I hope they do the more real way, not just bump up the refreshrate, sync a pair of googles to dim out an eye while showing the other with the eye separation angle every other frame. Its "lazy", i would like a TV/Monitor that dont require such ways to lure my vision that its 3D. I bet if you see a true stereoscopic movie (IE show both eyes simultanious) it would feel more natural and likely also make you dive into the experience that producer want to create due to the subconsious part in it... Much like subminimal messaging, you can't consiously differentiate when just one frame is altered but unconsiously you will!
- Status
There's only two ways to display a 3d image. The first is to make it 3D and allow us to percieve it naturally. The downside is that the display device will also have to be 3d and will require the same volume of space to display the 3d construct as the size of the construct itself. This in fact could be a very useful tool... but it's application for entertainment would be limited.
The second way is to simulate a 3d image by utilizing two separate 2d images that conform to the same spacial mapping as we would see if we were looking at the actual 3d object. This is the way all the new devices are going. It provides a "Window into a 3d world" effect. The problem there is for it to work... you REALLY need 2 different 2d images. You could get there by a couple methods:
- 2 different displays that each are only visible to one eye with appropriate optics to position the images some reasonable distance away from the viewer (big LCD headsets you sometimes see).
- 1 display that alternates between the two images and some other devices that selectively routes each image to the proper eye (shutter glasses)
- 1 display that uses chomatic mapping to fool eyes into mapping 3d using filtering glasses (old two color cardboard 'glasses')
- 1 display that uses lenslets of some sort to change where each eye vector path strikes the image. (this is what they're talking about above).
All methods have some benefits and drawbacks. The top two current contenders are LCD (leader) and lensed display (as discussed in article)
The final method has the benefit of not requiring any additional device to control image routing, but the drawbacks are that it's quite sensitive to view distance (3d effect falls off quickly when you're not in the 'sweet spot'), reduces the effective resolution of the display drastically (you use many pixels to display each '3d-pixel' location) and has a limited range of depth that it's able to replicate.
The Shutter method requires glasses, and depends on displays with very high refresh rates to avoid user eye strain (I think you'd need >200hz to eliminate it for the majority of users).
You can go either way... but having seen both I much prefer shutter glasses until dual displya headsets get light and cheap (and resolution up)
The second way is to simulate a 3d image by utilizing two separate 2d images that conform to the same spacial mapping as we would see if we were looking at the actual 3d object. This is the way all the new devices are going. It provides a "Window into a 3d world" effect. The problem there is for it to work... you REALLY need 2 different 2d images. You could get there by a couple methods:
- 2 different displays that each are only visible to one eye with appropriate optics to position the images some reasonable distance away from the viewer (big LCD headsets you sometimes see).
- 1 display that alternates between the two images and some other devices that selectively routes each image to the proper eye (shutter glasses)
- 1 display that uses chomatic mapping to fool eyes into mapping 3d using filtering glasses (old two color cardboard 'glasses')
- 1 display that uses lenslets of some sort to change where each eye vector path strikes the image. (this is what they're talking about above).
All methods have some benefits and drawbacks. The top two current contenders are LCD (leader) and lensed display (as discussed in article)
The final method has the benefit of not requiring any additional device to control image routing, but the drawbacks are that it's quite sensitive to view distance (3d effect falls off quickly when you're not in the 'sweet spot'), reduces the effective resolution of the display drastically (you use many pixels to display each '3d-pixel' location) and has a limited range of depth that it's able to replicate.
The Shutter method requires glasses, and depends on displays with very high refresh rates to avoid user eye strain (I think you'd need >200hz to eliminate it for the majority of users).
You can go either way... but having seen both I much prefer shutter glasses until dual displya headsets get light and cheap (and resolution up)
megan12392
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2010
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
i think its a neat idea but there are still a few problems to smooth out like of course the glasses and also the lack of material (ie movies dvds tv shows and channels) available in 3d, so i don't know.
- May 16, 2008
- 665
- 0
- 18,930
Stay tuned for 2 more articles next week about the future of 3DTV technologies...we're really interested in this topic after CES. We're going to get a tour of some labs that are working on Non-Glasses 3DTV.
I think the glasses are the cheapest solution, as long as the content is distributed for that.
For games it's easy to code the stereo effect, and display tha content on the screens, for TVs to convert it on the fly, I think it will not only need great processor power, but it will not work effectively.
The main question here is why do we need to buy new "3D" TVs when only the content and glasses are the only new stuff? It seens like only a market strategy.
The case with glasses-free TVs are different, the TV itself has new hardware, like the coating or lenses. If it's is glasses-free it would worth my money.
