11–20 of 89 posts
"The Looking Glass generates 45 distinct views of a three-dimensional scene" Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS, this is the next step to push that technology. Because you'll need 45x60FPS for the same quality. And then you'll push the 45 number higher. (yes, I know the 60 isn't visible and has to do with control input).
In my mind you can render $x pixels at 60fps. So the number of pixels for each distinct view is: $x / 45.
I wonder if it's a 4k screen generating 45 different views in alternating locations on the screen. Thus your new resolution is like 720x256. From the videos they look higher res than that.
If you were smart you could encode multiple views into a single pixel to get a higher resolution, but then I figure that would limit your colour depth availability.
"The Looking Glass generates 45 distinct views of a three-dimensional scene" Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS, this is the next step to push that technology. Because you'll need 45x60FPS for the same quality. And then you'll push the 45 number higher. (yes, I know the 60 isn't visible and has to do with control input).
"The Looking Glass generates 45 distinct views of a three-dimensional scene" Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS, this is the next step to push that technology. Because you'll need 45x60FPS for the same quality. And then you'll push the 45 number higher. (yes, I know the 60 isn't visible and has to do with control input).
I'm not sure I get your comment. In my mind you can render $x pixels at 60fps. So the number of pixels for each distinct view is: $x / 45.
"The Looking Glass generates 45 distinct views of a three-dimensional scene" Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS, this is the next step to push that technology. Because you'll need 45x60FPS for the same quality. And then you'll push the 45 number higher. (yes, I know the 60 isn't visible and has to do with control input).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like 2560x1600 interlaced
That leaves even less resolution, in what orientation are they using the lenticular lens then? It must be less than 45 unique views and they smear between them.
http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/lightfield/leslie-hold...
http://real-eyes.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Technologie_0...
I guess in their case the microlenses aren't even round, since 45 is 5*9. I guess they have 9 horizontal X 5 vertical pixels per microlens.
But I'm saddened if this is really the Apple II version of this technology because if it takes another forty years I probably won't live to see it. Always imagined that there would be sensors on the floor and ceiling, not watching it in a glass box but if that's how it has to be I'm OK with it.
The major issues with these are the limited viewing angles and the enormous bandwidth needed to both render the individual points of view and to actually transfer them to the screen. Heck, a lot of computer games have problems to generate stereoscopic (i.e. 2 images) content at 60 or 90fps required by the VR helmets such as Rift or Vive these days. And these guys want to push 45 distinct images at 60fps?
Good luck with that, especially for that ridiculous price for a tiny screen.
These guys offer a 4k, 50" screen: http://www.ultra-d.com/
"The Looking Glass generates 45 distinct views of a three-dimensional scene" Now that GPUs can reliably generate 60 FPS, this is the next step to push that technology. Because you'll need 45x60FPS for the same quality. And then you'll push the 45 number higher. (yes, I know the 60 isn't visible and has to do with control input).
