Within the next 5 years technology will be available to produce 3d tv's that don't require glasses to watch them. Price will initially be a problem but if you are prepared to wait a few years then the prices will eventually drop.
- Status
I agree with this article.
Ok sure there is no real problem with the glasses, and sure the technology is ready now and yea you must be lazy to not look after your glasses. But seriously consider a few things. First you will be paying approx 20% extra for 3d TV (I would gladly pay), then they sneak in extra cost such as glasses, ranging from $100-$140, batteries etc. Then what if you have people over, sure you can tell them to get stuffed, but then what kind of a host would you be, plus you would want to show off with a 3d TV. So what I should take turns to watch TV? Now look at what is occurring, we had all this rage about plasma etc, then came HD, then full HD and they got cheap and cheaper all in a short time frame. Now we have 3D with glasses, but we also have without glasses soon to be available. The glasses will be outdated within 1-2 years (considering the trend, heck even less) so essentially you will be stuck with this outdated technology whist newer and better tech will be available. That reminds me of how I bought my 50” HD TV only for my friends to have bought a Full HD 50” (cheaper) a year later now shortly after 3D comes out, same thing will happen with 3d, you will have the glasses then a year or so later no glasses. So when you go to upgrade you will have one TV with a dozen expensive glasses laying around and this brand new monster of TV without glasses. Let’s not forget at the present these isn’t much 3D content available, give it a 1-2 years for it to full available. So you are better off waiting for the fad to come around, and then evaluate the situation regarding both technologies. Long story short stuff the glasses and wait a little while for the better technology. (btw when I’m talking about buying a TV, I’m talking about expecting it to last over 5 years before thinking of upgrading, and I’m only giving open examples.)
Ok sure there is no real problem with the glasses, and sure the technology is ready now and yea you must be lazy to not look after your glasses. But seriously consider a few things. First you will be paying approx 20% extra for 3d TV (I would gladly pay), then they sneak in extra cost such as glasses, ranging from $100-$140, batteries etc. Then what if you have people over, sure you can tell them to get stuffed, but then what kind of a host would you be, plus you would want to show off with a 3d TV. So what I should take turns to watch TV? Now look at what is occurring, we had all this rage about plasma etc, then came HD, then full HD and they got cheap and cheaper all in a short time frame. Now we have 3D with glasses, but we also have without glasses soon to be available. The glasses will be outdated within 1-2 years (considering the trend, heck even less) so essentially you will be stuck with this outdated technology whist newer and better tech will be available. That reminds me of how I bought my 50” HD TV only for my friends to have bought a Full HD 50” (cheaper) a year later now shortly after 3D comes out, same thing will happen with 3d, you will have the glasses then a year or so later no glasses. So when you go to upgrade you will have one TV with a dozen expensive glasses laying around and this brand new monster of TV without glasses. Let’s not forget at the present these isn’t much 3D content available, give it a 1-2 years for it to full available. So you are better off waiting for the fad to come around, and then evaluate the situation regarding both technologies. Long story short stuff the glasses and wait a little while for the better technology. (btw when I’m talking about buying a TV, I’m talking about expecting it to last over 5 years before thinking of upgrading, and I’m only giving open examples.)
d d d t v 7 7 7
Erect ; Rigidly upright, formulated system .
Apparent ; Readily perceivable by the mind, via vision .
Virtual ; Having the effect but not the form, ( not solid ) .
Image ; Visual representation .
I hold an answer to a television perception, system, which is perceived better than that of the Warner Brothers for Disney films of yesteryear, which required viewing glasses, to the perception of depth, 3D image.
More than the human eye has seen before. The perception of additional, very natural depth remains equally as perceivable whether viewed with both eyes, binocular, or with one eye closed. The perception of the additional depth effect continues un-heeded. Although my system requires research & development, it extends well beyond theory.
Without qualifications in this field, I invited a television technician, who was at that time the manager of a T V repair company, who has now retired, to verify my findings. He didn't hesitate to concur on my dicovery; further more he stated that what I've shown him has undone some major fundamental teachings on television transmission.
In order that I could extend my confidence in my findings, I invited an optometrist to view this. He said within his first glance, that I am correct with what I claim. He watched in amazement at this television perception for almost an hour, all the while almost in disbelief, and said that he has never seen or heard of any thing like this optical perception, before.
He has since supplied me with a brief letter of support, which also depicts a diagram of an extended focal depth well out side the monitor cabinet’s dimensions. Until this finding, I had never known the optometrist or the television technician / manager. I simply wanted an unbiased professional opinion, as to what I was now viewing.
This system has not and will have no requirement for viewing glasses.
The viewer has the same viewing restrictions as enjoyed with the mono system, except that now their erect virtual image perception includes an added focal depth of field effect, a perceivable depth / distance between physical objects in relative proportion, regardless of the angle to and distance from the monitor screen, inclusive of multi viewing, same as mono viewing.
To promote this system further I'm pleased to announce that this operates from all (TV & video transmissions) that were originally filmed off a three-dimensional image, inclusive of computer created 3D images.
Home made videos. I have found to date that Cathode-Ray Tube is more effective than L.C.D. This I have titled "Image Enhancement".
All I know is this perception has the ability to make the viewer recoil from the monitor screen as one would if looking out a window, under on coming objects to the viewer. Like close up angles of sports, or a train exiting a rail tunnel. I also find motor sports to be especially effective when they appear to come toward the camera.
This system gives the effect of removing the monitor screen from the viewer’s perception, and causes them to believe that they are looking at the real time event, out, through a window, to a very natural depth perception.
This virtual image, depth effect perception remains equally perceivable whether viewed with one eye closed or both open together.
This is not a windup, it is for real. What I am seeking is someone who is willing to check this out with a genuine attitude toward its fruition.
Yours faithfully
Bob White: Inventor depth display device true view by God
< Email removed >
NEW ZEALAND
Erect ; Rigidly upright, formulated system .
Apparent ; Readily perceivable by the mind, via vision .
Virtual ; Having the effect but not the form, ( not solid ) .
Image ; Visual representation .
I hold an answer to a television perception, system, which is perceived better than that of the Warner Brothers for Disney films of yesteryear, which required viewing glasses, to the perception of depth, 3D image.
More than the human eye has seen before. The perception of additional, very natural depth remains equally as perceivable whether viewed with both eyes, binocular, or with one eye closed. The perception of the additional depth effect continues un-heeded. Although my system requires research & development, it extends well beyond theory.
Without qualifications in this field, I invited a television technician, who was at that time the manager of a T V repair company, who has now retired, to verify my findings. He didn't hesitate to concur on my dicovery; further more he stated that what I've shown him has undone some major fundamental teachings on television transmission.
In order that I could extend my confidence in my findings, I invited an optometrist to view this. He said within his first glance, that I am correct with what I claim. He watched in amazement at this television perception for almost an hour, all the while almost in disbelief, and said that he has never seen or heard of any thing like this optical perception, before.
He has since supplied me with a brief letter of support, which also depicts a diagram of an extended focal depth well out side the monitor cabinet’s dimensions. Until this finding, I had never known the optometrist or the television technician / manager. I simply wanted an unbiased professional opinion, as to what I was now viewing.
This system has not and will have no requirement for viewing glasses.
The viewer has the same viewing restrictions as enjoyed with the mono system, except that now their erect virtual image perception includes an added focal depth of field effect, a perceivable depth / distance between physical objects in relative proportion, regardless of the angle to and distance from the monitor screen, inclusive of multi viewing, same as mono viewing.
To promote this system further I'm pleased to announce that this operates from all (TV & video transmissions) that were originally filmed off a three-dimensional image, inclusive of computer created 3D images.
Home made videos. I have found to date that Cathode-Ray Tube is more effective than L.C.D. This I have titled "Image Enhancement".
All I know is this perception has the ability to make the viewer recoil from the monitor screen as one would if looking out a window, under on coming objects to the viewer. Like close up angles of sports, or a train exiting a rail tunnel. I also find motor sports to be especially effective when they appear to come toward the camera.
This system gives the effect of removing the monitor screen from the viewer’s perception, and causes them to believe that they are looking at the real time event, out, through a window, to a very natural depth perception.
