Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    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

    Comment


    • #42
      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.

      Comment


      • #43
        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.

        Comment


        • #44
          At some point someone is going to ask "why not just interact with real people ?"

          Comment


          • #45
            Here: http://www.voipmonitor.net/2007/08/3...c+Display.aspx

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

            Comment


            • #46
              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...

              Comment


              • #47
                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.

                Comment


                • #48
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X