Showing posts with label 3d. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3d. Show all posts

Thursday, August 11, 2011

World’s First Glasses-Free 3D Laptop Comes With Health Risks

 by 

Toshiba announced the Qosmio F755 3D laptop on Tuesday, describing it as “the world’s first laptop capable of displaying glasses-free 3D and 2D content at the same time on one screen.”
The press release proudly featured the laptop specs in the body of the text, but other seemingly minute details — such as potential health risks of 3D viewing, in this case — were kept in the footnotes. One footnote stated:
“Due to the possible impact on vision development, viewers of 3D video images should be age 6 or above. Children and teenagers may be more susceptible to health issues associated with viewing in 3D and should be closely supervised to avoid prolonged viewing without rest. Some viewers may experience a seizure or blackout when exposed to certain flashing images or lights contained in certain 3D television pictures or video games. Anyone who has had a seizure, loss of awareness, or other symptom linked to an epileptic condition, or has a family history of epilepsy, should contact a health care provider before using the 3D function.”
That disclaimer footnote then points to another more lengthy disclaimer on Toshiba’s website entitled, “3D Viewing: Important Safety Information,” in which another list of health risks continues. The first point on the list is especially poignant:
“If you or any viewer experiences the following symptoms or any other discomfort from viewing 3D video images, stop viewing and contact your health care provider: Convulsions, Eye or muscle twitching, Loss of awareness, Altered vision, Involuntary movements, Disorientation, Eye Strain, Nausea/Vomiting, Dizziness, Headaches, Fatigue.”
Priced at $1,700, the laptop will be available in mid-August. One can’t help but wonder if consumers will be paying attention to these small details relating to their health when deciding to purchase the latest in technological wonders.
It can be argued that these health risks apply for any type of 3D viewing — even so, should they be relegated to the footnotes?
What are your thoughts on how tech companies should disclaim health risks regarding use of their products? And is owning a 3D laptop worth risking your health? Let us know in the comments below.

Monday, February 7, 2011

How Does 3D Technology Work?

by Zachary Sniderman





In 1838, Sir Charles Wheatstone first described the process of stereopsis: the process by which humans perceive three dimensions from two highly similar, overlaid images. Or, the process by which Avatar looks like a mind-blowingly immersive alien landscape instead of a bunch of brightly colored fuzz.
3D technology has come a long way since Wheatstone developed his stereoscope, then used to view static images and eventually pictures. Now we get to wear Wayfarer knock-offs and enjoy 3D films, television shows and video games.
For some people, seeing cool images might be enough. But others might be curious how Pandora was brought to life, or how TRON: Legacy zapped them into its glowing world. The answer is both reassuringly simple and inordinately complex, depending on who you ask and how you look at it.
How do 3D films work? What’s the difference between polarity and anaglyph (we’ll get there), and what are the next steps for 3D gadgets and imagery? Have a look below for a breakdown of how today’s “it” technology functions. Plus, we put in some sweet looking pictures. What’s not to love?
A tremendous thank you to David Leitner, Rob Willox and Professor Ian Howard for their collective insight and help in describing the various forms of 3D technology below.

Stereoscopy 101


stereoscope image
Big words! Academic nomenclature! Relax, this is actually the easy part. 3D, or “stereoscopy,” refers to how your eyes and brain create the impression of a third dimension. Human eyes are approximately 50 mm to 75 mm apart — accordingly, each eye sees a slightly different part of the world. Don’t believe me? Hold up a pen, pencil or any other thin object. Close one eye. Now switch.
The image on either side should be pretty similar but slightly offset, like that line behind the woman’s head in the picture above. These two slightly different images enter the brain, at which point it does some high-powered geometry to make up for the disparity between the two images. This disparity is “3D” — essentially, your brain making up for the fact that you’re getting two different perspectives of the same thing.
This is also, essentially, what modern 3D technology is trying to replicate. All those silly sunglasses and silver-coated projectors are all designed to feed your individual eyes different perspectives of the same image. Easy, right?
Well, yes. It is pretty easy for your brain to figure out the disparity between the two images. Your brain can automatically figure out all the angles and math and geometry to sync the images. The hard part is getting a camera to do the same thing, and to get those individual images to your individual eyes without butchering the whole effect.