For games it's easy to code the stereo effect, and display tha content on the screens, for TVs to convert it on the fly, I think it will not only need great processor power, but it will not work effectively.
The main question here is why do we need to buy new "3D" TVs when only the content and glasses are the only new stuff? It seens like only a market strategy.
The case with glasses-free TVs are different, the TV itself has new hardware, like the coating or lenses. If it's is glasses-free it would worth my money.
ubercake
Distinguished
- Oct 28, 2009
- 308
- 0
- 18,960
It's a good thing if they can figure out a way to do away with the glasses.
I don't get this whole thing with the 3D on a TV otherwise. I have gotten a couple of BDVDs for my kids that come with 3D glasses and we get 3D right there.
Who cares if a company comes out with a TV that requires you wear glasses to watch it? Am I supposed to wear glasses on my glasses? Or can I get prescription 3d glasses? Serioiusly. This really seems like more of a sales gimmic than something new, since your 3D glasses are battery powered(????).
If someone can come out with a TV set that shows a 3d image without some additional apparatus (and cost of course), I will be impressed.
I don't get this whole thing with the 3D on a TV otherwise. I have gotten a couple of BDVDs for my kids that come with 3D glasses and we get 3D right there.
Who cares if a company comes out with a TV that requires you wear glasses to watch it? Am I supposed to wear glasses on my glasses? Or can I get prescription 3d glasses? Serioiusly. This really seems like more of a sales gimmic than something new, since your 3D glasses are battery powered(????).
If someone can come out with a TV set that shows a 3d image without some additional apparatus (and cost of course), I will be impressed.
ubercake
Distinguished
- Oct 28, 2009
- 308
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]I'm making a long-term bet that glasses will NOT be the technology that eventually makes its way into living rooms. I've got a pretty good track record for consumer electronics industry insights, and I just want to encourage everyone that just because the vendors/manufacturers are saying it has to be one way, consumers have a voice and if they don't like it that way, they can stop it. The companies will think of another way to sell 3DTV to us--a better way.[/citation]
I agree with Tomsguiderachel.
I agree with Tomsguiderachel.
This is insightful feedback about 3D. However, this article is misleading and inaccurate and I quote - "But discomfort—headaches, eyestrain, nausea—isn’t the only problem with 3D glasses."
Discomfort of stereoscopic 3D is not caused by 3D glasses it is caused by poorly developed stereoscopic 3D content. The focus of the 3D revolution should be on premium content development and we have witnessed some of the best 3D stereoscopic content on the planet.
Just thought I would clarify this statement.
Discomfort of stereoscopic 3D is not caused by 3D glasses it is caused by poorly developed stereoscopic 3D content. The focus of the 3D revolution should be on premium content development and we have witnessed some of the best 3D stereoscopic content on the planet.
Just thought I would clarify this statement.
A few years ago at 'NAB', a salesman had a 3D picture of the edge of his desk and he had it setting on his desk. In the picture, there was a HD laying on the corner but was not actually there on his desk.
The guy was really bummed out.
He had the 3D picture taken by a company somewhere and he didn't know YOU CAN'T DO THAT! Now he had crowds of people going and getting their friends and bringing them back to look at the HD on the corner of the desk that wasn't there.
The reason he was so bummed out? He was a computer furniture salesman.
I'm remembering this from maybe 5 or 6 years ago and I still get a funny feeling in my stomach when I think about it.
The guy was really bummed out.
He had the 3D picture taken by a company somewhere and he didn't know YOU CAN'T DO THAT! Now he had crowds of people going and getting their friends and bringing them back to look at the HD on the corner of the desk that wasn't there.
The reason he was so bummed out? He was a computer furniture salesman.
I'm remembering this from maybe 5 or 6 years ago and I still get a funny feeling in my stomach when I think about it.
For 3 or 4 years, NAB has been giving seminars on the mathematics of 3D. One of the problems you've missed is focus. With a digital construction, everything is in constant focus all the way to the horizon.
If you are looking at something far away and the scene changes to a closeup, it's possible to snap a loop in your optic nerve and tie your eyes in a knot.
If you are looking at something far away and the scene changes to a closeup, it's possible to snap a loop in your optic nerve and tie your eyes in a knot.
so keeping track of a pair of glasses is too much for people to handle now? wiping their own butts will be the next laziness. cmon people i seriously doubt its that hard to put on some glasses to watch something cool. also why the heck would you care how you look in them?!? seriously if you're so concerned how YOU look when you are watching tv, then maybe you shouldnt watch tv at all because sitting there watching tv implies a sort of laziness right? put the glasses on, dont use 3d tvs, or go make a better one yourself?
