MIT Developed A Movie Screen That Brings Glasses-Free 3D To All Seats (techcrunch.com) 100
An anonymous reader writes from a report via TechCrunch: MIT has developed a glasses-less 3D display for movie theaters. The Nintendo 3DS is one of a handful of devices to feature glasses-less 3D, but it is designed for a single users where the user is looking at the display head-on at a relatively specific angle. It's not something made for a movie theater with hundreds of seats, each of which would have a different viewing angle. What's neat about MIT's 3D display is that it doesn't require glasses and it lets anyone see the 3D effect in a movie theater, no matter where they are sitting. The MIT Computers Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) created the prototype display called 'Cinema 3D' that uses a complex arrangement of lenses and mirrors to create a set number of parallax barriers that can address every viewing angle in the theater based on seat locations. It works in a movie theater because the seats are in fixed locations, and people don't tend to move around, change seats or alter their viewing angle too much. What's also neat about the Cinema 3D is that is preserves resolution, whereas other glasses-less 3D displays carry cots in terms of image resolution. The prototype is about the size of a letter-sized notepad, and it needs 50 sets of mirrors and lenses. It should be ready for market once researchers scale it up to a commercially viable product.
Interesting sleep arrangement (Score:4, Funny)
whereas other glasses-less 3D displays carry cots in terms of image resolution.
So that begs the question: what kind of bedding can we expect from this glasses-less 3D display?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter. That's the normal meaning nowadays. I suggest you use 'assumes the question' if that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting sleep arrangement (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Can someone enlighten me as to approximately when the expression "begs the question" started to mean "raises the question", instead of the informal fallacy of assuming that an unproven premise is true as part of a conclusion?
You "raise" a question AFTER the situation "begs" it. If you raise it too soon, it won't be begged. If you wait till it is begged, then its obvious. That in why begged questions are inherently obvious.
Re:Interesting sleep arrangement (Score:5, Insightful)
Just give it up. That cat will never go back in that particular bag. English changes over time with usage.
Personally, I'm fine with it. Intuitively, "begs the question" means the same as "demands the question"... because "begs" and "demands" mean the same damn thing. Phrases making sense intuitively is a good thing, IMHO.
Just use "assumes the conclusion" for the fallacy (which again, makes more intuitive sense anyway), and stop trying to perpetuate the original meaning which will never, ever take over as the common usage again.
Just my two cents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do?
You can beg your boss to give you a raise, but you can't demand it. (You can give an ultimatum and quit if you don't get it, but that's still not demanding a raise, in that your demand is succeeding.)
Re: (Score:2)
They both mean "asking for something".
Yes, of course they differ in the details. Thank you for pedantically stating the massively obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The moment teachers taught people to learn from context instead of a philosophy textbook. So pretty much as soon as someone not schooled in the jargon heard it.
You are arguing for a commonplace understanding of jargon, which is specifically and locally defined. That will never happen. We misuse terms from all kinds of professions all the time, as people.
So I guess you could ask us to stop being people. Or we can go back to classifying you as a girl. At one time that was gender neutral. Hardly the case now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is 3D all that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have yet to see a movie where I thought the 3D enhancements made the movie superior over a conventional screen. Regarding Nintendo's 3DS, I noticed that my daughters disable the 3D feature because they find it distracting. Is anyone pining for a movie to come out in 3D?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you really want to know why think about this:
(tan(a)tan(b))/tan(a)+tan(b)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're stupid and wrong. That's all I can do here, because now its about faith. You asked for anyone, and yes I am. Prometheus with Charlize Theron in tight white 3D, Tron the unspeakable with Beau Garrett in tight white 3D...
Avatar sucked, retroactive 3D sucks, animation is the Bees bollocks. 3D Jesus is one dimension better than your 2D Jesus.
So yes, people disagree with you. Also, VR gives 3D a new platform. Yes its nit holographic, but 3D content helps bridge the gap between 2D and VR.
Lemme guess, you
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a movie where I thought the 3D enhancements made the movie superior over a conventional screen.
I agree with you that I prefer non-3D formats, but I'll be more specific. I don't like that in 3D movies peripheral and background images are typically out of focus. I want to view the whole scene, not just the camera's main subject(s). This may also harm movie-making in general because when directors know that 3D viewers may not clearly see a background image, then it can limit the creativity they apply to a scene. If you don't know what I mean, consider the Star Wars The Force Awakens, which I saw at the
My have to change the name (Score:2)
Not to be confused with Cinema 4D, a 3D modeling program.
