Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 162

Thread: ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Side note, stereo has been part of OpenGL for well... probably since it's inception, although not exposed in consumer grade cards. So while OGL support is getting done, might as well hope that the stereo part of it is included

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klikklak View Post
    yeah, I went overboard with flamebait, but it's just that when ever 3d is mentioned, a dozen experts pop up saying that it's no good, "just wait for holograms".
    That's probably because people have been waiting for the 3D breakthrough for at least 20 years. The only difference between now and previous attempts is that the equipment no longer cause immediate headaches.

    It would be ironic if a modern technology would cause bad eye sight just as the old computer monitors did. Reintroduction of the nerd. A nerd - Someone who uses glasses with extra thick lenses, wear creased cloths and barricades themselves at home to play 3D computer games.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klikklak View Post
    And holograms, good grief this is a tired argument. If you live in the future, please send me a teraherz computer, because I've decided that I won't use any of these stone age machines.
    We're not talking Star Trek holodecks here, which by their description aren't even actual holograms (they just use the word for convenience to describe some imaginary "thing" that has not yet been invented, that can actually exert physical forces -- and is therefore NOT an actual hologram). Holograms are real and current technology that has been in use for DECADES (invented in 1947). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography -- they, of course, have their own drawbacks at the current state of the technology, which makes them even LESS suitable than the headache tech for simulating 3D.

    You should think of scifi-type "holograms" as some kind of highly configurable force field that simply reflects light in the same manner as the materials being simulated. I absolutely agree that this is crazy future stuff that could quite possibly be impossible.. so sorry, I don't have access to such magical future stuff.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,432

    Default

    At some point someone is going to ask "why not just interact with real people ?"

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Here: http://www.voipmonitor.net/2007/08/3...c+Display.aspx

    Definitely not practical. Warning: keep your fingers AWAY!!!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverthorn View Post
    That's probably because people have been waiting for the 3D breakthrough for at least 20 years. The only difference between now and previous attempts is that the equipment no longer cause immediate headaches.
    There is a difference between now and twenty years ago. Now we have access to plenty of 3D media, namely games that are based on 3d models and movies that are filmed in front of green screens. Also, while shutterglasses worked with CRT's ten years ago, there was a push for LCD's and early graphics cards were expensive so there was less of an opening for the tech to push through. And only now both of these obstacles have been overcome, by having fast enough graphics cards and cheap enough high refresh rate LCD's.

    I doubt nerds went away in the first place...

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    We're not talking Star Trek holodecks here.

    [...]
    I absolutely agree that this is crazy future stuff that could quite possibly be impossible.. so sorry, I don't have access to such magical future stuff.
    Yes, I know that we're not talking of star trek and that holograms are real. I also know that a response of 'in ten years we might have a prototype' is not satisfactory enough for me to skip something that exists now.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Here: http://www.voipmonitor.net/2007/08/3...c+Display.aspx

    Definitely not practical. Warning: keep your fingers AWAY!!!
    I saw an early version of this at Siggraph -- in 1980, I think. The one I saw used a flexible mirror mounted on a big speaker (woofer) and was flexed in/out by a low-frequency signal fed into the woofer.

    3D image was pretty good but there was an annoying low frequency hum from somewhere

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klikklak View Post
    There is a difference between now and twenty years ago. Now we have access to plenty of 3D media, namely games that are based on 3d models and movies that are filmed in front of green screens. Also, while shutterglasses worked with CRT's ten years ago, there was a push for LCD's and early graphics cards were expensive so there was less of an opening for the tech to push through. And only now both of these obstacles have been overcome, by having fast enough graphics cards and cheap enough high refresh rate LCD's.

    I doubt nerds went away in the first place...
    Nerds definitely didn't go away.
    Note that existing pseudo-3d content can not suffice for a genuine 3d image. This is because it lacks the diffusion layer and comes from only two perspectives in a single direction. A true 3d image requires a 360x360 degree perspective around the subject (i.e., not just 360 around in a plane, but above and below as well) and diffusion information through large aperture recording to keep track of focus distance. Standard photography records images through a point aperture and therefore lose all the diffusion information. It is possible that at some point, it may be possible to recreate the diffusion information knowing the distance, but this is a far off dream left to the realm of scifi.

    If you can be assured of viewing from a single direction, you could probably do away with the 360x360 view.

    Note that you can't recreate a focused image from an out-of-focus image, which means that out-of-focus background or foreground information in current 3d content could never be recreated.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etnlWings View Post
    Place your bets, people.
    Bet ya can't sell me a 3d tv even if you have a big gun. 3d is like the obnoxious retarded psychopath child that for some reason needs to be adopted by society but never seems to happen. My dad didn't adopt you in the 1950's and I'm not going to adopt you in the 2010's.

    3d graphics on a 2d screen. You can stay. 3d screens go away.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •