Samsung's Prototype 55'' Glasses-Free 3D LCD

[exfileme]

It's a 55-inch 3D LCD TV that doesn't require special glasses.

Samsung's Prototype 55'' Glasses-Free 3D LCD : Read more

 

[Guest]

1st 😉
always wanted to sat that!

 

[adamboy64]

[citation][nom]TKM[/nom]1st always wanted to sat that![/citation]
Why would you want to say that?

Interesting to know proper 3D is still a few years away.. It's hard to find anyone who is actually genuinely excited about it though.

Good news for those who like it though, I guess.

 

[bollwerk]

I usually hate 3D, since it's usually a gimmick to get you to pay more money, but Avatar in IMAX 3D was worth the money and the glasses weren't too annoying. I look forward to no-glasses 3D.

 

[carnage9270]

I'm clearly unimpressed with 3D technology. Avatar was ok in the theaters, but not mind-blowing like all the hype was proclaiming. But the 3D technology for the home is utter crap. It's amazing to me that people think this technology is worth a damn. It's all too gimmicky. This technology has to move forward by leaps and bounds before I'll even take it serious. But i guess on the bright side, the technology in this article will eliminate the need to smash your face into a wall after watching a 2 hour movie with glasses that were engineered by people with no knowledge of what a human face considers "comfortable".

 

[kcorp2003]

whats next 3D OLED TV?
I wonder when OLED monitor will become affordable. I saw a few a prototype by LG.

 

[f-gomes]

Wish this was beeing develop on a decent panel (plasma or oled), but I guess LCD really is the modern VHS. Crappy, but sells.

 

[computerlame]

I prefer to save the 3D experience for the actual big screen, theater experience, rather than my screen at home.

 

[thegreathuntingdolphin]

I prefer to save the 3D experience for the actual big screen, theater experience, rather than my screen at home.

Interesting cause I prefer to not have the 3D experience at all....

 

[skora]

If they're going to do the dual screen approach, why not take the iZ3D approach and use the back screen to dual display the alternate left/right image and then the front screen to polarize alternately for each eye and use a filter set of glasses instead of the shutters. $10 for a nice set of filter glasses vs $150 for something you have to make sure are charged. Its proven tech and it's available now. The old iZ3D suffered from monitors that were 60hz giving each eye just 30 fps. With the new TVs able to do a minimum of 120hz, we could have the 60 fps for each eye which is into the overkill range anyway.

 

[xambron]

10th[citation][nom]f-gomes[/nom]Wish this was beeing develop on a decent panel (plasma or oled), but I guess LCD really is the modern VHS. Crappy, but sells.[/citation]
LCD is fine, bought when my 24" was much more pricy, but none the less I enjoy it the same. DVD is the VHS of today if you want to be technical.

 

[mman74]

I get the fact that for a decent 3D effect without breaking the bank is going to require glasses. If that is the case then why can't everyone just agree to push development on the passive 3D TVs where at least the glasses are dirt cheap and light.

 

[Fusion777]

Glasses free 3D TV will be like the move from B&W to Color TV, then color to HD. It's one of those moves you'll feel somewhat excited about, but once you have it you won't want to go backwards. I for one am very excited about parallax barrier 3D. I would love to own a 20" one for my home PC now, but they are hard to find.

@skora I've always wondered this too. Polarized 3D is far and away the best glasses-3D experience around.

 

[PrangeWay]

Glad that Samsung is trying develop a vialbe 3D setup (ie no glasses), instead of recycling a 1960's idea like Sony/Nvidia. Go Samsung!

 

[of the way]

I know that it doesn't work well for some people, but 3D is the future. 3D itself is not a gimmick. It can be used as a gimmick, which is indeed horrible. But it immerses you. I thought the best part of Avatar was the short scene where the camera is at eye level looking from one end to the other of a ship. There was nothing popping out at you, you just saw depth with a row of soldiers on each side.
I like 3D enough that I'll play some games using the anaglyph iZ3D driver.

 

[robochump]

I am curious as to how this works? I wonder if Samsung is layering LCDs in order to gain depth and then the TVs high powered CPU will transfer that data to create the 3D affect across all LCD layers. I believe and BlueRay or broadcast would have to include proper programming for the TV CPU to achieve this. We will see. Similar to Nintendo's 3DS toy but I think Nintendo uses software to make the games appear 3D.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

ummmm can i know whats the price

 

[skora]

@of the way
Thanks for mentioning that anaglyph driver. I didn't know what it was so did some research. That's a great way for virtually free ($1 for cost of glasses from eBay) 3D gaming to try it out.

 

[nitrium]

The problem with current 3D TV/movie tech is that it isn't really 3D at all! For example, you can't move your head and see any parallax whatsoever, i.e. in true 3D the image should shift when you do. Second, you can't focus on any item in the frame (such as the background which remains blurry), the movie forces you to only focus on the item the camera is focused on which is incredibly unnatural. That is why 3D gives so many people headaches - it's a cheap gimmicky effect, and your brain/eyes needs to work hard to keep the fakeness of the illusion alive.