Letter sized? (Score:1, Troll)
<troll>
How many A4s is a letter sized? What's with these weird measurement units?
</troll>
Re: (Score:2)
We want to keep our spellings, but at the same time we have to go metric at some time. We have a choice between spending a lot to convert now, or spending an exorbitant amount to convert later.
Re: (Score:1)
Not so simple. All real property is recorded in the individual county court houses in inch/feet/miles. Legal nightmare to convert the title to everything. Seriously. When you look closely and see surveys routinely saying, "more or less" then there will be a squabble that will put several multiples of the nations domestic output into scumbag lawyers pockets.
Now if everything is digitized then maybe a bot can go through the database and straighten things out. Maybe...
Waste of effort (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but theaters are obsolete, and gimmicks like 3D are only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits: no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones, a rewind button so I can go back if I didn't understand a line of dialog, a pause button so I can go to the bathroom, no sticky floors, the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side, whatever food I want instead of some crappy overpriced concessions, whatever kind of seat I want (such as a recliner), and the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I want?
Re: (Score:3)
Some people go to the theater to get away from the screaming kids, family members talking on their cell phones, etc which they have to deal with at home.
Re: (Score:2)
I go to theaters on weekdays, daytime. They've very peaceful. A couple times I've actually been the only person in the theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what the other guy said: they went to the wrong place!!!
Actually, to be fair, I will note that there are some theaters where you can have a fairly nice experience (though still no pause or rewind capabilities). Usually these are called "dinner theaters"; you get a huge comfy chair, and can order a full meal (and alcohol if you want) and eat while you watch the movie. I also hear good things about Alamo Drafthouse. Most theaters aren't like this though, and they aren't available everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
My town has one of these, built by and for the annual film festival but used year round for opera simulcasts and special film screenings.
Re:Waste of effort (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits...
I almost never get a chance to go to the theaters any more, but I still see the value in many cases. First, you're not at home. Sometimes it's nice to go out for the sake of going out. Second, most genres of film are better with an audience. Comedies are much better with an audience, though the audience can also spoil it if they aren't invested (much like stand-up). Third, the picture and sound are almost certainly better than what you have at home. I saw Interstellar at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and I'm glad I did. Home theaters are great, but they aren't the same.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had modern 3D since Avatar came out in 2009, and still no one's shown that it can be used to any really good effect. Avatar was really the only movie where it added anything at all. Sorry, but so far it's just looking like a gimmick.
Re: Waste of effort (Score:2)
we saw from the failure of 3d to be a real selling point for TVs (3d or a larger screen for the same price - bigger wins)..
if you want a better more immersive experience, spend the money on better audio.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Movie theatres should deal with getting rid of the bad experiences at the theatre and make sure that the picture and sound quality is top notch.
That is what would bring people back - not gimmicks.
There are theatres that will kick you out if you talk too much during the movie or use a cell phone.
All theatres should be that way.
Instead we have theatre chain executives who "give up" because "millenials are always on the phone", we get movies projected in 2K -- which is only a little bit more than the f
Re: (Score:1)
no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones
What kind of shitty-ass theatre are you going to? The one I go plays a vignette at the start of the show asking people to turn off their phones. I've literally never seen a person talk on their phone in the theatre. That's the kind of behaviour that would get your ass kicked out... Is it an American thing?
the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side
Go to a theatre with reserved seating, or arrive there early.
Re: (Score:2)
I've literally never seen a person talk on their phone in the theatre. That's the kind of behaviour that would get your ass kicked out... Is it an American thing?
Probably, yes. People do text on their phones a lot these days, probably a lot more than talking on them.
Go to a theatre with reserved seating, or arrive there early.
Reserved seating? You're kidding, right? I've never, ever, ever, ever seen a theater like that in my many decades of theater-going.
Arriving early isn't going to help that much; now
Re: (Score:3)
Glasses-Free 3D (Score:2)
Of course people move around (Score:3)
people don't tend to move around, change seats or alter their viewing angle too much
All it would take is moving to the left or right a couple inches and you're on your way to a headache.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The author has clearly never had a tall guy with a big head sit in front of them.
Or taken a date to a movie.
Strange... (Score:2)
should be ready when it's ready (Score:5, Funny)
It should be ready for market once researchers scale it up to a commercially viable product.
Well no shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already is. Ultra-D technology offers glasses free 3D on screens 50" and 65" screens [ultra-d.com]. It's been featured at CES and it's fairly impressive.
It's got a wide 3D viewing angle (120 degrees - 60 degrees off perpendicular each side), and from 120 through 178 degrees, it degrades into a 2D imag
Re: (Score:2)
Re:should be ready when it's ready (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be ready for market once researchers scale it up to a commercially viable product.
See also: quantum computers, invisibility cloaking metamaterials, and fusion.
2 Things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
As has already been said, I've yet to watch a movie with 3D and thought, 2D just wouldn't have cut it.
Same here. But the same goes for color and stereo sound.
Any new movie would work in mono with gray-scale, I still prefer to watch it with colors and 5.1 sound.
Re: (Score:2)
As has already been said, I've yet to watch a movie with 3D and thought, 2D just wouldn't have cut it. This whole 3D thing is kind of a dead horse and I'm getting really tired of people kicking it.
I could get to work on a horse and cart too, that doesn't mean that everything new is automatically a dead horse when a few people can't see the point or remained unimpressed. We had the same arguments with colour, DVD, HD, etc. I'm unimpressed with 3D TVs but only due to the ghosting issues I have with mine. In the cinema I happily pick a 3D movie over a 2D one after a quick search to see if it was shot in 3D or if it was a crappy 3D perversion of 2D content.
But you know the amazing thing here? This has li
Why do they bother? (Score:2)
Its not wearing glasses that causes headaches (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the forced stereoscopy.... when you project different images into each eye, unless you are sitting only at certain spots in the movie theater, the angle that your eyes will have to converge to fuse the two images into a single 3d image in your visual cortex is unnatural with respect the distance that the visual differences between the two objects conveys to your brain about the apparently distance of what you are seeing.
Holograms would not have this effect, since where you are focusing on when you view a hologram is consistent with where the 3d image actually is supposed to be. The image appears as fully 3 dimensional as would looking at real physical objects on the other side of a pane of clear glass, or looking at things in a mirror.
But I imagine we're still some years away from real holographic movies being a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there really a need for this? (Score:2)
I think this will be a hard sell for movie theaters. Many spent a lot of money on the polarized 3D tech, and that's pretty much just a really expensive projection solution. Some viewers (like me) love 3D, and will pay a premium. But some do not, and cannot watch 3D because they get headaches. Mostly when you see a movie with these folks you just see the 2D one, but in some cases they will just go ahead and rig up special glasses (two left or two right lenses).
With some solution like this, they will defi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have much trouble wearing their glasses over mine, but I don't doubt that some folks do.
Re:Is there really a need for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there a bunch of people for whom the 3D polarized glasses are specifically an issue?
It's been my experience, that the movie is fuzzier with 3D glasses. Both my wife and I had experience where we'd see a movie with her family in 3D, then go see it later on our own in 2D and were blown away the second time by how nice the film looked. Now we have kids and certainly don't have the time to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but because of our previous experience we always opt for 2D.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because there's no such thing as perfect 90 degree polarization. Each signal will interfere with the other a little bit, and you always get a bit of bleed from one eye into the other and vice versa near areas of high contrast.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot more perfect polarisation than you get with a $0.25 filter, and certainly enough to eliminate ghosting issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but they're not going to give you that with the cost of a movie ticket. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
*Sigh* They don't anyway. And screw those idiots for attempting to charge me $1 even when I bring my own glasses.
Actually this makes me wonder if there's a market for this. I'll take 2 quality camera polarisers into the cinema with me next time and see if it improves the effect any. I smell a kickstarter.
But can you look anywhere on the screen? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fundamental problem I have with 3D films. The focal point is always where the director decided it should be so if you try to look at something off to the side of the screen, the 3D illusion falls apart.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and more importantly, does watching the movie in 3D actually add anything?
I've never come away from a 3D movie and thought, "That was so cool in 3D", because after you've adjusted in the first 30 seconds or so, you were just watching a movie, except with cardboard glasses on.
Re: (Score:2)
3D cinema only has 2 points of view. There are other 3D display technologies that offer 8 points of view, creating a wider sweet spot and allowing more compelling depth.
3D (Score:2)
Like movies aren't expensive enough... (Score:2)
A 2D movie is $12, 3D is $15.75 and $21 for IMAX-3D. And that's with a standard screens. Once you replace the screen with a complex arrangement of lenses and mirrors to create a set number of parallax barriers...
Get ready for the $40 ticket.
Gains resolution, loses brightness (Score:2)