Coming up: Stereoscopic monitors?

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Here's a live one.

From <a href=""; target="_blank">this thread</a> over at MacRumors, posted by "mischief":

This is one of the products slated for the next 24 months. It certainly explains Apple's current fascination with dual-monitor cards.

I have no idea how Apple intends to pull this off at any reasonable cost but the impression I got was that they were working on giving the OS "depth" not working on making images "pop out".

There is a rumor around the Valley to this effect and my own sources confirm it.

It would explain why Apple is using Dual Cards, why OS X's top layers are flawed and why Apple is taking so long to go up a Gen in processor. All these things would have to change to accommodate such an interesting turn of events.

Caveat lector. At least it's interesting.

[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>


  • Reply 1 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 2 of 25
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'd much rather have a cheaper 22" or even 23" LCD. I can experience convincing 3D by just spending a little time away from my computer.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    or they could do it through a stereogram. the only difficulty is keeping your eyes crossed for the whole time you are using your computer. even if you could, you'd only be able to make out the vague shape of a few ponies.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    xhorxhixhorxhi Posts: 46member
    Stereo schmereo! 1st make the computer more accessable as a daily productivity tool and companion in the home. I hope Apple's Remote Desktop software does somthing to help in this area! I've whined about this in another thread about porting the desktop around the house or other work environment instead of me having to go to the computer to use it. Humans beings should not have to be chained to their work space nor lug around a high-end notebook just to get work done! Yes a note book is good when you must have a CPU with you in all your travels or to work on your stuff anywhere you go. BUT if I have a KILLER desktop machine that stays "always on" in my main "productivity" locations why should I not be able to interact with that machines GUI anywhere in my locale?

    Make the computer "come to me" in 2D FIRST then I'll dig the cool 3D thing later! I already spend WAY TO MUCH time on this thing anyway! So I might as well be able to do THAT anywhere in the home or office as seemlesly and painlessly as I control my whole A/V system with one remote!!!
  • Reply 5 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 6 of 25
    xhorxhixhorxhi Posts: 46member

    I must take issue with the need for bandwidth. Just as 640x480 video can be ported all over your home with affordable $50 wireless devices so can hi-res screen video be wireless. The wireless A/V units work well and give you a mirror of whatever A/V signal is Live on your main A/V system to any monitor/TV in your home. Want to watch more places? Get more wireless A/V signal repeaters! It's that simple. Now 640x480 video won't suffice for computing I know. But lets double that res and say a max of 1280x960 so then thats 4X the data for video. 4 times the bandwidth yes but over the limited range of the local area let's keep it at 150 feet. If you want more range you'll have to get a repeater but let's say you decide to do all this by wire. Then bandwidth is surely a non issue. Would pumping 4 different 640x480 video signals be a problem for a wired network? Hell no! As for the mouse and keyboard signals that is no problem. In this case you could have a monitor/key combo in every room and also run the computer's screen vid to your HDTV. See I'm not saying thin client here I'm just saying port the user interface all over the place so you can access the system anywhere in your immediate location. The computer as a utility should be everywhere your at. To be a slave to you, not the other way around!

    [ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: Xhorxhi ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 8 of 25
    xhorxhixhorxhi Posts: 46member
    I understand all your points and they're good ones but read my private message to you and go to this post as well. The combination of my idea and this one would be very nice indeed if in one sanitary solution; single device or pair (transmitterand reciever) <a href=""; target="_blank">Wireless Mouse/Keyboard</a>
  • Reply 9 of 25
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Maybe you could "cheat" a little and broadcast at 15 fps. The client terminal would still operate at some nominal refresh (75 Hz or whatever you choose) to eliminate flicker, but the image would still be at 15 fps. It might look a little weird at first, but I think you could get used to it in exchange for the mobility (obviously, it wouldn't be the ideal setup for a Quake deathmatch, of course).

    Now the 8-bit color might be hard to sell, however... So maybe you end up using the bandwidth you gained by broadcasting at 15 fps and pumping the 8-bit color back to 32-bit color? ...Or maybe you apply some quick and dirty data compression to the 8-bit color stream? Something like encode the difference in color value from pixel to pixel, instead of encoding the full 8-bits everytime? That could buy you enough bandwidth so you could consider encoding a full 32-bit color space with an 8-bit compressed color value format for broadcast. Neat, ehh?
  • Reply 10 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 11 of 25
    xhorxhixhorxhi Posts: 46member
    Here is the first half of my offline with AirSluf:

    AirSluf, I'm taking this private because you are the first person who has answered my question of wireless hi-res GUI with real numbers. I've bemoned the lack of such a device or devices on numerous boards and threads several of which are here at AI. If I understand you correctly then part of the bandwith of hi-res screen output is the frame rate (refresh) is so much higher than the 30 frames/sec. of normal 640X480 NTSC video. The "60" multiplier for NTSC full frame would refer to 60 fields/second or every other horiz. line per 1/2 sec. do I have that right? If so could a single device be devised that outputs a "proxy" video signal at the HDTV pixel count but at the lower 60 fields/sec.? Thus reducing the bit rate required. If so that single signal could be mirrored to any HD monitor wireless or wired just on coaxial cable. Explain to me what I am missing here as to the technical problem with getting a high pixel count 8bitx3color image over a wireless unit when I know that NTSC vid. can be mirrored all over your home or office for a few hundred bucks?

    The mouse and keyboard signal could be sent over a separate device if necessary. I just tend look at this the same way that you would take the VGA out from your TiBook to a NTSC TV. Once you get signal to one video device then you can pump that "channel" all over the place right? What part of "simple" am I missing? I wish I had the contacts or resources to investigate this further! Networked client terminals that share files with a central server is not what I seek as a solution. Simply let the user interface of the central system (only system) be seen anywhere in your local environment by sending it as a signal usable by any monitor HD or not HD. If you can afford to have 10 HDTV'S in your house then by rights you should be able to see your computers desktop on every damned one of them! My question is CAN THIS BE DONE!
  • Reply 12 of 25
    OK Air,

    I'm bringing this up a notch.

    You guys who are interested got to these two links.

    <a href=""; target="_blank">Signal Transmiters at</a>

    <a href=""; target="_blank">"RF Link" brand Transmitters</a>

    Now the second link to the RF Link brand tranmitters are the ones I've actually seen work. These devices mirror full stereo surround 640X480 Video anywhere in your home and distance is only limited by the number of repeaters you want to get! Now you just know there will be an HDTV version of this someday correct?

    AirSluf or anyone tell me what is the Big Deal here? Say for $h!ts & Giggles we could break a HDTV signal into four parts and we went nuts and bought four (4) separate units like the ones I've shown you. Then say we send each of the four signals across their own transmission repeater then recombined the signal at the mirrored TV set. Why could not one combined device be made to transmit that HUGE signal? What great leap is there. Just give the RF sender the bandwidth it needs to do the job; I mean your only sending this signal a few hundred feet!!! I'll say it again HDTV comes across coax cable and once you've generated a video signal you can at the very least hook up a cable splitter and put that video (mirror it) anywhere you want to. HDTV does go across coax cable yes/no? I just do not see the "were not there" aspect of this AirSluf. I do very much respect your expertise and please know that in no way do I fully doubt your assertions. It just seems to me that these RF Link transmetters do a damn fine job of throwing around composite video w/stereo surround just fine so let's fatten em up a little to make HDTV transmission happen!

    Flame away Air I know I'm being difficult!

    PS AirSluf

    Also if the little ones want to play games and the wife wants to get online they should get a laptop or desktop of their own and load up the apps on that machine not play around and tie up the network. What I am proposing has nothing to do with networking at ALL. Just get the screen of the main system to me with a remot key/mouse combo so I can use the main system anywhere and I'll be happy! This is irrespective of other clients that may be networked to the main system. My goal of "GUI anywhere" is wholly exclusive of network activity!

