Apple Patents Holographic TV Screen Tech

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Apple Patents Holographic TV Screen Tech

image

Apple has recently patented a new kind of 3D screen technology, one that promises to break free from the shackles of polarized space-goggles.

It's not what others have promised with their glasses-free 3D; most of the time you're required to sit perfectly still in exactly the right place in front of your 3D device in order to receive the three-dimensional image correctly. While this is fine for a personal device such as a 3DS, a television needs to be seen by many people at different angles, and is where this tech comes most in handy.

The 3D effect is produced by filtering the light from the screen through a film of pixel-sized domes, which will refract the light to enter either the left or right eye of the viewer. By providing each eye with a slightly different view of the same image(the premise behind all existing 3D technology), the brain is tricked into doing the heavy lifting and combining two similar images into one three-dimensional one.

In most cases, beaming separate images into the viewer's eyes is the exact reason behind being forced to sit in a certain area; the TV doesn't know where your eyes are, so you have to move to where the light is being beamed. Apple plans on combining the dome technology and 3D scanners to allow TVs to find their viewer's eyes, and beam the images straight to where they are. This would also allow use by multiple viewers, all without glasses.

While I've never been a big proponent of 3D, I must admit that the idea of glasses-free, uninhibited 3D TV is something I can get excited for. Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

Source: The Telegraph via io9

Permalink

Well Sony will be crapping them selves now :P and will probably tell Apple exactly what they told Nintendo...stop!

This is good news, if anyone can do it, it's apple, even if they can be dick heads at times.

Scott Bullock:

Apple plans on combining the dome technology and 3D scanners to allow TVs to find their viewer's eyes, and beam the images straight to where they are. This would also allow use by multiple viewers, all without glasses.

So they want to make PIXEL SIZED refractors, that can CHOOSE WHERE THEY REFRACT THE IMAGES TO!? And they want to combine all of this with a 3-D scanner to locate left and right eyes!?

First of all, I still don't see how this will work for multiple people, I see how it could work for one person, but not for 2+

Secondly:

"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

There are many more things that television devices/film markers could do to improve quality, without having to resort to this 3D gimmick. If anyone can do it, it's Apple, purely because all it is, is a cheap (read:expensive) gimmicky toy which does nothing to improve your experience, yet one that stupid people will pay through their teeth for.

There is better tech that Apple and other companies should be sinking their research funds in, and those are where my money will be going, not crappy 3DTV

So, it's essentially the same thing as the 3DS, except it tracks the location of the watcher and adjusts the image appropriately?

Doesn't sound that impressive tbh, especially if there's going to be a hardware limit on the number of people who can watch at any given time.

Urgh, why did Apple have to patent it? They don't deserve more money.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is what Apple patented a bit like how Holographic Sights work?
"I might be able to get an Iphone without giving any money to Apple. I'll be living the dream!"

Scott Bullock:
While I've never been a big proponent of 3D, I must admit that the idea of glasses-free, uninhibited 3D TV is something I can get excited for. Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

Erm.. in TRON Legacy.

Or didn't you watch the same movie I did?
About the first 30 min was without any 3D at all (intentionally),
it was only when entering the TRON world that everything was 3D again, except for at the very end again.
And the 3D in TRON Legacy was very subtle, after a while, just like with a good movie score you forget that it's there.

Now Avatar and the like I agree with as they tend to throw objects in your face,
or worse, some movies may have fake 3D (2D to 3D conversion).

But TRON Legacy did not. It used more evolved camera techniques than Avatar. And the 3D effect was used to add depth rather than the more typical "pop out" effect.

If anything TRON Legacy is the benchmark that future 3D movies must match or surpass,
as in TRON Legacy the 3D is simply just another element of the story telling, as it should be.

Then again I watched TRON Legacy in "Kongesalen" (The King's Hall?) in Trondheim, Norway,
which is probably one of the best "normal" cinema halls in Norway, fully digital, circular polarization (you can tilt your head), increased projection brightness, etc.

Personally I don't mind shutter glasses if the quality and framerate is high enough to avoid the "flicker" the shutters cause.
But ideally Id' like to see VR Gear go down in price.

For example 1920x1080 VR (oled/amoled/SED) glasses/goggles, fully enclosed view, 3 axis (6DOF) head tracking sensor, and a big viewing field.
Over the least few years they still seem to be stuck at 800x600 and narrow viewing fields, and very expensive.

Any computer able to drive two monitors should have no issues driving HDVR headgear.

Technologically speaking HDVR do not need to be much large than the latest shutter glasses that movie theaters use, except with sideblinders and a tiny head tracker on the top of them.

With HDVR you can lie on your back and stare at the ceiling and relax while watching a movie or playing a game.

Sounds great...but Apple?

Nghhh, if 3DTV's right now are crazy expensive, a next-gen Apple one would probably cost somewhere in the region of £35435345 x10^09876589.

Hrr. Ah well. I still have my 22" HD LG. He shall do just fine.

I have some questions.

1) How do we know that it really works? - Where's the actual proof. People can get patents all the time, even without fully working products(See late 1890s-early 1900s, reference point Henry Ford).

2) How do we know they're going to claim exclusive domain? - Microsoft holds all kinds of patents for things related to software and hardware. All it does is keep them out of the hands of people who might exploit it. In fact, Microsoft has a patent for 3D rendering in computers. All you need to do to get access to the patent is ask, and Microsoft doesn't have a problem sharing.

Well, I guess that's all of the questions I've got, but I don't have any answers yet.

Oh good it's Apple. I expect we will see the iPod3D, priced at around a billion pounds.

I better start my career as a bank robber, i really want holographic TV to wipe the floor with 3d glasses but yeah its Apple, half a unit is gunna be somewhere in the trillions!

Scott Bullock:
Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

Did you even watch those movies? Are you just trying to get a response from people? I'll give you one, then. I thought Avatar was one of the most mediocre movies I've seen, but I can't deny they did 3D well. It was never in your face. But it definitely made the CGI look better and more real.

The same goes for Tron: Legacy. In fact, Tron had many scenes that weren't even shot in 3D because they didn't need it. But it looked very cool in the Grid. Tron managed to change my mind from 3D being kind of gimmicky to 3D being kind of awesome. Seeing it in the 3D IMAX theatre was mind-blowing.

"Gimmicky eye-candy" reminds me more of those movies that throw things in your face. Like the very early movies that have "3D" in their title. Those movies aren't taking themselves seriously.

OT: I'm sure I've heard of TVs like this being worked on by other companies. Apple joining in just means that they'll release an iPod/iPhone/iPad/iPeek(tv) that is all about "sharing" with friends. As long as each of your friends pays a $250 additional viewer fee.

"Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron."

Great summary of 3D.

Sounds cool...when will they make those iPad looking things where the buttons are holograms and you don't even touch anything except the hologram? I see it in so many movies (Avatar for one) but I haven't heard about it in reality.

No glasses would make it nicer but how about some 3D in 3D movies. Depth is a gimmick. A good cinematographer can add depth to a movie almost as good as the current 3D "depth of feel". If I'm going to pay extra at the theater for 3D I want stuff popping out of the screen. Avatar had a few things dramatically pop out and many subtle things that really made depth (fire embers, bugs) but I still would have liked more. Tron had no 3D as far as I'm concerned. Clash of the Titans with it's conversion BS, you could watch it in a 3D theater without glasses because there was absolutely nothing to see.

danpascooch:

Scott Bullock:

Apple plans on combining the dome technology and 3D scanners to allow TVs to find their viewer's eyes, and beam the images straight to where they are. This would also allow use by multiple viewers, all without glasses.

So they want to make PIXEL SIZED refractors, that can CHOOSE WHERE THEY REFRACT THE IMAGES TO!? And they want to combine all of this with a 3-D scanner to locate left and right eyes!?

First of all, I still don't see how this will work for multiple people, I see how it could work for one person, but not for 2+

Secondly:

"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

You are overthinking this. Apple is patent squating here. That way when somone actually produces market viable autostereoscopic tech, they can sue them.

danpascooch:
"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

"In Related news, dozens of other companies are doing the exact same thing (only without massive swarms of haters for some reason.)"

read the source article then saw this "pseudo-holographic".

bah Humbug, it's still gimmicky.

