Talk:Autostereoscopy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion

Hello! Check out US patent 6,759,998. Intel was working on applications of 3D to electronic displays around 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.1.36 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One way to expand this would be to get into more detail on the various techniques - lenticles, head tracking, multiple layers ... also which manufacturers are using which ones ... also where this technology is used (e.g. advertising, real estate, etc...) --Sbwoodside 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should reduce this article to a definition, and links to examples of autostereoscopic displays. This is because there are already articles for many of those examples which are quite complete. Let's not have redundant information about the same topic, or worse, unequal and incorrect information about the same topic. (E.g. lenticular displays) Gregg Favalora (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So you know, that comment was left four years ago. It's exceedingly stale. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuttle Ride in Star Trek Experience "Klingon Encounter"

The shuttle ride part of this attraction seems to use this technology too. At least it was 3D without special glasses when I was there. Maybe someone can confirm this? 80.152.220.54 (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Section suggestions

HoloVisio - light field
Lenticular
Parallax Barrier (Controlled)
Different Opt. Rasters and Filters.
Integral Imaging
Time-Multiplex
Controlled Pixel Technology

To conform to the 3D display article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Overlapping Content

The content in this article is largely duplicated in the article on Stereoscopy (which is much more extensive). Either this article should be replaced with a redirect to there, or the duplicate content should be edited out and replaced with cross-references as appropriate. AlatarK (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality, Correctness

Today, the quality of this article is dangerously low. For example, the version of this article visible Aug 4 2010 claims that lenticular displays were invented in the 1980s. 1980s!!! More like 1900s. On one hand, the recent excitement about stereo cinema has generated interest in autostereo. Great! But if people are coming here for knowledge, we owe it to them to (1) be correct and (2) limit the in-article corporate marketing to a meaningful minimum. And, while I'm still on my soap-box: I've been in this field for over 20 years, and have met one person -- one -- who says "automultiscopic" instead of "autostereoscopic." And zero who use "autopolyscopic" or whatever keeps sneaking into this piece. Let's please drop this issue. (Gregg Favalora) Gregg Favalora (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support anything? And just so you know, you shouldn't be using Wiki as a soapbox. And just because you know one guy who uses the term does not mean that that's the norm; that's your own take on the matter. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 1900s. You're asking for a citation regarding the invention of lenticular displays? See Lippman, G., "Epreuves Reversibles Donnant la Sensation du Relief," J. Phys. 7 (4th series), pp. 821-825 (1908). Likewise, feel free to provide citations of people using terms other than autostereoscopic. Gregg Favalora (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I just added a reference. And I don't read French. According to this book, "lenticular images... were actually invented in the 1960s." I found this book which mentions lenticular lenses, but doesn't mention lenticular displays as a whole. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, that's a good reference (the paper on rendering for automultiscopic displays). I think we've reached a good balance. The reason for my initial railing about this was not because the word "automultiscopic" was here. Rather, an earlier version of this piece had "-polyoscopy" and "-multiscopy" peppered throughout in a way that made it seem like those were standard terms. Regarding lenticulars, yes, Lippman is considered the inventor of lenticular displays. Patents cite him, papers cite him, etc. etc. For example, Selected Papers on Three-Dimensional Displays, (S. A. Benton, ed.) SPIE Milestone Series MS 162 (2001) includes a reprint of it.Gregg Favalora (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the appropriate Lippmann reference including an explantion that he invented lenticular photography. The extension of this to autostereoscopic display was trivial once we had a flat-panel display technology.Neil Dodgson (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We might need to correct the article. I think we swapped "lenticular" and "integral photography." Does anyone else concur that in 1908, G Lippman proposed not lenticular imaging, but rather integral photography, which performed (pseudoscopic) 3-D image-recording using an emulsion on the rear of a 2-D array of lenslets? I think that, actually, in 1913, it was W Hess who filed a US Patent application on (2-view?) lenticular imaging, which issued as US 1,128,979. Does anyone agree that we should correct this? Gregg Favalora (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the article so that integral photography is attributed to Lippmann, and lenticular imaging to Hess. I suppose the new question regards what the article says next; it claims that an employee of Philips originally suggested rotating the lenticular array to improve image quality. However, some researchers believe this is more properly attributed to Winnek's US Pat 3,409,351, which was filed in 1968. I have not yet edited the article regarding this topic.Gregg Favalora (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Automultiscopy and Autopolyscopy

Automultiscopy is a minority description of multi-view autostereoscopic displays, used by a few authors in the academic literature, particularly in recent years (see, for example, papers in the annual Stereoscopic Displays and Applications conference). Autopolyscopy is a term introduced to this page by User:72.235.213.232 (21 May 2010) which appears not to have been used in the academic literature. I have therefore removed all reference to the latter term. Neil Dodgson (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams

This page needs them. Rob (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

head tracking doesn't use multiple images?

The opening paragraph currently says "... head-tracking to ensure that each of the viewer's two eyes sees a different image on the screen". But I thought head-tracking only presents *one* image, and *updates* the view in response to the [one, designated] viewer moving their head. For example, even a one-eyed person would see objects become occluded using head-tracking, and when just staring at a static image there is no more 3-D effect than a painting.

Am I wrong on this? (Perhaps the term "head tracking" traditionally includes dual-images, as well as what I describe? I confess I'm basing my knowledge of the term solely on a demo by a CMU grad student (?) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw ).

I recommend changing the opening paragraph to "... head-tracking to update the display in response to the viewer moving their head, and ...".

not-just-yeti (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Head-trackers exist for several types of autostereoscopic displays. Some of these displays present the same view to each eye; others present different views to the eyes. 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Gregg Favalora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg Favalora (talk • contribs)

What you're referring to is software-based head tracking, which works with any kind of display, including typical monoscopic ones. For head tracking to work with an autostereo display, the mechanism it normally uses to send different images to each of a viewers eyes must be able to deal with the viewers position changing, which is a problem for those without head tracking because of their viewing angle requirements. For instance, a parallax barrier display might literally move the barrier left and right to track the viewer's eyes. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Not to scale" "No Kidding" Huh?

In the imagebox on the right showing formats, the words "not to scale" link to a "no kidding" disambiguation page. Was somebody making a joke? 76.5.178.163 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OR / Promotional

This article seems to contain original research and promotional content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed the promotional material by a contributor with an admitted WP:COI. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViewPoint 3D. hth SageGreenRider (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Autostereoscopic content creation & conversion

This section does not belong in this article. 3d content creation has nothing to do with method of 3d display. Furthermore, it is simply not possible and will never be possible to convert a 2-dimensional image into a 3-dimensional image. Animated CGI content can be re-rendered with two perspectives, but wihout a second perspective or viewpoint, a 3-dimensional perspective can only be crudely emulated. Technology manufacturers want more 3-D content and so have developed conversion processes which work like a pop-up book, cutting out 2-dimensional images and overlaying them in the third dimension. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)