Despite its obvious appeal, 3D hasn’t really taken off as far as computers are concerned. However, things seem to be picking up pace of late, and Acer is the latest to get in on the game with what it claims is the world’s first 3D-capable laptop. Acer 5738DZG Acer’s Aspire 5738DZG: 3D comes to the laptop Before delving into …
just in time!
Just in time for Real Kanojo w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYafZE3llc
nsfw - kind of - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uTkHGbPlqs&feature=related
Re: just in time!
Sad. Very, very sad.
We all know you're much more into fps where you get to snap peoples necks, and telling people what they should do, I note the demo had two world war two games.
It never ceases to amaze me how pretend nookie is somehow far sadder then killing people.
I actually play alot of games, and do you know what, they're all escapism. Go figure.
I recall reading an article on the reg in '04 about a Sharp 3D LCD screen. only problem was the weak notebook it was attached to made it uninteresting and too expensive.
Would this be the infamous "3D" laptop that used some kind of "stereoscopic" effect to make the 3D illusion?
Ah yes, it is listed in one of the "worst tech" lists: http://www.pcworld.com/article/125772-6/the_25_worst_tech_products_of_all_time.html
At least this one doesn't require crossing your eyes.
Wasn't there a laptop a while back that used a lenticular screen to produce 3d? I imagine that would have been crap as lenticular usually is. Mind you, I've seen some pretty nice lenticular pictures on DVD covers lately... But my point is, this hardly qualifies as the first 3D laptop.
I used to have a pair of eDimensional's 3d shutter glasses, they worked surprisingly well. I loved Doom 3 and Far Cry (original) in 3d. I've been waiting for polarized 3d technology to hit LCDs for quite some time... I've always found that polarized 3d produces the clearest and most convincing effect and it _should_ be relatively simple to implement on LCD.
As someone else pointed out though, stereoscopic images are just half of the battle. What you really need to complete it is head tracking. Real-Time head tracking alone is amazingly immersive . The most amazing artificial 3d effect I ever experienced was when I combined the above eDimensional glasses with simple DIY head tracking using a wii remote (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/21/diy-head-tracker-takes-wiimote-hacking-to-dizzying-new-heights/). That was a mind-blowing experience...
the Sharp used a PArallax barrie to create the 2 images (http://www.pcworld.com/article/115348/sharps_3d_notebook.html)
I think this is the same tech they are using in in-car systems that let the driver see sat nav and the passanger to watch a movie.
Whats the deal?
I've wondered for some time now what the big fuss was with 3D.. I mean, I guess I can see it for home TV in some film aspects, but frankly I think constant use (especially due to the fact that 1 - you need to wear the glasses and 2 - you do need to sit still with almost all of the available 3d methods) would get tiresome, and in some cases even result in major headaches..
whats all the hype?.. why not just panoramic or 3d goggles?
Something old, something new...
Funny, I remember SEGA doing the same thing with the Z80 based master system in the late 80's (I used to sell the 3D glasses kit in 1989).
Funny how things come around...
Why the different CPU for the review sample...?
The question that bothers me the most is that they provided a review 'sample' with a different (more capable) CPU. Surely that's effectively false advertising? Do they provide other reviewers with similarly artificially boosted spec's...?
3d games ARE true 3d. They are 'designed for 3d'.
all that happens is that the game is told to render 2 viewpoints. All openGL and directX libraries have been able to do this from day one (i.e. all games are compatible with this idea)
As you state at the beginning, there are many old solutions that worked exactly the same way as far as pushing 2 interlaced pictures onto the screen - its just they did it one after the one, whereas here is is multiplexing the 2 interlaced images together, with the screen featuring 'bands' of polorised pixels.
'converting' 2d video to 3d is clearly mince and never going to work.
what I think is missing from all there is incorporation of the users position with regards to the screen.
If they combine this guys work into the user positioning it would give a far more realistic 3d experience imho:
I wouldn't call this a more affordable approach
The review says "In an attempt to create a more affordable 3D experience, Acer’s gone for a slightly different approach", but I would disagree. The use of polarised lenses is going to be far easier on the eye than having active glasses flickering at 60Hz in front of each eye.
It's a real shame the 3D performance is so crap, at 15 inches there's plenty of space for a decent GPU like the Geforce 260M or whatever the ATI equivalent is. I think the weak graphics chip is where Acer have gone for the cheap option.
Let the Porn flood begin...
As usual it''ll be sex that'll makes it sale...
And that one didn't even need stupid glasses . . . .
I wonder whatever happened to that tech?
and the Sharp Actius AL3DU both had autostereoscopic displays using lenticular lenses- you get glassesless 3D at the expense of half of your horizontal resolution.
Any non-autostereoscopic attempts to make true 3D available in real life will be stymied by the need for glasses. Anaglyph is utter crap and useful only as a way of describing how stereoscopy works. 60Hz displays (i.e. what each eye gets with a 120Hz display & shutter glasses) give you a headache. Polarised glasses requires two displays, so it's rather more expensive to build the display (though probably the cheapest way of building a DIY 3D display) and unless you've got circular-polarised screens (like the RealD system in cinemas) the effect can be thrown off by tilting your head. Head Mounted Displays by definition require headgear.
Autostereoscopic displays will become more useful (a) when there is a cheap DIY way of building them and/or (b) when large OLED or similar displays become more affordable (they've got potential for hugely increased resolution-per-square-inch (put 4x ~0.5" eMagin OLED displays next to each other and you've got a just-over-1" 1600x1200 pixel display!) so you can have a "proper" resolution in both 2D and 3D).
Anyone who asks "what's the point" clearly hasn't used 3D!