D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
It's a bit misleading to mix objective arguments with a highly subjective personal opinion.
Value of 3D display in a handheld *spawn
- Thread starter Npl
- Start date
It's a bit misleading to mix objective arguments with a highly subjective personal opinion.
The fact that handset producers are demanding it in the SoC doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a silly gimmick or not, which is actually what JohnH said.
I see LG optimus 3D has been announced, powered by Omap4 (SGX graphics), with both a 3D screen, and 3D recording.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/14/lg-optimus-3d-hands-on/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/14/lg-optimus-3d-hands-on/
only if you can't tell the difference (which you clearly could !)
Who exactly do you think I'm trying to mislead? My statement is entirely my opinion, if you have problems seperating the objective from the subjective that's entirely your problem not mine.
The average customer won't care about the actual resolution, but the resolution has an impact on whether it looks nice.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Look, you don't like stereo 3D in handsets. I get it, everyone gets it. IMHO, there's no need to repeat that in more of your posts within this thread.
If you still think it's necessary to say it out loud, go ahead.. I'm obviously not the person who'll stop you from doing that.
I do think it's a bit redundant and therefore it's not really enrichening the thread, though.
As for your previous statement, I do think it's misleading to mix good sensical arguments (like the one about handset vendors) with your own opinion in the very same paragraph. I. e., it's what poor-valued journalists do in order pass their opinions as facts, crippling the value of their information.
I think it impoverishes your arguments' credibility, regardless of how agressive you turn towards me or how many people decide to tag-team against my participation.
Now a bit more on-topic:
Youtube is partnering with LG to provide compatibility between the new handheld and the already existing 3D channel. which is currently made for systems that use 3D glasses (alternate frame mode, afaik).
I wonder if the 3DS will be able to enjoy this new content, at some point.
Der Tot is at it again. Take pills, dude.
Of course the SoCs are going to want to cash in on a relatively cheap (for them) feature as a check box on their list. I'm sure there are all sorts of other things they support that won't be standard on phones.
And of course many vendors will offer high end 3D display phones that cost quite a bit more due to the 3D screen. This is a far cry from standardization.
Then again, I might be misunderstanding what you mean by standard. This is implying to me that the OS will require the smart phones to have it, in the same way the OS requires smart phones to have a touch screen and accelerometer.
Assuming that stance is correct, it's puzzling to me why this would be the case. 3D augments media, it isn't something you define interfaces around. Obviously the OSes need to allow for apps to use it, although that's a pretty easy augmentation OpenGL ES programs. What I can't see is a reason for the OS to dictate 3D as a requirement, such a thing just doesn't make any sense to me.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
~8 years ago, many people said the exact same thing about touch-only UIs, accelerometers, GPS receivers and powerfull GPUs in cellphones.
If it's not mandatory, handheld makers may or may not include it. Not including will limit the base platform's potential, and in the end that may hurt the ecossystem's popularity.
Look how the lack of a GPU requirement hurt Android's initial sales. They wouldn't enable hardware acceleration for drawing the UI until gingerbread because of that, and the UI's responsiveness is probably one of the main complaints people have when comparing it to the iPhone.
Of course I'm not expecting stereo 3D to become a requirement in OSs in the next 2 years. Rather that no high end smartphone will ever be able to compete if it doesn't sport that feature (with lower-ends following that same trend in the following years).
Something like having a 3.5" screen today. No sub-$450 smartphone has a screen smaller than that, AFAIK.
Glasses-free 3D technology is at such a stage of infancy that it's not pleasant nor viable to watch nor with which to interact for extended periods, so it is a novelty/gimmick at this point.
It'll become legitimate in media, like movies and games, well before it'll become legit for user interfaces.
When gesture recognition systems become sophisticated enough, as forecasted in the OMAP5 PR, to accurately read subtle hand movements in front of the screen, core interactivity could actually be evolved when coupled with a stereoscopic 3D GUI.
The 3D display is still so far from being convincing enough, though.
It'll become legitimate in media, like movies and games, well before it'll become legit for user interfaces.
When gesture recognition systems become sophisticated enough, as forecasted in the OMAP5 PR, to accurately read subtle hand movements in front of the screen, core interactivity could actually be evolved when coupled with a stereoscopic 3D GUI.
The 3D display is still so far from being convincing enough, though.
~8 years ago, many people said the exact same thing about touch-only UIs, accelerometers, GPS receivers and powerfull GPUs in cellphones.
I don't care what people said then about those things, just because someone was wrong about something doesn't make you right about something quite different. This isn't a good argument. Touch-only UIs and accelerometers define the interface. Powerful GPUs aren't actually "standard", but they're part and parcel with decent SoCs. 3D displays are a substantial additional cost.
Lack of a GPU requirement hasn't hurt Android. There the lack of GPU accelerated compositing is more a matter of them just not doing it. A requirement doesn't stop them from doing it optionally and with virtually all of the relevant market having some GPU they're not exactly fragmenting anything by supporting both. The same way there's plenty of NEON in Android library code but they're not hurt by Tegra 2 not being able to run it.
Of course this is still a poor analogy when compared to 3D, because no one will define their interfaces around 3D. That doesn't even really make sense conceptually. I will be very surprised if more than a very niche space in 3D media actually requires 3D to be used; maybe games that rely on depth distinction somehow but I'm pretty skeptical. Almost all 3D media - mainly games and movies - will be the type where you can turn off the 3D and you'll still be capable of using it.
It MAY turn out to be the case that all high end smartphones have 3D. It remains to be seen how much the market considers this important. Or maybe it'll happen because Apple does it and the market follows whatever Apple does. But that's a far cry from it becoming an actual standard that is dictated as a requirement. If you don't mean this then you should stop saying it'll be standardized, along with arguments as to why just that makes sense.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Oh that wasn't an argument trying to prove you're wrong. It was simply an interesting tidbit about how people can turn out wrong regarding "absolute predictions".
You won't hear me saying "I'm 100% sure the 3D displays are going to become mainstream for every smartphone in 6 years". I do think it's a probable future, though.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6914
The "official" claim was that there's no UI GPU acceleration because there are too many models that don't have a GPU, or have a GPU so weak that the performance was better if they used the CPU. The first example given was google's own first development platform, G1.
It's also a fact that the main complaint about Android's user experience when comparing to iOS is the UI's responsiveness.
How many customers has Android lost to iOS due to UI's responsiveness? It could be a lot, specially a year ago.
It seems you missed my previous post.
I really liked the idea of organizing widgets through a third dimension
Who knows, it could even be the reason for Apple's downfall in the smartphone industry, to resist having 3D screens for too long.
They do only make a single new handset every year. While they do save tons of money in R&D, it's also pretty risky if it turns out their model is universally considered as "too outdated".
Whatever they do, they must do it right. That's their moto right now, isn't it?
I'm not convinced that 3D is a requirement for a smartphone. On an OS level, it is just a gimmick - it doesn't really add anything to usability, or improve the display of most information at the actual iOS level. It may be more useful to have a 3D screen for games, but the iPhone isn't marketed as purely a handheld games console - there are plenty of other reasons for owning one. Unless there is a really compelling use case for 3D in phones that I am completely missing at the moment I don't think it will be something that is required to compete in the market, as long as each generation is imaginative and different in some way.
Of course, you never say anything redundant do you? You obviously like stating opinion (note that's opinion not fact), however you don't seem to like anyone disagreeing with you.
I made a post that was entirely my opinion, no one else's, I have no expectation that you or anyone else will agree with every word I write. However my opinions come as a whole, I'm not going to trim/edit it just because you don't agree with some or all of it.
The reality is I am stating my opinion, as you are stating yours, saying people are aggressive towards you because they happen to disagree with you is just being childish.
Back on topic. The reality is that 3D is currently being used as a marketing gimmick within the CE industry. If these guys where selling a 3D solution that was truly immersive then I would agree with you, but the technologies aren't really immersive e.g you can't move your head to look behind objects, there's no head/eye tracking etc. I have a strong suspicion that a lot of people will just turn the 3D "effect" off for normal game play once the gimmick wears off and they get tired of getting headaches.
its so interesting, TI have come up with a name for their own version of it. I give you "Me-D"
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wt...teId=6123&navigationId=12868&contentId=102766
In their cae they marry S3D, gesture recognition and pico projectors.
There was an interesting report on UKs Channel 4 news that included a portion on what MS are doing with Connect derived technology to create a "gesture driven home". There's definitely some real possibilities there.
Time to start buying stock then, eh? Me, I think it's way too presumptious to bet on anything this fringe becoming a "probable" future, even if there's a distinct possibility. Too many things miss the boat.
I agree that it needed GPU acceleration, what I don't agree with is this rationale for not including it. What were all these Android models w/o GPUs? You said there should have been a GPU requirement, but what level of GPU.. you're asking for a performance requirement, in a domain where I guarantee you that a lot of parts were underperforming due to weak drivers. This is probably the reason they had cases where CPU rendering outperformed GPU rendering, where Apple did fine with that using an old MBX on pre-iPhone 3GS. In the thread you'll see the bigger issue is with how Android was designed, anyway.
It seems you missed my previous post.
I really liked the idea of organizing widgets through a third dimension
But 3D screens don't actually give you a 3D display, they just give you depth. This is just a 3D GUI visualized with depth. The 3D display makes it look better but it doesn't change how you interact with the interface.
Wow, you not only think that 3D is a sure-thing feature but you think that it's a feature so vital that not including it for too long could bring down iPhone..
fwiw, the 3D stuff I've seen at MWC so far has been rather underwhelming. The LG Optimus 3D is a very nice and extremely smooth phone (not as smooth maybe as all the stock Honeycomb tablets which are just awesome on that front, both UI and browser scrolling is IMO iPhone quality). But the 3D screen just feels like a bad gimmick. And the 3D recording on the LG tablet just doesn't look good; however that's probably due to the encoder, the video image quality with the glasses on but only one eye open is nothing to brag about.
I guess in theory 3D recording will eventually become pretty good, honestly not convinced glassless displays are going to set the world on fire. I wish I had seen the Nintendo 3DS myself to have a better point of reference...
I guess in theory 3D recording will eventually become pretty good, honestly not convinced glassless displays are going to set the world on fire. I wish I had seen the Nintendo 3DS myself to have a better point of reference...
Similar threads
