3D monitors are no longer a Sci-Fi pipe-dream -- the deep reality is you can now own one. Immersed in a new dimension, Nathan Davis dives into the rabbit hole and comes out with a clear perspective.
TOP LEFT: For the 3D effect to work at all, multiple views must be taken of an object - a minimum of two. Setting up multiple cameras is a monotonous job, but in the virtual world it's merely a case of offsetting the digital view.
ABOVE: Most 3D display technologies, such as Lenticular, Barrier and Wavelength, can be implemented on existing LCD/TFT display technology. What they do is redirect the light to each eye using their own special technique. Lenticular redirects the two interlaced images to each eye, Barrier prevents incorrect fiews from reaching the wrong eye, and Wavelength works slightly like the barrier method, but provides multiple views using arrays of pixels - creating larger virtual pixels - which are then redirected via the wavelength-selective filter.
The possibility that our universe consists of more dimensions than we are currently aware of has been played around with for many-a-purple-spotted moon. Does our perceptible universe have more than the three spatial dimensions we've become thoroughly acquainted with? Dirty load of hogwash or an unrealised reality? Perhaps we may never know, but since we live in the 3D realm we might as well quit theorising so much (or is that just me?) and make the most of it.
With the extremely slow pace at which the tech of the standard monitor has moved (or not), we are overdue for a thorough revamp. We don't see the current standard range of computer displays as pushing to make the most of 3D. What's the deal with creating 3D models in a 3D game when our monitors can only display boring two-dimensional data? Heck, they're still based around the same multi-decade-old technology. If we're going to bother to create 3D objects, they should appear that way. We've decided to name this 'flippant penetration' -- it's a pitifully large waste of calculated 3D goodness.
This is where 3D monitors come in, and they've been around for a while, albeit in a somewhat primitive state. You see, even though quite a few three-dimensional technologies are patented each year, hardly any of these actually make it past their original, partially-functional state.
Hardly enough research has been done on this tech -- just small amounts spread over time -- although primarily this is because it isn't exactly what's selling at the moment. But how can it sell if it's not even made into a viable sellable product? Sure, we'll have one of those non-functioning 3D-prototype-whatsits. . .
In the coming months/years, this is due to change, however, with several major monitor manufacturers being approached for mass production and decent support -- thus creating a worthwhile and enjoyable purchase.
If we were to search for the primary definer of the wonderful three-dimensional ambit, the first subject that should spring to mind is the cool phenomenon we all know as depth, or stereopsis. It can't really be 'seen' as such, but we experience it with the help of brainpower -- it's always there ready to jump out at your groin like the nocturnal nut-snatching chipmunk it is (not your brain, depth -- focus!). It pours life into what we see and without it, 'real' 3D as we know it couldn't possibly exist; hence it's only natural to get all sweaty with excitement about depth-capable screens. Here's a technology that can finally emulate how we see things in the real world without the need to wear huge-arsed, uncool devices. Don't even think about VR headsets.
Basically our brains interpret depth by sourcing a minimum of two images from two different angles, either from both eyes at the same time, or in succession in the case of one eye. After capturing these differently angled 'images', our brain compares and conjoins these together in a special way and sends this abstract three-dimensional data to our internal displays (human visors -- best resolution guaranteed). Depth is almost like a 'sixth sense'.
Now, with two eyes we simply look at something once and our brains are immediately given two angles. What about single-eyed depth perception? It's possible, but the need to change position (or even the object itself needs to change angle) is required and because these images are shown in succession instead of at the same time, the brain can't exactly 'join' them together. So in actuality the effect is quite different, but still 'depthasised'. This technique of single-eye depth viewing uses the physiological depth cue that's known as motion parallax.
In our 3D universe, depth cues are used to determine the type of depth association there is between several items. Without going into too much detail, there are two chief categories for depth cues -- physiological and psychological. Physiological includes cues such as accommodation, convergence, binocular disparity and motion parallax. On the other hand, psychological depth cues consist of linear perspective, shading and shadowing, aerial perspective, interposition, retinal image size, texture gradients and colours. Without explaining each of these in detail, these are basically all the cues the human eye is able to perceive depth with, and the more cues that can be used in a single scene, the better the effect. Sometimes, though, certain mixes of these cues in certain situations can screw depth perception right up -- creating optical illusion galore. This is why it's really hard to focus on some objects -- the effect of depth cues competing with each other.
Motion parallax, as one may guess, is the method of either the viewer or the world moving so as to change the viewing angle of a scene. Objects closer to the viewer will appear to 'move' faster than those further away. For Multi-channel/angle displays, this is a popularly used depth cue because it's an effective technique and which can provide viewers with multiple viewing angles without the need for two eyes. Need we mention 'sick'?
One method of directing a separate image into each eye, and works quite well without the requirement of ugly, expensive devices is simply going cross-eyed. Normally our eyes focus on one particular point. This provides depth in the real world, but not when looking at a standard '2D monitor' for instance. These two above images for example are based on the cross-eyed method. They are two slightly offset perspectives of the one image. If you're equipped to do so, it's as simple as going cross-eyed whils
Issue: 137 | June, 2012