MacRumors: Next iPad to Offer 3D Display?

[michael zaletel]

Macrumors is reporting that RCR Wireless claims to have multiple sources telling it that Apple is planning on incorporating 3D technology into the next-generation iPad.

“The fact that the iPad 3 is 3D is a dead cert,” one Hollywood insider close to the big movie studios told RCR, adding that the screen would be the real magic. She went on to say that the big film studios were currently running around like blue arsed flies trying to gear up to release plenty of 3D content in time for Apple’s next launch.

Besides this "Hollywood insider", they also cite sources from iPad manufacturer Foxconn about the 3D plans.


http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/next-ipad-to-offer-3d-display/

-michael zaletel

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Yah I saw this and thought it was interesting as well. Opens up a HUGE new channel for viewing 3D content if they pull it off. Bravo to Apple if they make this happen at a high level.

 

[IAN SUN]

OMFG!

 

[Doug Horton]

I remember reading a year ago or so about their 3D display patent going through, so maybe this was part of it?

 

[AnthonyFlores]

OMFG!

Well, if this really happens and the quality/experience is there .. OMFG is right. One of the biggest limitations for 3D now is sufficient TV's in the home, as well as subpar experience with glasses, etc. But I can only imagine have what could be tens of millions 3D iPads out there able to display all the 3D content ... suddenly, the whole market would open up massively in a flash. I can't wait, especially if it comes with a higher-res screen and brightness that solves some of the current issues with 3D viewing ...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

If they go for a 3D screen, it will be a lenticular autostereoscopic design. You can see the same thing in action on the Nintendo 3DS. When you dial the amount of eye separation and get the right viewing distance combination, the results are very impressive. The down-side is the lenticular design places the visual separation at the screen plane rather than in the defocused region in front of your eyes. By doing this, everything from the screen plane back is nice and 3D, but you don't get the same spacial projection effect in front of the screen that you can with wearing glasses.

 

[Doug Horton]

If they go for a 3D screen, it will be a lenticular autostereoscopic design. You can see the same thing in action on the Nintendo 3DS. When you dial the amount of eye separation and get the right viewing distance combination, the results are very impressive. The down-side is the lenticular design places the visual separation at the screen plane rather than in the defocused region in front of your eyes. By doing this, everything from the screen plane back is nice and 3D, but you don't get the same spacial projection effect in front of the screen that you can with wearing glasses.

which is fine with us

 

[Ivan Kovax]

If they go for a 3D screen, it will be a lenticular autostereoscopic design. You can see the same thing in action on the Nintendo 3DS. When you dial the amount of eye separation and get the right viewing distance combination, the results are very impressive. The down-side is the lenticular design places the visual separation at the screen plane rather than in the defocused region in front of your eyes. By doing this, everything from the screen plane back is nice and 3D, but you don't get the same spacial projection effect in front of the screen that you can with wearing glasses.

That's the ticket. Can you imagine what gestures will be like in 3D!

 

[Eric Lange]

That's the ticket. Can you imagine what gestures will be like in 3D!

Now you’re cooking!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Looks like BS.


Few things:

- Current autostereoscopic technology severely limits screen pixel density. Apple cannot have both high-res screen and autostereoscopic display. I'd like to be shown wrong on this one.

- Autostereoscopic 3D screens require specific and fixed eye to screen distance to work properly, plus have very limited viewing angles, otherwise you get visual gibberish. That leads to having a not very comfortable and relaxed usage of an everyday device.

- Another downside is half of the native screen resolution.

- Gestures don't work well with autostereoscopic portable device's 3D illusion (tested). Once your hand enters the screen it spoils the illusion. Simulated 3D has one spacial properties, hand in real world has another. Eye cannot scan both at the same time and brain cannot "composite" two different "scenes".

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Well, like RED, Apple has been known to shift a few paradigms. I guess we'll see. :shocked:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Looks like BS.

I'm not ready to write it off as BS just yet. But I do think it unlikely. I have no doubt that Apple may be exploring various concepts and implementations here, but I have serious doubts about how effective any of them could actually be.

- Current autostereoscopic technology severely limits screen pixel density. Apple cannot have both high-res screen and autostereoscopic display. I'd like to be shown wrong on this one.

Er... It does lead to some compromises in achievable pixel density, but is not beyond the realm of the current density or resolution of the iPad. eg; the Nintendo 3DS. It's autostereoscopic upper screen has an 800x240 resolution and runs as a 400x240 display . It's a 1.66:1 3.53"-diagonal display. That translates into 132 lenticular pairs per inch or very close to the 131ppi of the current 1024x768 iPad display. If Apple does go autostereoscopic, the display would become a 2048x768 lenticular display. It's totally do-able at the current size - 3DS is doing it now in a toy. The iPad screen is quite a bit larger physically, than the Nintendo handheld, but the tech is there and the density is totally within range of what has already been done and released to market.

