'm discussing this from the computer graphics/display engineering point of view (i.e. what they need to implement in addition to what is already done for displaying non-stereo images). Stereopsis is the same thing as convergence+binocular parallax, just an alternate term; likewise with occlusion and overlapping. If stereopsis and occlusion are properly implemented by a display device, that also gives you binocular parallax. Monocular parallax is only covered by volumetric and holographic displays. I've not heard of aerial perspective before; can you elaborate how that's a depth perception clue? As for shadows/shades and texture, they are not just depth cues, they are important to object recognition and in non-stereoscopic graphics, and have been covered by computer graphics long ago (and computer vision as well, for example see photometric stereo, first Woodham 1980). Shading is an extremely inaccurate depth perception cue, because deriving depth from it is mathematically integration from the shading gradient and the resulting error accumulation and unknown constant of integration (I'm not claiming the brain does it this way, but mathematically it can only improve upon this by the a priori assumptions it uses in reconstruction). It's gives an indication of curvature and edges, but is not useful for building up a global depth map. | ||
| Thomas Kumlehn (Pixelpartner) New member Username: Pixelpartner Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2008 Rating: N/A |
I had a look at the IZ3D at IFA2007 and either it was an early prototype or the system is just not designed well. You have to wear standard POL-glasses and both lots of colour fringes and ghost images from the neihbour eye make it hard to pay $1000 for it. I'd say - either take the extra $600 and buy a class 50" DLP3D FullHD rearPro TV, or .... wait |
