Sensics has opened the SmartGoggles up as a development platform for developers. They foresee a wide variety of applications for the technology, including gaming, academic, and defense implementations.

There is no information yet on pricing, though Sensics is predicting that the goggles will be available later on this year. They have the goggles available at CES for demonstrations, and have posted a video on YouTube. Check out the video below, and let us know what you think in the comments.

[Source: Sensics Press Release]

The premise is simple; they’re going to focus on an online showcase, highlighting works that have created an impact. The project looks to be open-ended, and they’ve stated that anything goes in terms of subject matter: architecture, archeology, industrial design, construction, woodworking, personal fabrication, model railroading, mousetrap design.

The rules and sign-up process are simple. Just complete this form, then submit an image of your SketchUp work along with a photo of the object it’s based on.

Here’s a video showing off what SketchUp is capable of:

I’ve never used SketchUp, but the examples provided in their announcement article are well crafted. Especially the SKPR Bot by John Bacus, featured below.

Google will be taking submissions over the next few months, and will launch the showcase sometime in 2012.

So if I understand this correctly (and there’s a large possibility that I don’t), this is a small step in the direction of virtual reality – the manipulation of 3D objects in a virtual environment. Sweet.

For a more scientific explanation of the device, I’ll throw it over to the Microsoft Research team –

A virtual image of a 3D scene is rendered through a half silvered mirror and spatially aligned with the real-world for the viewer. Users easily reach into an interaction volume displaying the virtual image. This allows the user to literally get their hands into the virtual display. A novel real-time algorithm for representing hands and other physical objects, which are sensed by the Kinect inside this volume, allows physically realistic interaction between real and virtual 3D objects.

As you can see, the interface still has some glitches, and the system is far from fully realized…but holy hell this is cool:

The HoloDesk comes from the brains of the folks at the Sensors and Devices team at Microsoft Research Cambridge. Here’s what sets this virtual 3D experience apart from others out there, according to the Microsoft blog –

For the record, the Holodesk isn’t the only 3-D interaction experiment out there. But what sets it apart from the rest is the use of beam-splitters and a graphic processing algorithm, which work together to provide a more life-like experience.

Man, you gotta love the future.

On a final note – all suggestive article titles aside, the two top-voted comments on this video on YouTube reference the possible applications of this technology in the wide world of porn. Just throwing that out there.

For more recent awesome sci/tech finds, check out Quantum Levitation and this amazing oil spill cleanup device.

Over at Google’s LatLong blog, the helicopter view/3D route is essentially the aerial view of the route users selected when querying Google Maps for directions. It’s a fantastic option for travelers who prefer the scenic route over highway driving. With the 3D view, users will know just how scenic their selected path of travel really is. As you can see in the lead image, the area being detailed is Highway 1 in California, and the view of the route promises a visually rich travel experience. In fact, all this service is lacking is the ability to see these routes in real-time. Such a feature would allow users to do a little traffic scouting, allowing them to pick the path of least resistance.

As it stands, the aerial view of the trip is still a nice feature, especially for those who want to see the country from a non-highway point of view. Over at the blog post, LatLong details how to use the new feature:

To preview your own route, it is as simple as clicking on a button. Start by entering your starting point, destination, and mode of transport like any directions; in this case, driving directions from ‘Carmel CA to Big Sur CA.’ Then, just click on the “3D” play button. The map will switch to Earth view and automatically start flying you along your recommended route. You can pause the flight at any time by clicking anywhere in the 3D view or on the pause button in the lower left. While the flight is paused, you can explore the surrounding area in 3D by clicking and dragging the map.

Unfortunately, the service doesn’t appear to active in every area. The post provides a link for driving directions to Big Sur in order to duplicate the post’s example. However, when the link is clicked, the “3D” button is not available, at least for this user. A screenshot of the results that were returned for me:

It’s true that 3D has been taking a beating lately, although, the re-release of The Lion King in 3D, and the resulting success, may hold off pushing the 3D format back onto the gimmick pile. Digression about the format itself aside, YouTube uploaders can now convert their videos in a post-production format with the click of a mouse.

From YouTube’s blog entry:

Today we’re launching 2D to 3D conversion. Once you’ve uploaded your 2D videos to YouTube, you can convert them to 3D with the click of a button. Converted videos will be viewable by everyone in 3D. You’ll still get best results with a 3D camera, but it’s a great new way to let people enjoy your finest moments. You’ll find this feature by selecting “Edit Info”, then “3D Video” on a video you’ve uploaded. (Note, you’ll still need glasses to watch on most devices.)

It will be interesting to see just how many jump on the “YouTube videos in 3D” bandwagon. With that in mind, do you still consider 3D to be a gimmick or is it a feature that couldn’t get here soon enough?

Other features introduced by YouTube includes the video time limit removal for verified accounts. Until today, the time limit, even for YouTube power users, was 15 minutes. If you meet YouTube’s criteria as a verified user, you can now upload full-length videos. To facilitate these longer uploads, YouTube has also introduced a “resumable uploads” feature, something that does pretty much what it says. If your connection fails during an extended upload, you can resume it once the connection issues are resolved.

In the link YouTube provided, it’s also revealed that the size limit for these larger uploads is 20GB. From their explanation:

Chrome and Firefox 4+ users can not only upload files of a size up to 20GB, but it is also possible to resume uploads if your connection drops, and recover uploads even if you leave the page. When you return to the upload page and attempt the same file again, the progress bar will jump to where it was before.

Another feature YouTube uploaders will be able to enjoy is the ability to edit and add effects. While on-the-fly editing has been launched already in YouTube, their blog entry actually introduces two new editing services uploaders will now have access to in YouTube’s Create area:

We’re adding two additional video creation platforms for you to make your videos even better: Vlix and Magisto. Vlix lets you spice up your videos by adding cool effects and text to the video intro and closing. Magisto takes your unedited video and automatically edits it into short, fun clips.

There’s a video of both services in action, as well:

Full Disclosure: I am a film enthusiast, and will say that proudly even though I’m fully aware that the statement may label me pretentious, even highfalutin in some people’s eyes. The 3D debate strikes me as undeniably important to the question of how we value film, as a society, and where we see it going in the next five, fifty, even a hundred years. And in my opinion, it would be disastrous if 3D became the norm moving forward.

The arguments against 3D film technology are numerous and continuing to grow. The charge is being led, most notably, by long time Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert. To boil the main qualms with 3D film down as much as possible, most opponents cite the fact that the quality is inferior. Most importantly, the picture is dim and lacks crispness.

Oh yeah, and the ticket prices are at least 25% higher than regular 2D films.

Do a majority of Americans agree that 3D films are a bad deal? It’s tough to rest a big question like that on the shoulders of one movie. I mean, Avatar 3D and countless other 3D movies haven’t done so bad. But the number crunching of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie, On Stranger Tides, shows film-goers choosing boring old 2D over 3D. Ebert linked to these figures this morning:

Movie City News reports that 59% of ticket sales for Pirates 4 were for 2D, which obviously means the 3D version garnered 41% of the sales. From the MCN blog:

According to Len Klady’s Sunday reporting, 66% of Pirates 4 screens were 3D screens and Disney told him that just 48% of the box office gross came from those screens.

Not only is this a clear rejection of 3D on a major movie, but given how distribution is currently designed, it makes you wonder whether Disney cost themselves a lot of gross by putting their film on too high a percentage of 3D screens.

What exactly caused this shift? Was it the quality issue? Or was it that many people simply aren’t willing to pay a few dollars extra for a 3D showing? Is it possible that the 3D is specifically poor in the new Pirates movie and that news spread around, prompting viewers to choose the 2D?

Whatever the reason, people on Twitter are talking about it. Of course there are plenty of tweets rolling in that praise the new Pirates 3D, but there are also a pretty large contingent of tweeters not thrilled with the quality.

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe wrote an interesting piece about the way 3D projectors in many theaters are dampening the quality of 2D films. Theaters are running normal films through the 3D lenses, and it is having a detrimental effect on the brightness.

Ty Burr’s experience around the Boston area:

These are the auditoriums using new digital projectors that are transforming the movie exhibition business, machines that entirely do away with celluloid. The “film’’ comes in the form of a software file, and the projector pumps it onto the screen at high intensity.

Why, then, do so many of the movies look so terrible? This particular night “Limitless,’’ “Win Win,’’ and “Source Code’’ all seemed strikingly dim and drained of colors. “Jane Eyre,’’ a film shot using candles and other available light, appeared to be playing in a crypt. A visit to the Regal Fenway two weeks later turned up similar issues: “Water for Elephants’’ and “Madea’s Big Happy Family’’ were playing in brightly lit 35mm prints and, across the hall, in drastically darker digital versions.

The problem is with the 3D lens, and its polarization.

For 3-D showings a special lens is installed in front of a Sony digital projector that rapidly alternates the two polarized images needed for the 3-D effect to work.

When you’re running a 2-D film, that polarization device has to be taken out of the image path. If they’re not doing that, it’s crazy, because you’ve got a big polarizer that absorbs 50 percent of the light.

So why would theaters fail to remove the 3D lenses? Money. Time and Money.

What about 3D on its own, though? No matter that the 3D technology may be harming 2D quality, what about 3D films themselves?