What We Watch


Films

Film has been one of the pioneers of 3D, thanks to its hefty budgets and some technological daring. There are largely two ways 3D has been achieved in motion pictures: anaglyph and polarized glasses.
anaglyph imageAnaglyph is a fancy way of referring to the red-and-blue glasses we used to wear. By projecting a film in those colors — one in red, one in blue — each eye would get an individual perspective and your brain would put the 3D effect together. Other colors could be used, providing they were distinct enough to be separated on screen. This technique, however, didn’t allow for a full range of color and had a tendency to “ghost,” or have the once-distinct images bleed into one another. Not cool.
Much more common is the use of polarized glasses, which take advantage of the fact that light can be polarized, or given different orientations. For example, one image can be projected in a horizontal direction while the second can be projected in a vertical direction. The corresponding glasses would allow horizontal polarization in one eye and vertical polarization in the other. The problem is that this kind of 3D requires you to keep your head still, Ă  la A Clockwork Orange. Tilting your head can distort how the waves get to your eyes, messing with the color and 3D effect. Also not cool.
polarized glasses image
This is the tricky part. To counteract this, 3D now uses rotational polarity, meaning the film being projected actually has two different spins to it. The glasses then pick up those opposite rotations — clockwise in one eye, counterclockwise in another eye — to separate the image. Now you can tilt your head or place it on your boy/girlfriend’s shoulder and still be able to watch the movie.

Television

It’s possible to use the same techniques in film projectors for home theaters, but you would need some serious cash. Films use special silver-coated screens that are much better at reflecting light back to the viewing audience. Your television, unfortunately, is not silver-coated. There are, however, two ways to get 3D at home: active and passive.
The most common, active 3D, involves wearing those electronic RoboCop glasses. The glasses are synced up to your television and actively open and close shutters in front of your eyes, allowing only one eye to see the screen at a time. This sounds like a recipe for a stroke, but the shutters move so quickly that they’re hardly noticeable. These shutter lenses are made possible because of the refresh rate on televisions. 3D-enabled televisions have high image refresh rates, meaning the actual image on screen is quickly loaded and reloaded. Through the glasses, you receive one constant image instead of a flicker.
lenticular
Passive systems are less common but run much like your 3D film. These televisions have a thin, lenticular screen over the standard display. A lenticular screen is made up of a series of incredibly thin magnifying strips that show a slightly different perspective of the screen to each eye, as illustrated above. While this technology doesn’t require bulky, expensive glasses, it can limit the image quality. Essentially, each eye only sees one half of the screen at any given time. For example, if a screen had 100 pixels, 50 pixels would be magnified and sent to the left eye and the other 50 pixels would be magnified and sent to the right eye. In practice, your brain is actually able to put the two images together and retain the entire 100 pixel fidelity.

How It’s Made


Cameras

3d cameraThere is a lot of fancy footwork that goes into creating 3D. The real heavy lifting, however, is all just a matter of geometry and precision. To get a 3D image, you essentially need two versions of the same scene filmed from the precisely correct angle as if your eyes were seeing the same scene. Filmmakers need to triangulate the distance between the two cameras and make sure they are focused on the same object. They also need to zoom and track, or move, at the same speed, otherwise the images won’t sync up. In modern film rigs, these two cameras are bolted into place preventing any unwanted jostling or disparity.
Close-ups, a staple of modern film, are hard to capture in 3D because the cameras need to be extraordinarily close together to mimic the angle of your eyes. To solve this, filmmakers sometimes use mirror rigs. Mirror rigs film through one lens, and that image is then bounced by a tiny internal mirror to another camera where a second image can be recorded. Providing there are no imperfections on the mirror (including scratches, dirt or warping), the close-up will be filmed in 3D.

Computer Graphics

toy story 3 image
There is a difference between creating three-dimensional graphics and images that appear to be 3D in the theater. Again, it’s all just a matter of some high-tech geometry. To get a movie like Toy Story 3 into 3D, animators create two versions of each frame, one from the perspective of each eye. Because computer-generated movies don’t need cameras, it’s much easier to get perfectly synced images and to fine-tune any mistakes in post-production. The downside is that this technique requires a lot of time and elbow grease to get perfect.
It’s possible to create a 3D video game using the same technique; however, games add their own complications. Films and shows are largely pre-recorded and all have a fixed perspective — you can’t move the camera’s focus or orientation when you’re watching a film. Video games allow you to change the perspective by moving your on-screen character. This creates a labor-intensive problem since animators need to create objects that can be seen in 3D from a variety of angles depending on where the user is looking and moving.