I've been interested in 3D since seeing my grandmother's slides and viewer and played with it while working at Kodak. Even have an Amiga computer with shutter goggles! As far as needing a 200 Hz refresh rate, European TV used a 50 Hz rate and American NTSC TV uses 60 Hz. Doubling these for stereo only requires 120 Hz.
I'm guessing that lenticular lens will go the way of my grandmothers viewer. The ultimate setup is simply to have a TV identify all the eyes in the room and direct either a left or a right view to each one. It'd be similar to how a tube TV generates images on a screen. We already have face-recognition software, we just need very fast optical aiming. The same can pretty much be done with the audio, though not as sharply since audio is harder to aim. Until this happens we'll need some sort of eye filter to pick out the proper views. Their is no reason that we can't have clipons to match your regular glasses or a shutter glass option at the opticians.
Optical aiming technology could also be used to drastically cut the power consumption of displays. Hmmm, watch stereo TV and fight global warming all at the same time! I'm in!
I'm guessing that lenticular lens will go the way of my grandmothers viewer. The ultimate setup is simply to have a TV identify all the eyes in the room and direct either a left or a right view to each one. It'd be similar to how a tube TV generates images on a screen. We already have face-recognition software, we just need very fast optical aiming. The same can pretty much be done with the audio, though not as sharply since audio is harder to aim. Until this happens we'll need some sort of eye filter to pick out the proper views. Their is no reason that we can't have clipons to match your regular glasses or a shutter glass option at the opticians.
Optical aiming technology could also be used to drastically cut the power consumption of displays. Hmmm, watch stereo TV and fight global warming all at the same time! I'm in!
More 3DTV information here:
http
/www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/140--3DTV-stereoscopic-polarization.html
http
/www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/140--3DTV-stereoscopic-polarization.htmlI saw Avatar, and Beowulf before that, and the glasses didnt bother me one bit. I had no headache, eye-strain or discomfort of any kind. Bottom line is I still want it in my house, and since 3D TVs can be used in 2D mode, I dont need extra glasses for visitors to watch TV unless I want to. If they want 3D they can go home and watch their own.
No-glasses 3DTV is currently not as good anyway, so why would I waste my money even if they were available?
If your eyes hurt thats too bad, but I know people who have the same problem watching a regular PC monitor. They just deal with it.
No-glasses 3DTV is currently not as good anyway, so why would I waste my money even if they were available?
If your eyes hurt thats too bad, but I know people who have the same problem watching a regular PC monitor. They just deal with it.
I saw Avatar, and Beowulf before that, and the glasses didn't bother me one bit. I had no headache, eye-strain or discomfort of any kind. Bottom line is I still want it in my house, and since 3D TVs can be used in 2D mode, I don't need extra glasses for visitors to watch TV unless I want to. If they want 3D they can go home and watch their own.
No-glasses 3DTV is currently not as good anyway, so why would I waste my money even if they were available?
If your eyes hurt that's too bad, but I know people who have the same problem watching a regular PC monitor. They just deal with it.
No-glasses 3DTV is currently not as good anyway, so why would I waste my money even if they were available?
If your eyes hurt that's too bad, but I know people who have the same problem watching a regular PC monitor. They just deal with it.
I saw Avatar and loved the movie but wished I had watched it in 2D! Simply wearing glasses was not the problem. It was the eye strain and what I would call scene confusion and loss of detail. Much of the detailed action and motion that I wanted to see I couldn't because it would move through the 3d plane more quickly than my eyes could follow.
That's not to say that 3D technology hasn't come a long way. During the 3D previews before the movie I nearly left the theater. It was so bad I couldn't stomach the thought of the three hours of oncoming torture. Thankfully, the actual film was better but certainly not perfect and hardly awe-inspiring.
That's not to say that 3D technology hasn't come a long way. During the 3D previews before the movie I nearly left the theater. It was so bad I couldn't stomach the thought of the three hours of oncoming torture. Thankfully, the actual film was better but certainly not perfect and hardly awe-inspiring.
why are these not in movie theatres everywhere?
youtube -> /watch?v=G6xgryHcDc8
everything from 3 minutes in onward..
youtube -> /watch?v=G6xgryHcDc8
everything from 3 minutes in onward..
I am a customer and I fully agree to you. I don't wear glasses and I don't want to do it for TV watcuse thing. Also, I use to loose things... I just want to sit down and watch 3d tv. That's it. So, let me know the price for that and Ill pay.
The link below is older news from 08 that spoke of a glasses free solution. Not sure what happened to this tv and the Wowvx tv that was also by Philips but this looked like it would tight:
http/www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/
http
/www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Solved
- Question
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Transferring iPhone 8 (iOS 14.5) to new 15: Upgrade 8’s iOS & best method of transfer
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter