Re: 3D TV prediction (was "3D TV system under development...")

[P3D Bill Costa - NIS/CIS - University of New Hampshire <Bill.Costa@xxxxxxx>]

    In response to my recent posting of a "WIRED" magazine clipping, Marvin
    Jones  <72657.3276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> observered in part:

# I don't think this writer has a very good grasp of what he's writing about.
# 3D TV isn't about to "hit the market early next year"! The system he's
# describing (badly) is highly experimental,

    I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought that was a poorly
    written article!

    John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> also observed in regards to
    my editoral comments:

>  You're right that this display device, like any display device, has its
>  strong points and weak points for a given application. I've seen the
>  prototype, but don't have a good feel for how far the technology could be
>  pushed to adapt it for consumer applications.

    My point exactly, just not as clearly stated.

>  It would be useful if you could describe your concerns in more detail.
>  For instance, you may be thinking "if the scene is photographed using
>  one conventional format stereo video camera, how can the display show
>  the far sides of the objects in the scene?". Some of these issues are
>  relevant to many types of volumetric display.

    That's what I was trying to get at, recording live scenes for
    volumetric display seems like a daunting problem.  And you made the
    mistake of asking me to describe my concerns. ;^)

    What I can't understand about such a device is how a live image could
    be captured.  Picture the display as a cylindrical fish tank.  You can
    walk around it to view the fish from any angle (within a fixed plane). 
    Now for data coming from a computer representing airplanes in the sky
    as blips, this shouldn't be hard.  (Expensive, maybe, given the power
    of the computer needed, but well within the current state of the art.) 
    But how would you record this with a camera?  Let's say you surround
    the subject with 4 cameras at the points of the compass; how do you
    create the view from, say, the North East?  Currently there is no way
    to interpolate the images from the North camera and the East camera to
    produce a North East perspective.  The only thing I can imagine is
    this:  Since the display surface in the device is spinning at 600 RPM
    (the "10 rotations a second"), what you would need to do is orbit the
    camera about the object being video taped at the same RPM.  Obviously
    for a stage area the size of an average room, that would be pretty darn
    fast in terms of linear velocity!  If you were to do this
    electronically, switching from camera to camera, you'd need a quite a
    few cameras to get a smooth image transition as you walked around the
    projected image.

    John continues...

>  Most of us have gotten used to a 2-dimensional, disembodied head talking to
>  us on the evening news program. For regular viewing, it might not take
>  much more effort to get used to it. (Though it might take longer to learn
>  to be terrified of a three-inch tall Frankenstein's Monster on the display.
>     :-)

    Well for flatties, the image is obviously not real so we have no
    trouble watching it for what it is, an abstract representation.  For
    well done 3D, the depth perception is proportional to the image size so
    it's like looking through a window with the objects at some particular
    distance from you.  Hyper stereos are cool, but an aerial hyper of, say
    NYC, looks like a very realistic model -- not the way it would actually
    be seen from the plane.

    Let's say you could had this new display technology and some how 
    managed to record a reinactment of a civil war battle scene.  The
    result would be spectacular, and I'm sure that suspension of disbelieve
    would be no more difficult that for a flattie.  But I can't see how the
    image being viewed can look like anything else than very realistic
    animated toy solders running around on a table top. Many people enjoy a
    really detailed model train setup, but you don't for a moment mistake
    it for the real thing.

    While we're on the subject on 3D video, I described to someone else my
    experience using a Head Mounted Display (HMD) for watching 3D
    field-sequential videos.  I like the device, but I think it is too
    fragile and expensive for letting lots of different people use it. 
    Also the image quality is a bit on the grainy side.  On the other hand
    it would make a fantastic view finder for the 3D video camera.  I also
    noticed that when viewing tapes on it, I will often turn my head to try
    and follow a subject that walks off camera.  So the suspension of
    disbelief is pretty strong.  One of the bad things about a HMD which I
    read about but had to experience personally is that it can be annoying
    to not be able to look away from the image.  It is obviously not an
    ideal way to share a video with other people, even if everyone has
    their own unit, since it cuts you off totally from the outside world. 
    I had another e-mail conversation with someone else about this.  They
    feel HMDs will become the headphones of the near future.  I think they
    will become more widely used, but not to the extent of headphones
    because of this isolation factor.  There are times it's a wonderful
    thing, but not as a general rule.

                                                        Later....BC


------------------------------