Famous film editor Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now) talks about the problems with 3D in a letter to Roger Ebert. He says that besides the problems of 3D films being dark and small, they ask us to do things with our eyes and brains that we aren’t really wired for, evolutionarily.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the “convergence/focus” issue. A couple of the other issues — darkness and “smallness” — are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focused and converged at the same point.

And that explains the headaches and disorientation that many people report during 3D films. By watching a 3D films, you may be overheating your brain, so to speak.

But before you tell me how much of a spoilsport I am, let me clarify. I don’t believe the 3D film technology is the bane of our existence. I liked Avatar 3D, although it was a little dark. Toy Story 3D was just fine and dandy.

But do we need to make everything in 3D? Is that really the desired style for every film we see? And can be please stop showing normal films through 3D lenses please?

To me, the problem theaters have now is quite ironic. If people continue to choose 2D over 3D like with the latest Pirates film, and 2D quality is lacking in many theaters because of 3D projectors, will people still come?

From Roger Ebert’s post, “The dying of the light”

The movie industry feels under threat these days from DVDs, cable movies on demand, a dozen streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Fandor and Mubi, and competition from video games. Decades ago, it felt a similar danger from radio (it introduced talkies) and television (it introduced wide-screen). The irony today is that it hopes to rescue itself with 3D, which is not an improvement but a step back in quality.

And what about file sharing? If the theaters aren’t going to provide viewers with anything to draw them out of their homes, why not just download the film? I’ve got a big screen HD TV and 59 cent popcorn. The film looks great to me at home.

What do you think of 3D? Is it the way of the future? Or is it hurting the film industry at its core? Let us know in the comments.

Just today, Arnold tweeted a link to the official trailer for the series. You can see the trailer above, be sure to leave a comment below with your thoughts on it.

The cartoon is just a single element of a multi-platform rollout, produced by comic legend Stan Lee, Andy Heyward and Schwarzenegger himself, which also includes a comic book, Internet delivered-content and a 3D feature length film. Recently Heyward told Deadline that, “it all starts with a 52-episode series that will feature the voice and animated image of Schwarzenegger as a superhero bent on beating the bad guys and the forces of evil.”

It’ll be interesting to see how the producers use social media to push these projects, as the cartoon series doesn’t even debut until late 2012. Can they make this series go viral before it even launches? Tell us what you think in the comments section.

Compared to needing spectacles and being limited to a handful of special big screens, this arrangement should provide viewers with a more convenient experience.  It also promises to increase the selection of content available.

Francisco Varela, Head of YouTube Platform Partnerships, explained in a statement, "3D technology has traditionally been reserved for the major Hollywood movie studios.  With the new LG Optimus 3D anyone anywhere in the world can shoot 3D videos, upload them to YouTube and share them with their friends.  We’re excited to see the creative videos our community captures and shares with this new technology."

Unfortunately, not much else is known at this point.  The phone’s specs are a mystery (aside from the fact that it’ll be "dual-core, simultaneous dual-channel and dual-memory"), and LG hasn’t hinted at a price.

For that matter, we’re not sure how many people are clamoring to see 3D content on their cell phones, never mind create it.

This move puts YouTube and LG in a good position if mobile 3D video becomes popular, at least.

Intel says the lab will initially conduct research for mobile user experiences that could leverage the rapidly increasing capabilities of mobile devices. They’re looking for an experience that does for mobile what 3-D graphics have done for movies.

"The University of Oulu’s focus on future telecommunications solutions as well as electronics and photonics made it the perfect location for the Intel and Nokia Joint Innovation Center," says Justin Rattner, Intel’s chief technology officer and director of Intel Labs.

"3-D technology could change the way we use our mobile devices and make our experiences with them much more immersive," said Rich Green, SVP and chief technical officer at Nokia. "Our new joint laboratory with Intel draws on the Oulu research community’s 3-D interface expertise, and over time will lay down some important foundations for future mobile experiences."

Intel says the lab is well aligned with the MeeGo open source platform recently launched by Intel and Nokia.

Google has remained tight-lipped about what it actually plans to do with BumpTop, but as with some of the company’s other recent acquisitions, competition with Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices is likely the driving motivation behind the purchase, and Android is Google’s most significant weapon in that battle.

Android is expected to make a big splash at Google I/O (the company’s developer conference) later this month, with Android-based TVs expected to be revealed. Given the new trend of 3D television, BumpTop could play an interesting role here.

Financial details about the acquisition have not been revealed. Other recent acquisitions by Google include Agnilux, DocVerse, Plink, Episodic, and Aardvark.

While not all of these are directly related to Apple competition, some of them clearly are. Apple has been on its own acquisition spree as well. Most recently, the company picked up Siri and Intrinsity.

(Hat TIp to VentureBeat)