Sturmdolch:

Scott Bullock:
Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

Did you even watch those movies? Are you just trying to get a response from people? I'll give you one, then. I thought Avatar was one of the most mediocre movies I've seen, but I can't deny they did 3D well. It was never in your face. But it definitely made the CGI look better and more real.

The same goes for Tron: Legacy. In fact, Tron had many scenes that weren't even shot in 3D because they didn't need it. But it looked very cool in the Grid. Tron managed to change my mind from 3D being kind of gimmicky to 3D being kind of awesome. Seeing it in the 3D IMAX theatre was mind-blowing.

"Gimmicky eye-candy" reminds me more of those movies that throw things in your face. Like the very early movies that have "3D" in their title. Those movies aren't taking themselves seriously.

OT: I'm sure I've heard of TVs like this being worked on by other companies. Apple joining in just means that they'll release an iPod/iPhone/iPad/iPeek(tv) that is all about "sharing" with friends. As long as each of your friends pays a $250 additional viewer fee.

I don't agree, it was a gimmick you got allot of people tricking them selves into thinking hey I spent 20 dollars on this ticket I better say Avatar and tron and the like were amazing Pseudo 3d.
They weren't I saw the 2d version of Legacy and I could tell at every point where a jump out scene was supposed to be Pseudo 3d...Sadly thats what your getting now, 2d movies with useless completely crap jump out scenes because they filmed the movie for 3d in mind. Thankfully in Tron legacy the crappiness of the meant for Pesudo 3d scenes were put far in the background to the horrible CGI Young Jeff Bridges...they should have cut his hair, shaved him and used makeup to make him seem younger it was jarring every time that CGI abomination showed up cause it made me remember hey I'm in a freaking theater.

Put aside the fact that no form of 3d I've tried has worked for me *for some reason Pseudo 3d has never worked for me and I have 20/20* Pseudo 3d is a gimmick because of the blinding headaches I get if I force my self to watch Pseudo 3d products for longer then 5 minutes.

Pseudo 3d was brought out of the closet, the massive amounts of mold and cob webs from the last time it was used in the 80's and it was shoved out there. Because the film industry is in a mad rush to figure out how to make money.
The fact its cheaper to just get an hdtv a good dvd or bluray player and a good sound system, the 20 dollar tickets in some places, and the Actors demanding 10 million dollar contracts the producing sucking up all the money, the movie industry is killing it self. Sadly tv makers and other products are adopting a gimmick...Its gonna cause a crash in the visual enterainment center some time soon.

I hate apple it turns people into snooty fucktards, Like my aunt who spent all xmas complaining about how slow an old pc was compared to her macbook. Without even really thinking about why. The look on her face when I told her no really my pc is just as fast and as powerful as a mac only it cost me hundreds less seemed to be a mix of proving a christian wrong and lalalala Im not hearing you macs are the best.

WilliamRLBaker:

I saw the 2d version of Legacy

And this makes you qualified to talk about the 3D technology used in Tron: Legacy how..? There were no jump out scenes. Maybe I missed them, but if I did, I wonder how you caught them when you saw the movie in 2D.

CGI Jeff Bridges looked very good and realistic. I have no idea what you're on about there. Besides, did you notice that the movie took place inside a computer!? And that the "CGI Jeff Bridges" aka C.L.U. was a program, not a person? It doesn't matter if he doesn't look 100% like a human because he isn't one!

Put aside the fact that no form of 3d I've tried has worked for me *for some reason Pseudo 3d has never worked for me and I have 20/20* Pseudo 3d is a gimmick because of the blinding headaches I get if I force my self to watch Pseudo 3d products for longer then 5 minutes.

There you go. 3D doesn't work for you. This happens in a small percent of the population. It messes with my eyes a bit, too, but I can see it. And if you can see it, it looks pretty cool. Having 20/20 vision doesn't make a difference. I wear glasses and I can see it. Some people just can't. Your personal, physical inability to use it (that is not your fault by the way) does not make it a gimmick.

hyperdrachen:

danpascooch:

Scott Bullock:

Apple plans on combining the dome technology and 3D scanners to allow TVs to find their viewer's eyes, and beam the images straight to where they are. This would also allow use by multiple viewers, all without glasses.

So they want to make PIXEL SIZED refractors, that can CHOOSE WHERE THEY REFRACT THE IMAGES TO!? And they want to combine all of this with a 3-D scanner to locate left and right eyes!?

First of all, I still don't see how this will work for multiple people, I see how it could work for one person, but not for 2+

Secondly:

"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

You are overthinking this. Apple is patent squating here. That way when somone actually produces market viable autostereoscopic tech, they can sue them.

I don't think they'll get much out of this patent, there are too many moving parts for this to be cost effective.

Aeshi:

danpascooch:
"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

"In Related news, dozens of other companies are doing the exact same thing (only without massive swarms of haters for some reason.)"

I was actually referring to the fact that this design is insanely over complicated, and thus will probably be way out of the price range for a consumer, but if you want to turn this into an Apple debate, enjoy your flamewar.

Nothing they make is ever compatable with the industry standards, hell, they can't even share the same CHARGING PORTS with their mobile devices and the rest of the market, if they ever decided to use a micro USB I guess Steve Job's head would explode because it isn't needlessly different enough, it's just so that if you lose/break/need a cable or anything else you have to buy THEIR version (which is often inferior, such as their file system, ever notice when you get a new external harddrive how it sometimes can't handle files that are too big? Thank Apple "having to be different" for that, if they just used NTFS like EVERYONE ELSE they could handle files up in the EXOBYTES) it's total bullshit. And if we're on price, have you ever compared the specs on a new Macbook to an ASUS laptop of the same price? I did, that's why I'm typing this from my ASUS laptop.

So yeah, they are a little different from "other companies"

Scott Bullock:
Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

All the tech is is gimmicky eye candy. If the ever find a way do to something useful with this nonsense, I will be quite impressed because I'm just not seeing any practical use for this stuff.

danpascooch:
"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

And sadly people will buy it anyway, just because it has a picture of a partially eaten fruit on it.

If I recall a patent is pretty much legal nonsense unless there's an actual prototype or product to back it up. If anything I'd wager a guess that this is more of a marketing/stock related ploy than anything legally oriented.

Sony just got boned. Apple will overprice the said TV's. Good luck people.

Um, this sounds like a badly planned copy of a design held by a company called SeeReal

No, seriously: http://www.seereal.com/en/holography/holography_technology.php

I mean, are patents so specific that Apple can just ignore this (undoubtedly patented) technology that has already existed in prototype form for at least 3 years now?

How does that work?

Lets see, the patent office is about 5-8 years behind, there could be multiple patents by different companies for the same technology, they are usually awarded first come, first granted.

This technology is about 5-10 years away. Could be sooner, they usually don't wait for the patents to go through, but it roughly the same development period from the drawings to the actual working products for most high-tech stuff.

Speaking of Holographic: About a year or two we should see the blu-ray replacement: HVD hitting the market.

Until someone can somehow make this "3D" viable for people who cannot see the current 3D because of a problem with one or both eyes/headaches/other reasons, I couldn't really care less what Apple tries to claim ownership over. Besides, no matter what, the iSee will be so bloody expensive that it will require a down payment of your first-born, require its own specific digital files from the iStore that literally flips you off if you try and use any other non-Apple device, and all to be supplanted the next year by the cheaper model that comes equipped with Wifi and a pudding dispenser.

danpascooch:
if they just used NTFS like ONLY MICROSOFT AND ABSOLUTELY NOBODY ELSE

Fixed that for you. Sorry, can't have you being blatantly wrong in front of me. Simply won't do. Only Microsoft actually uses NTFS. As to file sizes:
Apple Uses HFS+ (max file size 8 ExiBytes)
Microsoft uses NTFS(Technically capable of 16EiB/file, Limited by Microsoft to 16TB/file)
Linux Variants use EXT[1-4] (max file size 16 TB.) Linux technically supports pretty much every file system, but EXT4 is the most used.