This virtual image, depth effect perception remains equally perceivable whether viewed with one eye closed or both open together.
This is not a windup, it is for real. What I am seeking is someone who is willing to check this out with a genuine attitude toward its fruition.
Yours faithfully
Bob White: Inventor depth display device true view by God
< Email removed >
NEW ZEALAND
I am all about the no glasses..I'm sure its even more uncomfortable for those that already wear glasses. Unfortunately, I think the glasses will be around for awhile just for the money. I just checked the prices of the glasses and their not cheap, so the manufacturers are going to try and make every buck they can make off people via additional accessories before throw out the tv that doesn't require them. TO BAD...
the 3d perception image has been around for years the method is just a 35 degree out of focus shot either right or left, it's commonly called by optometrists the double vision effect of a constant image shown at 35 degrees out of visual sync of the center of the eye or screen, which looks like out sync ntsc signal..
to do this from a tv perspective you would min of 240 hertz refresh on a ntsc signal, on a pal format 200 hertz would suffice shot at 24 frames per second instead of the telecened 1.5 image we see on a 30 frames per second ntsc image..
true images are only really possible on a holographic projection system, it isn't really possible on current flat screen lcd or even on a projection screen, you will only get a pseudo 3d format which has really evolved in the 50-60 years, computer 3d has got to the point that it makes the old 50-60 year out of focus stunt a thing of the past to the point that out of faze 3d is a pointless endeavor to even use in film now days.. pc 3d is getting to the point you can't tell what real and what's not as it is used so much as an after effect it's rather pointless to develop a glass 3d medium..
to do this from a tv perspective you would min of 240 hertz refresh on a ntsc signal, on a pal format 200 hertz would suffice shot at 24 frames per second instead of the telecened 1.5 image we see on a 30 frames per second ntsc image..
true images are only really possible on a holographic projection system, it isn't really possible on current flat screen lcd or even on a projection screen, you will only get a pseudo 3d format which has really evolved in the 50-60 years, computer 3d has got to the point that it makes the old 50-60 year out of focus stunt a thing of the past to the point that out of faze 3d is a pointless endeavor to even use in film now days.. pc 3d is getting to the point you can't tell what real and what's not as it is used so much as an after effect it's rather pointless to develop a glass 3d medium..
I think we'll have to wait until Apple releases its 3D TV without glasses. In the meanwhile I bought universal 3D glasses at www.3doptix.org and use them on my LG.
Loving 3D!
Loving 3D!
Sigh! Big business confusing people on what real 3D is for the sake of making a buck.
The problem with all autostereoscopic formats is that they are NOT 3D in the sense most people would associate with 3D. Nothing pops off the screen and flies towards your face. The front of the viewing display where the lenticular lens or autoshutter, or whatever technique is used, is the end point. These systems are purely about "depth" and nothing more. Seeing into the screen behind the foreground characters and objects. Is that 3D, yeah, if you want to be technical about it. But it still does not, can not and will never be able to simulate true in your face pop-out 3D since the effect stops at the seperation point, front of the screen. If one is happy with only half of the 3D effect, then this is for you. If you want the thrill of having to duck after an explosion because pieces of junk are comming at you, then you need to look elsewhere as ONLY glasses based technology can provide that effect (that and maybe a laser projecter projecting images right into your eyeballs {then you can really come crying about headaches}).
Then there are other issues that pertain to all 3D formats, including those with glasses.
Focal point (and THIS is why a lot of people bitching about headaches get them). In the real world, you can focus at whatever you want to look at. If you want to stop looking at the person in front of you, and look at that sign behind him, you just look at it, and your eyes refocus and you see it. Recorded 3D material does not allow for this. The only thing in focus is what the director wants to be in focus. Since by human nature your gaze of sight wonders (even if your not aware of it), you get eyestrain because no matter how much your eyes & brain work at it, you can NEVER focus onto the out of focus fore/background. This fact alone pretty much makes this a dead technology from the start since it defeats the point of having depth by not being able to look into it. So if you think this glassessless technology is going to cure the headaches, think again. This only works well with CG where a graphic artist can draw everything in-focus at all depth levels. But even this produces an odd effect since your brain expects all fore/background views in relation to what you are looking at to be out of focus.