The Future


3D future image
One of the toughest problems to solve with 3D technology is the fundamental halving of any image. Lenticular screens send half the image to each eye, shutter lens glasses physically block one eye from seeing the image, and polarized glasses only send half the displayed light to each eye.
The human eye needs approximately 50 frames per second in order to see film as one continuous image. 3D effectively halves that so each eye would only see 25 frames per second and get some nauseating flicker. Modern technology has been able to significantly up that frame rate (or refresh rate in televisions) so that we can achieve the illusion of 3D.
Advances in computing and memory have also made 3D possible in a number of handheld and consumer products. There are already prototypes for 3D laptops, cameras, camcorders, and a variety of other tech.
nintendo 3ds image
In the coming years, keep a look out for technology that uses autostereoscopy, or 3D that doesn’t require glasses in any way. The Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo’s newest portable 3D gaming device, is one such device. One of its tricks is syncing a lenticular display with its forward-facing camera. By using eye recognition, it can track where the user’s face is and shift the display to accurately display 3D no matter how the user views the screens. Look for autostereoscopy to test the waters on handheld devices before it heads to large format screens.
We’re just at the start of what 3D can offer, with a lot more successes and failures to occur in the meantime. Let us know in the comments what you hope to see for the future of 3D, or what 3D-enabled tech you’re looking to scoop up.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Google Chrome browser 3D hits beta channel, but stumbles early on

By Larry Dignan


Google has brought WebGL, a 3D graphics technology, to its latest beta of its Chrome browser along with some other goodies. Unfortunately, performance issues plague the WebGL demonstrations.
According to Google, the idea here is that Chrome will allow you to get 3D experiences in a browser without additional software. The technology, called WebGL, has been highlighted in demos of late—think Google Body. Google also rolled out its Chrome App Store to all and Chrome Instant.
But 3D is the main draw with the new Chrome beta. What remains to be seen is whether embedded 3D really changes the browsing experience. I downloaded the latest Chrome beta to put together a quick gallery of Google’s WebGL demonstrations. The problem: I found the performance to be lagging on the WebGL experiments site. The Chrome Experiments frequently choked on these demonstrations in my tests.

I tried a bevy of these demonstrations and found the loading time to be terrible. Most of these demonstrations didn’t load at all. Others needed components. Traffic doesn’t seem to be the issue since it’s 5:45 a.m. EST. However, I’m not alone. Here are a few comments from others trying to take 3D browsing for a spin:
  • By Austin on February 04, 2011
    Crashes my alienware…
  • By Jason on February 04, 2011
    Just makes Chrome crash??
It’s worth trying back later, but like 3DTV, 3D Chrome has been a bit underwhelming.
One reader notes:
I tried alot of of the WEBGL examples and had no problems at all. They did use alot of the resources of my video card. I would suggest if you were to use WEBGL on a regular basis to get a high quality video card. My card is low end and it uses a lot of the GPU resources with temps at 60C and over.

Friday, February 4, 2011

DreamWorks CEO denies 3D TV safety risk


BBC
Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, has denied that 3D TV is dangerous for children, saying that safety guidance "does not seem to be based on any meaningful research or medical advice".
He was responding to recent news that major manufacturers have said that 3D TV technology is unsuitable for children.
Katzenberg also spoke about the future of 3D television.

Reinventing 3D TV without the glasses


BBC 
Cinema takings went up last year, largely thanks to the buzz surrounding 3D movies. But in the home, it's been a different story.
Despite the hype at big technology shows like the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, sales of 3D-ready televisions have been disappointing, which could in part be due to the unpopularity of the expensive and unfashionable glasses.
Ian Hardy toured CES to see how some companies are reinventing 3D - this time without the glasses.

Could 3D television be dangerous to watch?