I hate Apple too, but please, try not to be wrong while doing so.

OT (Because seriously, this is pretty off topic...):
Interesting. Shame they probably won't ever actually use that patent, since I doubt the technology exists. Even if it does, I very much doubt it's cost effective.

Rescator:

Scott Bullock:
While I've never been a big proponent of 3D, I must admit that the idea of glasses-free, uninhibited 3D TV is something I can get excited for. Now alert me when the tech is used for something other than gimmicky eye-candy like Avatar and Tron.

Erm.. in TRON Legacy.

Or didn't you watch the same movie I did?
About the first 30 min was without any 3D at all (intentionally),
it was only when entering the TRON world that everything was 3D again, except for at the very end again.
And the 3D in TRON Legacy was very subtle, after a while, just like with a good movie score you forget that it's there.

Now Avatar and the like I agree with as they tend to throw objects in your face,
or worse, some movies may have fake 3D (2D to 3D conversion).

But TRON Legacy did not. It used more evolved camera techniques than Avatar. And the 3D effect was used to add depth rather than the more typical "pop out" effect.

If anything TRON Legacy is the benchmark that future 3D movies must match or surpass,
as in TRON Legacy the 3D is simply just another element of the story telling, as it should be.

While all this is relatively true, you have to remember that tron was crap. Also, if actually utilising the 3D is gimmicky, and by using it subtly you don't notice it, what is it for exactly? It obviously serves no purpose, and is just another gimmick to make money. And it works because there are people not unlike you who go "Whoa! the image is coming out of the screen! Cool!" when it doesn't actually have a purpose for the film. The tron thing was cool, but apart from being a cool idea, it was pointless.

tl;dr: 3D exists to make nerds pay extra so companies make money, and it doesn't enhance the film in any way

Straying Bullet:
Sony just got boned. Apple will overprice the said TV's. Good luck people.

boldtextwut

Hokay, so I can imagine this being a massive success and people paying around $6,000 for each set. Just because Apple have a marketing team and no other electronics company in the world has one. Good job.
I'm sure this has already been invented by about 5 companies that were too shy to patent or release the technology. Nothing happens if you don't do anything. Yeesh. Now Apple gets to rake in more money! Great.

Also, I really need to post this.
"has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do more look like?"

Wouldn't inserting mini-screens into eyes themselves easier? Imagine a mini screen in your eye. Then all you'd need is to sit in front of a white surface and connect yourself using USB3.0.

The thing I love the most is that Apple will inevitably **** up the product, sell more than anyone else, and every other company will then in turn INTENTIONALLY **** up the product to make it look more like the Apple reject.

Seriously. A huge thanks to everyone responsible (ie everyone that owns any Apple product) for the fact that a few years ago I could modify my mobile phone in just about any way I want, and today, I cannot, DESPITE NOT OWNING AN APPLE PHONE. Oh, and the fact that I have to download an invasive, obtrusive, inefficient, space-devouring Sony program just to create playlists for my PSP (as opposed to, I don't know, copying a playlist file onto my PSP).

And a pre-emptive thanks to everyone responsible for making me have to download [brand] software to watch regular TV on my 3DTV.

danpascooch:

Scott Bullock:

Apple plans on combining the dome technology and 3D scanners to allow TVs to find their viewer's eyes, and beam the images straight to where they are. This would also allow use by multiple viewers, all without glasses.

So they want to make PIXEL SIZED refractors, that can CHOOSE WHERE THEY REFRACT THE IMAGES TO!? And they want to combine all of this with a 3-D scanner to locate left and right eyes!?

First of all, I still don't see how this will work for multiple people, I see how it could work for one person, but not for 2+

Secondly:

"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $75,000"

You are forgetting that the little "i" in front of TV adds an extra $24,999.

"This just in, the iTV is now out for a reasonable $99,999."

The way the patent system seems to be abused these days I have to wonder if they can actually demonstrate this as possible, or if some worker bee for them whipped up the idea on his lunch break and they went out and patented it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here