Motion Parallax. Most displays don't support it, and even those that do still require the source material displayed to have been produced with it. Don't expect very much of that due to the nature of cost and complexity of having a set of 3d cameras for every parallax point to be recreated. Then to further expand on this point, even the best multiview motion parallax displays that exist right now still only offer left-right parallax. There are no technologies out there right now (or the foreseeable future) that are capable of displaying up-down parallax. It's not impossible, but the challenge is huge, and most are not even bothering to look into it, declaring left-right parallax as being the only thing signifigant, downplaying up-down parallax as unimportant. Honestly, I am inclined to agree with this somewhat, but it is an immersion killer when you walk by then sit down and only one plain of view changes appropriately. It's another one of things that you may not be consciously aware of, but your brain is.
I fear the real shame of this is that it will end up being the standard in the future because of no-glasses thing, and everyone will learn to accept the inferiour half-3D experience it provides as the normal. Leaving the rest of us who want a real full 3D experience left behind, like the supporters of Betamax (So what beta had better quality, better sound, better special playback effects, to hell with all that, video quality isn't important for a video recording & playback device, VHS had a slightly longer recording time, so that made it better ) - Yes, I tend to be very bitter about the fact that the lasy and ignorant end up setting the standards with no regard to what actually matters.
The problem with all autostereoscopic formats is that they are NOT 3D in the sense most people would associate with 3D. Nothing pops off the screen and flies towards your face. The front of the viewing display where the lenticular lens or autoshutter, or whatever technique is used, is the end point. These systems are purely about "depth" and nothing more. Seeing into the screen behind the foreground characters and objects. Is that 3D, yeah, if you want to be technical about it. But it still does not, can not and will never be able to simulate true in your face pop-out 3D since the effect stops at the seperation point, front of the screen. If one is happy with only half of the 3D effect, then this is for you. If you want the thrill of having to duck after an explosion because pieces of junk are comming at you, then you need to look elsewhere as ONLY glasses based technology can provide that effect (that and maybe a laser projecter projecting images right into your eyeballs {then you can really come crying about headaches}).
Then there are other issues that pertain to all 3D formats, including those with glasses.
Focal point (and THIS is why a lot of people bitching about headaches get them). In the real world, you can focus at whatever you want to look at. If you want to stop looking at the person in front of you, and look at that sign behind him, you just look at it, and your eyes refocus and you see it. Recorded 3D material does not allow for this. The only thing in focus is what the director wants to be in focus. Since by human nature your gaze of sight wonders (even if your not aware of it), you get eyestrain because no matter how much your eyes & brain work at it, you can NEVER focus onto the out of focus fore/background. This fact alone pretty much makes this a dead technology from the start since it defeats the point of having depth by not being able to look into it. So if you think this glassessless technology is going to cure the headaches, think again. This only works well with CG where a graphic artist can draw everything in-focus at all depth levels. But even this produces an odd effect since your brain expects all fore/background views in relation to what you are looking at to be out of focus.
Motion Parallax. Most displays don't support it, and even those that do still require the source material displayed to have been produced with it. Don't expect very much of that due to the nature of cost and complexity of having a set of 3d cameras for every parallax point to be recreated. Then to further expand on this point, even the best multiview motion parallax displays that exist right now still only offer left-right parallax. There are no technologies out there right now (or the foreseeable future) that are capable of displaying up-down parallax. It's not impossible, but the challenge is huge, and most are not even bothering to look into it, declaring left-right parallax as being the only thing signifigant, downplaying up-down parallax as unimportant. Honestly, I am inclined to agree with this somewhat, but it is an immersion killer when you walk by then sit down and only one plain of view changes appropriately. It's another one of things that you may not be consciously aware of, but your brain is.
I fear the real shame of this is that it will end up being the standard in the future because of no-glasses thing, and everyone will learn to accept the inferiour half-3D experience it provides as the normal. Leaving the rest of us who want a real full 3D experience left behind, like the supporters of Betamax (So what beta had better quality, better sound, better special playback effects, to hell with all that, video quality isn't important for a video recording & playback device, VHS had a slightly longer recording time, so that made it better ) - Yes, I tend to be very bitter about the fact that the lasy and ignorant end up setting the standards with no regard to what actually matters.