By Alex Hudson 
BBC Click








Recent safety advice has said 3D TV is not suitable for children, but does that mean the technology is a health risk?
When Peterborough mayor Keith Sharp wanted to rent Piranha 3D on DVD a few weeks ago, he was not expecting to have his request turned down on health and safety grounds.
A shop employee, misinterpreting head office advice not to rent out 3D glasses, did exactly that - prompting the story to first be picked up by the national newspapers and then spread around the world.
But is there any truth to the idea that 3D TV, which gives the illusion of depth by flicking between two separate images, could be dangerous?
The Nintendo 3DS portable console, to be unveiled in Japan on 26 February, is the first major release to allow 3D images to be seen without the need for glasses.
But last year, Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America's president and chief operating officer, said he would "recommend that very young children not look at 3D images" and that was "standard protocol" within the industry.
When this advice was formally released this month, many articles appeared about "the dangers of 3D" and how viewers, particularly children, could be affected. It was a reaction that Mr Fils-Aime has described as "a bit over the top".
Mark Pesce, an early pioneer in virtual reality, said last year that children "could potentially suffer permanent damage from regular and extensive exposure [to 3D images on a screen]".
His main critique was that he believed "none of the television manufacturers have done any health and safety testing".
Sony, Samsung, LG and other manufacturers have now released health and safety guidance with their products. Most echo Nintendo's advice about young children but advice also extends as far to those who have been drinking alcohol, pregnant women, senior citizens, people with heart problems, those who experience frequent drowsiness or are in need of sleep.
Perhaps above anything else, this seems to clash with the big effort to get 3D TVs into pubs - over 1,000 establishments have signed up in the UK alone.
So should we be worried?
Samsung declined to comment, as "it is more of an industry issue than a Samsung one" but Sony, according to a spokesperson, has conducted research and evaluation concerning the effects on health by watching 3D under the influence of alcohol.
Its report indicated that "while some people may experience discomfort - such as eye strain, fatigue, or nausea - no evidence was found which may cause health problems for normal use of 3D contents".
An LG spokesperson said that there has been no issue with people drinking and watching 3D TV in pubs.
All stressed that anyone worried or experiencing symptoms should seek professional advice.
'Low risk'
"Companies are just erring on the side of caution and covering all the bases," said Karen Sparrow, education adviser at the Association of Optometrists.
"The patients that we see [who would need treatment for this] would be a very, very tiny percentage and is a very low risk.
"It very much depends on the individual but, because 3D technology only really burst on to the high street in the last two or three years, the research hasn't really been done yet.
"Especially with children, you need lots of years of data before you can know for sure whether it's a problem or not."
Jeffery Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, has more reason than most to hope that the technology really takes off - his company now produces all its films in 3D. He said he did not believe that it was harmful whatsoever.
"It does not seem to be based on any meaningful research or medical advice," he said.
"We are in the kid business and we have talked to many people, experts in the fields of eye and eye care and so we've asked 'is there something we need to be concerned about?', and it's a hypothetical.
"What people have said is that for very, very early eye development - which we were told is three years and younger by the way, not six years - there is some concern that there might be some issue of... straining the eyes."
But this is not an evaluation that Ms Sparrow agrees with.
She said: "When I was trained, we were always taught that eyesight was flexible up to seven or eight but new research suggested that it could be longer.
"When a child's eye is growing, their eyes are forming a balance, and so for that natural progression to occur you have to have a perfectly clear image in both the right eye and the left eye.
"Anything that disrupts that could cause that child to develop a lazy eye. However, it will probably take a lot of hours before any damage would be done."
So could these reports mean that 3D could be finished before it has really begun? Mr Katzenberg does not think so.
"For a five or six-year-old child to go in and see an 82-minute movie once every month, I have to say there is not anybody legitimate in the medical profession who has suggested that we're jeopardising the health of our children," he said.
"No-one, not a single solitary person, so I don't understand it."
And some people have argued that 3D could be a benefit as an early warning system to catch sight problems in children that might otherwise go undetected.
"Watching 3D programming can unmask issues such as lazy eye, convergence insufficiency, poor focusing skills and other visual problems consumers might not have previously known existed," said Dr Dominick Maino, of the Illinois College of Optometry's Illinois Eye Institute.
And perhaps the one thing that could mute any further health warnings is that, at least currently, 3D is not being used as the "normal" way to consume everyday viewing.
"Not all programmes work in 3D," said Geoff Slaughter, editor of 3DTV Watcher.
"Even in the medium term, it is not going to be everyday viewing. It's good for movies and for some sports events or documentaries but I can't imagine seeing EastEnders in 3D anytime soon."