- Autostereoscopic 3D screens require specific and fixed eye to screen distance to work properly, plus have very limited viewing angles, otherwise you get visual gibberish. That leads to having a not very comfortable and relaxed usage of an everyday device.

Eye to screen distance can be mostly corrected by adjusting the lenticular separation. For a personal use device, this is not an issue. But don't expect to set it on a conference table and let a handful of people view anything in 3D. The lenticular separation, viewing distance and viewing angles would make this impossible.

- Another downside is half of the native screen resolution.

Already addressed that one... The screen would have to be 2048x768 to do 3D at the same current 1024x768 resolution. Now one has to ask if they would configure this as landscape (most likely) or portrait. It is theoretically possible to have bi-axial lenticular separations and go with a 2048x1536 screen that could then account for physically rotating the device. But that seems like too much work. Personally, I'd love a 2048x1536 pixel resolution on the next iPad. That is entering "retina" display territory... I honestly couldn't care less about the possibility of 3D on the iPad. IMO, 3D is still mostly a gimmick. Be it on a Nintendo 3DS or on a movie theatre screen. I just like talking about this stuff because I'm a geek at heart.

- Gestures don't work well with autostereoscopic portable device's 3D illusion (tested). Once your hand enters the screen it spoils the illusion. Simulated 3D has one spacial properties, hand in real world has another. Eye cannot scan both at the same time and brain cannot "composite" two different "scenes".

Totally agree. 3D gestures are not going to work unless we can shift the stereoscopic plane close to our eyes (oh, damnit, we have to wear glasses). Additionally, the device would need to register gestures in space and not just by touching the surface. Oh, wait a minute, Apple already has filed multiple patents and has been granted two of them, for spacial gesture recognition in front of device surfaces. Scary...

FWIW, though. The autostereo effect is not totally lost when you touch the screen with your hand. With an autostereoscopic display like this, the 3D effect only appears to reside from the screen plane and back into virtual space behind it. Like you're looking through a window. Some images can appear to float above the screen by a small amount, but that effect is typically only present when you have it really close to your face to where the screen fills a large portion of your field of view and the objects in question don't approach the screen boundaries. Generally speaking, the autostereoscopic displays have nowhere near as much visual projection as one would get from a 3D system with the viewer wearing glasses.

 

[Jason Goodman]

I also agree that this rumor set off the BS alarm pretty quickly, but you never know. The precedent in the marketplace exists. I have seen a tablet from a Korean manufacturer with an auto stereo display and I believe more are on the way. Interesting to note, the Fuji W3 3D still camera seems to use the same LG manufactured Retina display as the iPhone 4. It utilizes a parallax barrier (not lenticular) and is among the best if not the best auto stereo display I have seen. Even at 1/2 resolution, the display holds up very nicely given its size and the 3D quality is excellent. Most people I've shown it to are literally stunned by it upon first sight.

I would assume if Apple were to implement the also rumored 2K retina display in the next iPad a switchable parallax barrier (like those seen on Sharp monitors years ago and currently on the JVC TD1BU 3D camcorder) could work well. The switchable barrier would also be necessary to maintain full display resolution in non 3D applications like ebook reading and for 3D to work properly in both portrait and landscape mode. Each of these things is possible but again, seems like not very Apple thing to do. If they have determined that the groundswell of 3D content from feature films to the emerging TV market is promising enough to drive sales of iTunes downloads, maybe they would do it. It does seem to add a lot of cost to a device that millions buy for an application that a small (right now) market segment would enjoy.

The glasses free patent Apple filed recently has nothing to do with this type of display but certainly demonstrates some level of interest in 3D on Apple's part. I am not trying to poo poo this, certainly the addition of a 3D iPad would be a game changing event for 3D content makers like 21st Century 3D and other list members, but we will just have to wait until 2012 to find out. Incidentally, that will be perfect timing for downloading The Amazing Spider-man from iTunes!

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Given the extra costs, I wonder if Apple could release an additional 3D version of the the iPad 3 ... with the 64gb, 3D model being more like $799 or even $899. I know that's getting high but there's probably a decent about of people who'd pay a $100+ premium for 3D, and then those who don't care can get the 2D version of iPad 3 which I'm sure will still have some great new features.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Er... It does lead to some compromises in achievable pixel density, but is not beyond the realm of the current density or resolution of the iPad. eg; the Nintendo 3DS. It's autostereoscopic upper screen has an 800x240 resolution and runs as a 400x240 display . It's a 1.66:1 3.53"-diagonal display. That translates into 132 lenticular pairs per inch or very close to the 131ppi of the current 1024x768 iPad display. If Apple does go autostereoscopic, the display would become a 2048x768 lenticular display. It's totally do-able at the current size - 3DS is doing it now in a toy. The iPad screen is quite a bit larger physically, than the Nintendo handheld, but the tech is there and the density is totally within range of what has already been done and released to market.

