Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 162

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Warning, Star Trek nerd alert:

    The holograms in star trek actually were just supposed to be 3D images made out of light, and the physicality of them was faked by using projected force fields.
    No, their description was actually a lot more complex than that.
    More like force-fields + tractor beam + replication + transporter.

    All of which are magical "things" that haven't been invented yet

    Work like this in theory:
    You replicate a thin surface to provide texture and appropriate reflective properties, and hold it in place with a tractor beam / force field. Light would be provided by a standard light source rather than an actual hologram.

    OR, with just a force-field... that force field would itself carry the reflective properties.

    Remember that their standard "force-field" would give you a zap and light up if you touch it.... the "holodeck" didn't exhibit this characteristic, but a "holographic" brick wall would block your way just the same. By their description, that "holographic" brick wall was, in fact, an ACTUAL brick wall.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlandsun View Post
    Which is why analog 3D cameras never caught on. But if you're recording digitally with an infinite focus, then you can blur the background or foreground algorithmically when displaying the result.
    Doesn't matter if it is analog or digital. A lens is still a lens and an aperture is still an aperture. There is NO SUCH THING as "infinite focus".

    What you are describing is a large depth of field, which just as attainable using analog as digital. Of course, it is easier to FAKE a small depth of field using a digital source that has measures of DISTANCE for all points on the image... which are NOT entirely present in 3d photography, but which can be sort-of "guessed".

    Now unfortunately, this approach doesn't yield good results... specifically, you obtain a large depth of field using a small aperture. A small aperture means less light and more diffraction, which generally reduces the image quality, which means that you can't blow it up as much -- which means no imax theaters since it would look like crap when blown up to that size.

    And then there is a whole bunch more complexity.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Errr... I thought that 3D photography was done using two camera's in one?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Errr... I thought that 3D photography was done using two camera's in one?
    Not necessarily in one... two cameras side-by-side, they have to be synchronized (i.e. time stamp from common time source) and they have to be able to angle towards and away from each other such that they converge on the subject distance and the two beams have to be separated by about the same distance as the distance between your eyes at the "viewing" distance back from the subject.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etnlWings View Post
    I'm trying to figure out the point of this argument but it continues to elude me. There's been a huge 'multi-vendor push' for a lot of things, yet you're still not likely to find a lot of people who refuse to buy something if it's not in HD and in 5.1. Hell, a large portion of even the geek community still download VCD-quality rips off of TPB.
    The vast majority of sets available at Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc are flat panels capable of 780p or higher. It's rare that you can find an SDTV on the self. Since the HDDVD / Bluray format war resolved, Bluray is well ahead of DVD adoption rates (year to year market %). When multiple content makers and hardware vendors are pushing the same technology, the consumer base adopts it. The current direction of the entertainment industry is a strong embrace of stereo.

    ...yes? Courtier's Reply much? I 'ignore' something and you fail to make a point of it, well aren't we a crazy bunch.
    You were asserting that stereo is only appealing to enthusiasts and/or kids, as well as casting doubts about the readiness of the tech:
    No, more like writing it off as it's strictly the purview of enthusiasts and kids and they're still iffy about the technology
    Which, based on content slated to release, the 3D bluray format already being standardized, standardization underway or complete for stereo TV broadcasts in the UK, China, US, etc is false. You made an assertion which flies in the face of reality. So, yes, you are ignoring the current state of standards within the industry.

    ...while their non-3D counterparts remain significantly cheaper; it's still premium hardware. You haven't contradicted that.
    Sub $2000 was around a year ago, I haven't looked into pricing for that unit recently, so I don't have a current number. All a display needs in order to be stereo compliant is a high enough refresh rate and a sync out for active stereo, and have a decoder capable of handling the stereo format. As far as the refresh rates go, many current LCD sets have 120Hz or above refresh rates and the price point for these units start around 475 to 500 USD based on some recent pricing in stores. How much more of a price premium will be charged for stereo sets is up in the air, but we'll know that early next year. The actual costs to make the hardware though, shouldn't be much higher than what we already have since the refresh rate for the panels was the highest barrier to overcome.

