Apple Patents a Way To Deliver 3D Content Without 3D Glasses (patentlyapple.com) 36
Apple has patented the ability to deliver 3D content to devices like the iPhone, iPad and Macs without requiring 3D glasses. From a report: The company recently filed a patent with the heading of "Split-screen driving of electronic device displays." And the tech it describes means that flat screens on smartphones and tablets will be able to show an image in 3D without the viewer having to wear any glasses or VR headset. The idea is that iPhone and iPad screen will be able to display two different images simultaneously, in a way that will fool your brain into seeing a three-dimensional image.
Yes, there are already devices that do this, but the patent notes that existing methods are "problematic," stating: "it can be difficult to provide this type of content on a multi-function device such as a smartphone or a tablet without generating visible artifacts such as motion blur, luminance offsets, or other effects which can be unpleasant or even dizzying to a viewer." The rest of the patent application goes into a great deal of depth about how Apple plans to resolve these problems, and create a smooth 3D viewing experience on a flat screen without the need for glasses. This is gets hugely technical, but starts from the notion that the screen switches between left and right sides of an image via alternating pixel rows.
The patent is also quite vague about how this will all work on a practical level. It doesn't state, for example, what angle viewers will need to position their iPhone or iPad at to get the effect. But it does show that Apple is serious about developing this tech, and has put some proper thought into it.
Yes, there are already devices that do this, but the patent notes that existing methods are "problematic," stating: "it can be difficult to provide this type of content on a multi-function device such as a smartphone or a tablet without generating visible artifacts such as motion blur, luminance offsets, or other effects which can be unpleasant or even dizzying to a viewer." The rest of the patent application goes into a great deal of depth about how Apple plans to resolve these problems, and create a smooth 3D viewing experience on a flat screen without the need for glasses. This is gets hugely technical, but starts from the notion that the screen switches between left and right sides of an image via alternating pixel rows.
The patent is also quite vague about how this will all work on a practical level. It doesn't state, for example, what angle viewers will need to position their iPhone or iPad at to get the effect. But it does show that Apple is serious about developing this tech, and has put some proper thought into it.
Reality (Score:2)
Turns out reality is in 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality doesn't charge a 30% commission...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You're realitying wrong!
Patent Denied (Score:2)
"The patent is also quite vague about how this will all work on a practical level."
If you can't build it from the patent, it's not a patent. It's an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Not built, experienced. There is a difference. The Virtual Boy was patented but had a terrible experience. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has literally patented a Nintendo 3DS.... but "as a smartphone or tablet". And that is what makes it worthy of a patent, that it's in a smartphone or tablet now.
Re: (Score:3)
What he said.
The patent application goes into a great deal of depth about how Apple plans to resolve these problems
It has been a while since I last dealt with patents, but I thought the basic rule of them was that you had to give enough information so that someone reading the patent can actually build the invention. If that is true then I don't see how this patent can be granted.
Maybe they are just trying to get a stake in the ground before someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are just trying to get a stake in the ground before someone else.
That's it exactly. Companies spam out patents, if they get granted great, if not well at least if someone else tries there is prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's what it is about at all. To me it sounds like they are saying using a phone screen in a device like Google Cardboard or Samsung Gear VR leads to systemic artifacts due to the way the image is drawn. From the patent:
Virtual Reality (VR) applications that generate three-dimensional virtual environments that are explorable by the user may utilize a split-screen view in which a first portion (e.g., half) of the display is used to display content for the left eye of the viewer and a second portion (e.g., another half) of the display is used to display content for the right eye of the viewer.
However, for some LCD and OLED displays (e.g., in a smartphone or tablet), visible artifacts can arise, particularly in a split-screen mode of operation. For example, motion blur can occur for fast-moving display objects. Moreover, common smartphone or tablet displays operate rows of pixels in a sequential manner from the top to the bottom of a pixel array, which can cause a visible systematic luminance offset for the left and right portions of the display in a split-screen mode of operation (e.g., due to a liquid crystal response delay in LCD displays). This can be particularly problematic if backlight strobing or pulsing is implemented to reduce motion blur.
This seems to be about modifying the display driver hardware so it can operate pixels in a different order, to reduce these artifacts.
What this shows is (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure your legally right, but you don't have the cash to win in court.
Re: (Score:1)
They don't even know. You think any of them ever shopped for Nintendo products? Apple would much rather pretend Nintendo doesn't exist.
Re: What this shows is (Score:2)
So when you read the actual patent application, which Iâ(TM)m sure you did, what 20 year old invention did Apple try to patent?
Re: (Score:2)
It was invented in 1985.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people not read the summary anymore?
Apple claims to have improved the technology, which for glasses free 3D (which is a real thing and has been for over a decade now) is potentially huge.
In 3D mode, screens go wonky - they suddenly have a viewing angle and a minimum distance. Depending on the technology, they may have a maximum distance - be out of that and the image is unviewable. Other technology
So a lenticular lens and a face tracking camera? (Score:3)
The theory isn't difficult, the implementation in real time with available processing power and battery capacity kind of is, though.
If the device knows where it is in 3D space - which anyone who's played Pokemon GO knows is pretty well solved - you can then add face tracking from the forward facing camera so the displayed left and right images can be adjusted based on your position relative to the display.
Hell, you could even get it to calculate how far away you are and also adjust based on your pupillary distance to tune the parallax exactly to your personal anatomy.
With a fine enough lenticular lens over a high enough definition display, you wouldn't even notice your horizontal resolution had been cut in half.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're pretty much describing the nintendo 3DS
Re: (Score:1)
Prior art? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
HTC EVO 3D (Score:5, Interesting)
The HTC EVO 3D did this a decade ago, and it even had stereoscopic 3D cameras onboard so people could record their own 3D stereoscopic videos. It was awesome. It did not catch on, but was pretty groundbreaking at the time - especially for mobile smartphones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I owned one of these! It was an awesome technical achievement, which I used for the first few weeks I had the phone, and then never again. Just like pretty much everything 3D in the consumer world has been a gimmick.
Re: (Score:1)
Poor 3D Experience? (Score:2)
You're holding it wrong.
Please God .... (Score:2)
... not another fad flood of 3D movies and TVs.
Anyways, 3D representation on a 2D surface should be called "3D-ish", or "kinda 3D". For me, 3D films and television has never been at all satisfactory and for the most part has just got in the way of the storytelling.
I am sure there are many whose experience is different.
Apple is Inventing Something? (Score:2)
This seems unlikely. They've been merely packaging for more
Already been done .. (Score:1)
Nope (Score:2)
> But it does show Apple is serious about developing this tech, and has put some proper thought into it.
You mean it does show Apple's willingness to file a patent before fully knowing how it will work, make it part of its legal arsenal to prevent others from advancing?
Alternately showing images meant for the left and for the right eyes is hardly any advancement.
I wish someone else files patents on the rest of the puzzle.
This is scary... (Score:2)
SLI, basically - but with a twist (Score:2)
Ignoring the prior art for a moment, and also ignoring the fact that this patent is BLATANTLY not-grantable under the fundamental premises OF the patent system, but...
You lay down scan lines with microscopic alternating directions on the emitters. Render for each eye into alternate lines, simultaneously. Done.
Materials engineers can maybe come up with a way to control the emitter angles at runtime - that's not my field, so I have no idea if that's already possible or not.