No, it's not that easily doable, Nintendo 3DS is using a solution with a couple of drawbacks affecting picture quality and some drawbacks affecting screen production, making lower yield.
Hence the delay.

Already addressed that one... The screen would have to be 2048x768 to do 3D at the same current 1024x768 resolution. Now one has to ask if they would configure this as landscape (most likely) or portrait. It is theoretically possible to have bi-axial lenticular separations and go with a 2048x1536 screen that could then account for physically rotating the device. But that seems like too much work. Personally, I'd love a 2048x1536 pixel resolution on the next iPad. That is entering "retina" display territory... I honestly couldn't care less about the possibility of 3D on the iPad. IMO, 3D is still mostly a gimmick. Be it on a Nintendo 3DS or on a movie theatre screen. I just like talking about this stuff because I'm a geek at heart.

I'd very much like seeing retina display same as you but...
Currently there are only two manufacturers making this type of screen technology for this market, in larger quantities. One making a different parallax barrier than the one utilized in 3DS is allowing rotating the device and better picture quality. It currently has limitations well under 2048 pixels for those screen sizes, because screen barriers are using extremely precise cell design as is (micron sized tolerance).

Eye to screen distance can be mostly corrected by adjusting the lenticular separation. For a personal use device, this is not an issue. But don't expect to set it on a conference table and let a handful of people view anything in 3D. The lenticular separation, viewing distance and viewing angles would make this impossible.

I've tried few solutions, some in testing phase. You can set it to match your preferred distance, but you are stuck to using that distance for 3D to look good. No one usually uses a smart phone, laptop or a tabled always on a same distance.
This is constrictive = not relaxed everyday usage, IMO.

FWIW, though. The autostereo effect is not totally lost when you touch the screen with your hand. With an autostereoscopic display like this, the 3D effect only appears to reside from the screen plane and back into virtual space behind it. Like you're looking through a window. Some images can appear to float above the screen by a small amount, but that effect is typically only present when you have it really close to your face to where the screen fills a large portion of your field of view and the objects in question don't approach the screen boundaries. Generally speaking, the autostereoscopic displays have nowhere near as much visual projection as one would get from a 3D system with the viewer wearing glasses.

Let me re-phrase it...the effect of the screen is not entirely "lost"...it just doesn't work well with your hand over it.
It creates a visual conflict. Manufacturer of the technology agrees.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

@Hrvoje

I tried the 3DS and yeh, I agree... There are a few issues about. Not the least being the poor viewing angle for S3D. Also nintendo seemed to forget that people MOVE their body and hands when they play games which means the 3D effects is always changing for better and worse.

Šta ćes... ? Shrug.

I hope, if and when Apple decides to make this iPad 3D, they take these issues into account. They really are quite frustrating.

Ivan

 

[Eric Lange]

As someone who has worked twenty years in immersive VR and other stereo based technologies such as high end digital photogrammetry… etc blah blah blah…


I would say a Z based user input control is really useful for interacting in a detailed and precise way in a virtual environment (even if it’s on the other side of the screen). I.e. you can navigate and control things much better in XY AND Z… but your arm does get tired after a while. As someone who has spent millions of hours at digital photogrammetric work stations these Z based gestures or simple controls of course do not have to be in front of the screen; all kinds of useful gestures can be made and 3d cursors of one sort or another can be employed, BUT may not prove that useful for driving your regular apps.


I agree it’s not a very Mac like thing to do, to bring out an auto-stereoscopic display. Their whole plank is “perceived quality” so an auto stereoscopic screen is not very likely. However something using passive eyewear might be possible like the TVs that LG is pushing really hard (at the moment). So at least if you want to get your 3d on you can. I’m sure Apple has designs for suitably styled i3d passive glasses.


It took apple a really long time to get “ jiggy” with sufficiently powerful 3d graphics/rendering cards… a really long time; so even if they have patents for this or that it could be ten years before you see something that operates in a sufficiently slick and useful way. With these larger corporations patent portfolios are just that; so whether they spin out their patents or follow through on them may be a different matter altogether. Obviously they need to hedge their bets so having 3d related research going on is a good idea just in case things really explode or take off in this area.


Ta

Eric