Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Intel Linux Devs Begins Looking At 3D Monitors

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,629

    Default Intel Linux Devs Begins Looking At 3D Monitors

    Phoronix: Intel Linux Devs Begins Looking At 3D Monitors

    Patches have begun to surface this week from an Intel developer that begin to work on 3D monitor support under Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAyNjI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Is there actually anyone (consumer) who is really interested in 3D? This is a topic that is often discussed but I still haven't seen a single person declare that 3D is "awesome" or a "killer feature" or anything like that. Come on... there must be someone out there who just loves 3D right? Otherwise why are the manufacturers pushing 3D with such enthusiasm if the consumers couldn't care less about it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Come on... there must be someone out there who just loves 3D right? Otherwise why are the manufacturers pushing 3D with such enthusiasm if the consumers couldn't care less about it?
    because they must push the "new" and "cool" in order to replace your TV/Monitor sooner

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Is there actually anyone (consumer) who is really interested in 3D? This is a topic that is often discussed but I still haven't seen a single person declare that 3D is "awesome" or a "killer feature" or anything like that. Come on... there must be someone out there who just loves 3D right? Otherwise why are the manufacturers pushing 3D with such enthusiasm if the consumers couldn't care less about it?
    Of course there are and that's one of the reasons why it's being pushed like you said. I personally can't wait for autostereoscopic monitors and true 3D movies. The technology is far from ready but it still sells atleast on movie theaters and I would assume that when we finally get autostereoscopic televisons they will sell like hotcakes. There's no going back and 3D is here to stay. The next big thing for 3D is The Hobbit movies which will be filmed at 48 fps and 5k resolution that should solve some of the remaining problems.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    Of course there are and that's one of the reasons why it's being pushed like you said. I personally can't wait for autostereoscopic monitors and true 3D movies. The technology is far from ready but it still sells atleast on movie theaters and I would assume that when we finally get autostereoscopic televisons they will sell like hotcakes. There's no going back and 3D is here to stay. The next big thing for 3D is The Hobbit movies which will be filmed at 48 fps and 5k resolution that should solve some of the remaining problems.
    Yes, but no current or announced tech that doesn't require the glasses of pain? after 10-20 mins of wearing them I get massive migraines till I look like this:


  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Is there actually anyone (consumer) who is really interested in 3D? This is a topic that is often discussed but I still haven't seen a single person declare that 3D is "awesome" or a "killer feature" or anything like that. Come on... there must be someone out there who just loves 3D right? Otherwise why are the manufacturers pushing 3D with such enthusiasm if the consumers couldn't care less about it?
    They're trying to force an upgrade in a down economy that requires minimal investment in actual new product?

    Should be apparent that while the HD stream resolutions are standardized at 1280x720 and 1920x1080 there are very few TVs that actually do those resolutions, 1280x720 res screens are nonexistent and the majority of TVs that claim 1080* are only quoting the max input resolution, the res could be anything as low as a stretched 1024x768.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default Starwars

    We had 3D back in the 1980 somethings:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master

    Not much has change. Still need huge glasses to use it.

    This is better:
    Touchable holograms
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=Hy9bNhALo4g#!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrl View Post
    This is better:
    Touchable holograms
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=Hy9bNhALo4g#!
    So now I have more reason to punch stupid people in the head for pushing on the screen to make it show the colors or poking at it with a pen and leaving ink marks or worse, scratches in the screen?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Passive 3D tech is here, and from what I've read a lot less painful than shutterglasses. Still needs glasses, but they're light and don't flicker. The NVIDIA shutter glasses sound like a pretty naf gadget, yes.

    Use what about blender? I don't really do modelling, but sounds like it could be useful to me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Stereo 3D is awesome, and a killer feature, and anything like that. I have been using it since the mid-1980s in a scientific field that requires 3D visualization.

    Passive systems use lighter glasses, w/o batteries, but they do so by sacrificing half the pixel resolution. I.e. using polarization, half the pixels go to the left eye and half to the right eye.

    Glasses-free systems are on the market, but require you to keep your eyes in the "sweet spot." So which is more of a pain, wearing glasses or not being able to move your head?

    Active glasses with an LCD shutter give each eye full pixel resolution at 60 Hz (the monitor runs at 120 Hz in this mode). This is what we were using from the 1980s on, but with CRTs because LCD monitors were not fast enough to handle the 120 Hz until about 2 years ago.

    Small scientific fields like this are not big enough to drive the market, so we've had to put up with high prices. For example, the best systems for doing this on Linux today are nVidia's professional series Quadro cards, which cost much more than consumer-grade Geforce. Using Geforce, the stereo sync emitter is controlled with USB rather than the special 3 pin mini-DIN connector that has been around for the purpose since the 1980s, and the result is occasional flickering. Also, full quad-buffered stereo-in-a-window is only supported on the professional cards.

    It would be great to have this well-supported on standard graphics circuits and open-source drivers.

    ============
    My advice would be to use DisplayPort 1.2, and leave the specific technology and sync decisions to the display.
    Last edited by CrystalCowboy; 12-13-2011 at 04:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

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