Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    How do you think your brain knows there's "real" depth?
    Because it has learned how to contract eye mussels based on angle, distance (IF this distance THEN that contraction, so it's X far away from screen and gets brainfucked because the percieved depth is not the depth that your eye mussels need to contract to see that very depth on the screen) and surrounding object which border with the flat brainfuck 2D surface. Even color desaturation.

    It doesn't go there and touch it.
    No; it expects it and contracts eye mussels to accomodate the situation. Given that if you don't have an eye filling-, movement and distance tracing, color desaturating-, eye-tracking-, non-shuttering movie and auto image adjusting movie (practically impossible); your brain will still get fucking annoyed and your physical eye mussels are killing itself.

    It's because each one of your eyes sends different images to it. That's exactly what 3D displays try to do; send different images to your left and right eye.
    Yeah... that's the effect. Now how the fuck your brain and eye angles work is different.

    The technique needs to be perfected (the imperfections cause the headaches,)
    Dream on. You either build the Matrix(TM), or you can't.
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-18-2011, 06:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      That is something that light field displays and cameras can solve.

      (Seriously, it's neat and works for real google it.)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by plonoma View Post
        That is something that light field displays and cameras can solve.

        (Seriously, it's neat and works for real google it.)
        1. No color desaturation based on distance (because it's not tracking);
        2. It flickers like hell;
        3. It does not move what you percieve as x distance from your eyes, to x distance from your eyes.

        If something that's supposed to be x miles away from your eyes, not x miles away from your eyes, then you eye mussels will contract to something that's x miles away from your eyes, loose the focus, gets repetative strain injury to the mussels.

        But hey, this shit realy works... No shit, we know that it works. The problem is that it kills my eye mussels.
        Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-18-2011, 09:18 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          we know that it works. The problem is that it kills my eye mussels.
          IIRC that's because the image distance is fixed even though the two images give your brain enough information to perceive distance. Your eyes try to focus at the distance your brain calculates from the depth cues, which makes the image blurry... something like that anyways. I stress the IIRC at the front.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            IIRC Your eyes try to focus at the distance your brain calculates from the depth cues, which makes the image blurry...
            Exactly. So when your brain tries to compensate, the visual depth information doesn't match your corrected eye mussel contraction, resulting in a 3D effect that your brain doesn't believe. It behaves in a certain way, like emulates focus, but it doesn't fool me.

            So I'd rather have not everyone trying to screw with my depth perception, but rather have a meter deep holograph, so I really see depth, but not necessarily have to feel immersed. It would look a lot better anyway, too.
            Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-18-2011, 11:03 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Of course its common knowledge why 3d screens are flawed and cause side effects, however I'm lucky enough to be one of those who adapt to 3d screens well enough (depending on the nature of the content) not to get headaches or noticeable eye strain.

              Clearly the tech is bad for many people and even I do turn 3d off for some 3ds games, often purely due to it being a visual distraction rather than a headache.

              Still I like seeing many films in 3d and hope that a pill is promptly invented that allows non wobbly eyed people to fully enjoy 3d films/games/screens without sickness. Surely modern medical tech can ensure the 3ds's success?

              Comment


              • #52
                Good thread. If someone tries to patent some new 3D display method, we can point to this thread for prior art. lol :P

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
                  Still I like seeing many films in 3d and hope that a pill is promptly invented that allows non wobbly eyed people to fully enjoy 3d films/games/screens without sickness. Surely modern medical tech can ensure the 3ds's success?
                  ROFLOL

                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  Good thread. If someone tries to patent some new 3D display method, we can point to this thread for prior art. lol :P
                  We're shit outta luck; yesterday mister Obama signed a 'first to file' instead of a 'first to invent' act, that we'll probably see about a year from now, entering the entire western world

                  It's good that floating point got 'prior arted', because prior art is no more...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    Good thread. If someone tries to patent some new 3D display method, we can point to this thread for prior art. lol :P
                    The new patent law invalidates prior art, doesn't it? Switches the US system to first-to-file rather than first-to-invent.

                    Edit: oops, looks like V!NCENT had the same thought first.
                    Last edited by smitty3268; 09-18-2011, 11:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      God bless America.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        We're shit outta luck; yesterday mister Obama signed a 'first to file' instead of a 'first to invent' act, that we'll probably see about a year from now, entering the entire western world
                        The new patent law invalidates prior art, doesn't it? Switches the US system to first-to-file rather than first-to-invent.
                        Actually no! What the new law does is to bring USA into how patents work in the rest of the world so for once this is actually the USA learning from other countries!

                        First to file does not invalidate prior art, it simply means that he who files the patent first gets the patent (if more than one part files for the same patent). If there is published prior art then the patent gets invalidated, just like today. The key difference is that with the old system of first to invent, companies could obscure the details of the patents since they only had to present proof that they invented the thing before the other party filed for a patent. I.e this was the way that sub-marine patents could be launched, with the new system sub-marine patents can no longer exist since only prior art (which must be published) can invalidate a patent.

                        So this is actually a good thing!

                        Found a good quote from a slashdotter about this:
                        I'm sure someone's going to start asking whether a First-To-File system affects the prior art doctrine and whether it means big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and patenting them. Let's dispense with some misconceptions.

                        Misconception 1: This destroys the prior art system.
                        * This isn't true. A prior art will still cause an application to be denied under 35 USC 102. This means that if any sort of prior art is published (i.e. available to the public) that would anticipate or render an application invalid, it would still operate to render the application unpatentable. Remember, the law requires all patents to be "novel" and "nonobvious".

                        Misconception 2: This would mean big companies can steal ideas from open source projects and file applications on them.
                        * This isn't true either. The open source project would function as prior art against the later application. Even though there is a first to file system, it doesn't mean that the first person to file can steal ideas that were out there and use it as their own.

                        The first to file system only really works in a very specific context - where you have two inventors who filed an application on almost identical types of inventions within a short period of time. Under the current system, there has to be a very fact-intensive and time consuming process of determining who was the first inventor - which means going through years of lab notebooks and correspondences to pin out the priority between two applicants. This is very expensive, very time consuming, and it's also taxing on the court system and the USPTO. A First to File system makes it much easier - priority can be determined within seconds of looking at the filing date.
                        Last edited by F.Ultra; 09-19-2011, 05:42 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                          Actually no! What the new law does is to bring USA into how patents work in the rest of the world so for once this is actually the USA learning from other countries!
                          :
                          Glad to see someone knows what there talking about. Always a good idea to use the internet that your sat at and find the facts from credible sources (not phoronix forum posts...... or phoronix articles :s ) before claiming the unbelievable. Takes 1 min on google. Its easy to have an opinion but an informed one is far more impressive.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                            Actually no! What the new law does is to bring USA into how patents work in the rest of the world so for once this is actually the USA learning from other countries!
                            Oh thank God!

                            Seriously, my bad ofcourse, but could the US government please freaking stop making names for acts that are the complete opposite of what they are called? -_-

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
                              Always a good idea to use the internet that your sat at and find the facts from credible sources (not phoronix forum posts...... or phoronix articles :s ) before claiming the unbelievable. Takes 1 min on google. Its easy to have an opinion but an informed one is far more impressive.
                              Because the internet is always right and video never lies...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                                Oh thank God!

                                Seriously, my bad ofcourse, but could the US government please freaking stop making names for acts that are the complete opposite of what they are called? -_-
                                But what would the tin-foil hat crowd do with their free time if that happened?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X