I know Ipont displayed at the CES, they had a 60+ inch Auto-stereoscopic screen looping avatar and some other trailers....
http
/www.ipont3d.com is the web site for the company, I don't think the wait will to be to long now. The game is heating up.
http
/www.ipont3d.com is the web site for the company, I don't think the wait will to be to long now. The game is heating up.Great insight. We have a hard enough time finding the remote in our house. I shiver to think what would happen to 5 pairs of 3d glasses
Hello,
We are a European R&D team working on 3D technologies.
We think we have found the best autostereoscopic technology, especially for tablets and phones.
You will find at http/www.popimslab.com/public/Popims_3D_Video.pdf a complete information on this subject.
We hope you will find it of interest.
Cheers,
We are a European R&D team working on 3D technologies.
We think we have found the best autostereoscopic technology, especially for tablets and phones.
You will find at http
/www.popimslab.com/public/Popims_3D_Video.pdf a complete information on this subject.We hope you will find it of interest.
Cheers,
I have a 3DTV and I found my eyes got tired fast on the first few days and now I am completely used to viewing in 3D without any eye fatigue at all. My eyes were twitching and aching a tiny bit on the first few days but that has completely vanished. Your eyes get stronger when you view 3D content, you tend to pay attention to more on the screen and your eyes are not used to this. People need to stop complaining so much about the glasses, you are just not used to them! I play games every night now with my glasses on, "EVERY NIGHT" and I am having no issues other than HAVING THE TIME OF MY LIFE. I have a crapload of games on my 360/PC/PS3 that all work perfectly with my tv and I love it. I have been a supporter of 3D tech for over a decade as I have been playing 3D for over that!
I used to play for hours with red/blue 3D glasses and that would brainwash you compared to what Shutter Glasses can do to you. This article seems a little biased, It's people like you that help drive companies away from promising tech just because "You" do not like it.
I for one think my 3DTV is awesome, and will be thoroughly enjoying it until a glasses free solution is AFFORDABLE, which will not be for some time.
So enjoy playing your games in FLAT while I play mine in 3D
Even if a game does not support Native 3D, the conversion is mind blowing on some games!
I used to play for hours with red/blue 3D glasses and that would brainwash you compared to what Shutter Glasses can do to you. This article seems a little biased, It's people like you that help drive companies away from promising tech just because "You" do not like it.
I for one think my 3DTV is awesome, and will be thoroughly enjoying it until a glasses free solution is AFFORDABLE, which will not be for some time.
So enjoy playing your games in FLAT while I play mine in 3D
Even if a game does not support Native 3D, the conversion is mind blowing on some games!Though 3d tv without glasses are preferable still FPR glasses are very light than other sutter glasses. I will prefer 3dtv glass because I'm scared for my eyesight. It may hamper eyesight.
From technical and physical point of view the best 3D glasses could be those glasses whish has fliker free, no battery, light weight, no cross talk and can be free to watch at any position. These factor can be satisfied only by FPR glasses as for now.
I think it will be great to watch a 3D TV without having to wear the glasses. Not only it will eliminate the problem with headaches and getting strain on your eyes, but it's also very convenient that you can lie down on your side way or in any position to watch the TV without having to worry about breaking the glasses. Also, you have to purchase enought number of glasses for your family and don't forget if you have guests visiting sometimes. I think if they can make a 3D glasses to wear on our eyes, they can make a whole piece of 3D glass that covers the entire TV screen. I hope that this new technology will come to the market very soon and also will not cost us a fortune. Don't forget a feature that you can turn ON of OFF and swich between 3D and 2D screen.
kartiksejwal
Distinguished
- Dec 21, 2011
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Solved
- Question
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Lenovo Yoga book 9i vs. Asus Zenbook duo
- Started by szcad
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Question Question about if an older model laptop with upgraded parts will work as well for video editing
- Started by Reese Miller
- Replies: 3
-
-
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