    [ 03-28-2002: Message edited by: Xhorxhi ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 25
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member

    I think you have envisioned a multi-node system quite a bit more elaborate than I had in mind. Granted, with such heavy/demanding use on each node in your system, dedicated systems are definitely a more practical solution. What I had in mind, is a less demanding setup that allows general access to a central computer from 2-4 general terminals- so you could enjoy some internet browsing, general file management, document viewer action wherever you happen to be in the house. I don't think full-out, specially-manufactured, "smart" monitors would be necessary. I envisioned compact LCD tablets that you could place anywhere in the house (yeah, of course LCD panels would probably be even more expensive, but I'm just going with what seems right in this 1st gen. "future world" setup). Maybe something like a scaled down laptop sans the HD. So you could have the keyboard, touchpad, LCD, and basic processing/imaging (such as you described would be needed to take care of the "deferred fps" buffering). This mobile node could be anywhere from a "full-service" laptop-ish piece to a compact touch-tablet LCD with stylus (or your finger, if you must ). It may not be impressive from a "power-user" standpoint, but I think the right appeal is there for the general consumer.

    [ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 15 of 25
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    You are probably right about all of this, AirSluf (say, do you know Monterey Park pretty well?). You just seem so overly daunting about it, it raises doubts as to if it really could be that bad, even if we just sneak up on it inch-by-inch with regard to performance criteria (from there, we'll eventually get to where we want to be as technology progresses). True, it's probably a bit premature to expect wireless technology to support each family member in the house wth a full 1024 x 768 x 32 bit x 60 Hz display each to their own. So the next question to ask is what would have to be given up to make it work, to make the bandwidth requirements just sneak under what the wireless could do.

    Just to set the record straight, what is the bandwidth of wireless standard we are talking about here, anyway? 1, 2, 5 MB/s?

    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:


    Even under modest use, the current video standards make wireless transmission crumble under the weight of the pixel throughput because of the screen update frequency.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Surely, we can buy some bandwidth so as to be in the ballpark with the 15 fps proxy or flat-out deferred fps scheme.

    <strong> [quote]Every pixel is pushed across the wire, every update. From the monitors perspective there is no difference between playing Quake and typing an e-mail.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Sure there would, if you were forced to update a Quake screen at 30 fps, but could get away with 10 fps on a "typing an email screen." Obviously, you wouldn't bother with a Quake screen on such a system (you'd just be tying up bandwidth when you could be on a dedicated, single-user PC). The email, internet browsing, and file management, however, could have substantially less demands (unless you type and browse at the speed of a positronic android, of course). Under an adaptive fps scheme, that could be just enough to make wireless a viability. Stick with 640x480, as well. It may not be the ideal setup, but it gets the job done and improvements will come as technology progresses.

    <strong> [quote]Intelligent updating of pixels now means at the receiver/monitor extra hardware is required to decipher what changes and what stays the same. That is the "smart" part of the monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    True the monitor vendors probably wouldn't jump right on such a niche market. However, the laptop vendor might- all of the infrastructure for the product is already in-place. Just trim it down a bit more to be a "dumb-smart" terminal. I don't see why a basic consumer appliance CPU (a MIPs chip ala PSX, even?) and some rudimentary video chipset with a frame buffer couldn't handle a simple adaptive fps downfeed or a lightly-compressed Quicktime video stream, for that matter.

    <strong> [quote]I have seen the video promises within an organization that has a $4.03B budget and they make it look like we are there. Then you see the real piece of gear in your buddies lab and laugh your ass off. Tha part they don't show lives in a 60lb backpack and is powered by a couple DieHards pulled along in a cute little wagon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Was this some intra-office teleconferencing system? Tell me more!
  • Reply 16 of 25
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 17 of 25
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    GI Joe??? What is that suppose to mean? (Are you threatening my bunghole?)

    (Seriously, is Monterey near LA? I need someone to show me Monterey Park/aka Chinatown)
  • Reply 18 of 25
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Looks like 3D is <a href=""; target="_blank">coming soon</a>. One of the guys responsible is an Apple alumnus. :cool:
  • Reply 19 of 25
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Stereoscopic lawsuits.
  • Reply 20 of 25
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Yeah, right, Apple is going to offer stereoscopic displays soon.

    I suppose the iMac will get another price hike after it gets a new 3d display?

    What sort of a jackass comes up with dumbass sh!t like this? Really, this is so incredibly dumb I feel sorry for the person who takes it seriously.

    Apple has better things to worry about, like hardware performance and bringing OS X up to par. They are definitely not wasting their time on spooky 3d displays.
Sign In or Register to comment.