Microsoft's Glasses-Free 3D Display 197
An anonymous reader writes "The Microsoft Applied Sciences Group has developed a new lens that lets you watch three-dimensional content without 3D glasses. The new lens is thinner at the bottom (about 6mm) than at the top (11mm) and steers light to a viewer's eyes via LEDs along its bottom edge. The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light; the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."
# of viewiers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So this only works with one person?
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light
And the Blue Screen of Death will be looking back at you!
The difference between Microsoft & Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.
Apple: Here's our new tech. You can get-it from the Apple Store starting now.
Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ... By the time Microsoft would get this to market, there will be dozens of low-quality chinese knock-offs at 1/2-1/4 of the price but compatible with each-other and Microsoft's screens will use some kind of new and incompatible protocol.
I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.
Re:cool idea but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.
10% of men are homosexuals, but people still sell pictures of boobs
Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a bit more like--You can get it next June in the apple store, and oh man is it going to be broken for the first couple releases but we'll take your money anyways.
Re:cool idea but why? (Score:3, Insightful)
But your point still stands.
Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is just spreading the word about their new tech much earlier in the development cycle. Apple knows that it already has its fanbois standing in line to get whatever it is they come out with next, they don't have to worry about generating interest 2-3 years ahead of time.
MS likes the image of itself as an R&D innovator (whether or not they actually are, thats the image they like to portray). It is in their best interests for everyone to see their projects as the develop. Think of all the press time and attention they've gotten over Natal (now Kinect). That is free publicity, just for being open during their development process.
Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point here. Microsoft is not a hardware company, unlike Apple, which is both hardware and software. Microsoft is a software company that invests in hardware research to create Proofs-Of-Concept to convince other hardware companies to build the hardware that Microsoft's NextProduct will depend on for cool-whiz-bang features.
When Microsoft sells a mouse, it's because it's a five-button mouse before five-button mice have caught on and it's not even because it's the first five-button mouse, it's because it defines the specs that Microsoft wants all the other hardware vendors to follow, not because it's innovative but because it makes the hardware work consistently on its OS. When Microsoft sells a keyboard, it's because it wants hardware makers to add that useless Windows key.
There... Fixed that for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft: Here's the tech we have bought off and patented recently.
We have a single working prototype in the lab and in about a year(ish), you will be able to buy a version with tacked on features you will have no use for, most of which won't even work as they should.
Apple: Here's the tech we have copied from someone else, tacked an 'i' in front of it and spit-shined it to appear cooler.
You can PAY for it right now at the Apple Store, and we will get it to you when we damn well please.
Oh... and one more thing - it will cost anywhere between 2 and 5 times as the competition's model, but it will come in Apple's signature iWhite and maybe some other iColors.
And it will cost half as much a month after it comes out. If you complain nicely, you will get a iGift-certificate for the fraction of the money difference that you can use to buy socks for your iPod. [apple.com]
Re:cool idea but why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people aren't going to theatres anymore. Whether by piracy or the rise of the home theatre, the movie studios need something to justify people going out to watch a movie rather than waiting for it on Blu-Ray and DVD. IMAX has 3D for what, at least a decade and a half now, but IMAX screens are few and far between (due to technical requirements that are quite onerous and limit seating capacity). But a regular theatre can be cheaply outfitted for 3D (and since they had to renovate anyhow for digital movie projection, it's a 2-for-1 shot).
The reason the tech is filtering down to home equipment is the same - people see it in theatres and (a few) want it in their homes as well. That, and there's no real new tech in TVs these days - you have your 240Hz refresh LCDs that get bigger and bigger every year and cheaper, but it's pretty much nothing new or innovative in TVs. Sure you have quad-1080p coming out, but with no programming in that format, it's not terribly useful at the moment. But people have 3D content available (somewhat), and they'll hopefully be wanting more.
Now, I see it as a gimmick as long as you need glasses for them because well, those glasses suck if you multitask. If you sit in front of the TV and watch it, they're fine, but if you read a book with a TV on, or do other things, it really sucks. And the proportion of people who don't multitask is getting smaller. But 3D movies, and 3D gaming is likely to take off since in both cases the user tends to put their full attention on the screen. Casual TV viewing, probably not.
Re:cool idea but why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:# of viewiers? (Score:3, Insightful)
ummm.... Slashdot?
Re:Works for one person... (Score:3, Insightful)