    Oooooor support core features people are likely to use day-in, day-out, while leaving the frills on an 'as time permits' priority list.
    I agree that having the basics covered first is the right direction to go. My initial question was simple: Does the Gallium framework have hooks in place to support active stereo, or alternatively, is stereo something that's outside scope for the Gallium layer? My hope is that stereo is at least on the radar for the open drivers. Based on the direction that the entertainment industry is moving in, it's an important point to cover.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TomcaT-SdB View Post
    Based on the direction that the entertainment industry is moving in, it's an important point to cover.
    The entertainment industry isn't going to be FORCING 3D on anyone since doing so WILL cut off the potential customers who are either unable or unwilling to do 3D to begin with, and no, technological limitations requiring hardware upgrades are not the only reasons -- it is advisable that epileptics and those with heart conditions avoid 3D or other weird strobing effects... which means that all of the hardware and content MUST have a 2D fallback mode.

    On top of that, who is to say that 3D this time around is any less a fad than it was any of the previous times it went around? (and its been around a lot!)

    And I'll take 2D over a headache any day.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Yes, the industry won't force you to view stereo content. AFAIK the current standards are 2 full sized frames (one left eye, one right eye), so the set could probably just run in mono mode (display just one of the frames), just guessing here though. For flicker-free, there's also the option of polarized (passive) stereo displays (one was at CES), and at least one other option. The progress in stereo capability over the past few years have largely eliminated the headache issues though (this was already discussed several pages back), with the exception of focal distance. Those that don't want stereo will probably not buy a 3D capable display. BTW, the current stereo bluray disks have a stereo / non stereo option IIRC.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TomcaT-SdB View Post
    There's been a huge 'multi-vendor push' for a lot of things, yet you're still not likely to find a lot of people who refuse to buy something if it's not in HD and in 5.1. Hell, a large portion of even the geek community still download VCD-quality rips off of TPB.
    The vast majority of sets available at Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc are flat panels capable of 780p or higher. It's rare that you can find an SDTV on the s[h]elf. Bluray is well ahead of DVD adoption rates (year to year market %).
    What part of this aren't you getting? That's not a response to the argument I put forward.

    When multiple content makers and hardware vendors are pushing the same technology, the consumer base adopts it.
    ...never mind whether anyone uses it. My HDTV came loaded with recipes and meditation routines. I didn't ask for any of it and I sure as hell don't use it (let alone require that my PC and receiver be new-age-bullshit-enabled) but by your logic, that makes me a 'holistic raw food' chef.

    You were asserting that stereo is only appealing to enthusiasts and/or kids, as well as casting doubts about the readiness of the tech:
    No, more like writing it off as it's strictly the purview of enthusiasts and kids and they're still iffy about the technology
    Excuse my brusque manner but learn to read. Your evidence doesn't support your premise. Your proceeding argument was a blatant strawman.

    How much more of a price premium will be charged for stereo sets is up in the air
    3D TVs have been on the market for a number of months, now and the various 'old hotness' features give us a good indication: rear projection, plasma, 720p, LCD, HDMI, 1080i, 1080p, 100hz, LED. With every single upgrade, the prices remained punitive until the next gimmick arrived. 3D isn't going to be any different.

    My initial question was simple
    As was my initial objection, which rested with your assumptions, not your question.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Lol, you are all talking about Bluray, Full HD movies and the industry and shit, but has anyone with the right mind ever considdered that all of this shit is never going to run on Linux due to copy protection, DRM and patents? Oh yeah, that's right; I forgot. So stop bitching about this stupid stereo 3D shit.

    Just figure; how many times in your life have you gone through the process of "Wow it's the future! It's gonna kill x and bla bla bla bla bla!!!" ? Times do not change so fast. And when the moment is there it is going to take half a year for someone to hack something up in his/her sparetime and it's there...

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Lol, you are all talking about Bluray, Full HD movies and the industry and shit, but has anyone with the right mind ever considdered that all of this shit is never going to run on Linux due to copy protection, DRM and patents? Oh yeah, that's right; I forgot. So stop bitching about this stupid stereo 3D shit.

    Just figure; how many times in your life have you gone through the process of "Wow it's the future! It's gonna kill x and bla bla bla bla bla!!!" ? Times do not change so fast. And when the moment is there it is going to take half a year for someone to hack something up in his/her sparetime and it's there...
    3d is not only for movies. There's nothing stopping 3d games/apps from working (other than drivers) and let me tell you that they bring a whole new experience to the table. You don't have 3d if you don't like it, but games/apps engineered for 3d can be awesome.

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
  •