3D TV For The Masses?

scubacuda writes: "Technology Review has an article on new software that could make 3D television a reality. Previously encumbered by an expensive process that takes up to nine cameras per scene, a company called DDD now takes existing 2D film and creates a "depth map" for each frame. A TV that can handle this sort of software rendering currently costs $25K, but DDD estimates that in a few years, a 3D TV could only cost only 20% more than its 2D counterpart."

Comments

My GAWD!

[t0qer]

Now my favorite pr0n star's cup size is REALLY gonna matter!

Sorta adds a new dimension that TV will poke your eye out, or was that the red rider bb gun?

Is this a joke?

[jasno]

Ok, its been.. what? 15 years? since they started talking about HDTV? And you expect the people who can't even agree on a simple hi-def format to adopt and commercialize this?

Hehe.. ok. I'll put this in the pile with all of the other schemes that are "only 5 years away".

3D works really poorly on TV-sized screens

[evenmoreconfused]

Having spent the last 8 years developing content preparation technology for 3D presentation systems, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

The problem with 3D TV, apart from all the viewing paraphenalia, is that it's not wide enough. Even in Imax 3D, with a field of view approaching 80 degrees, directors have problems composing shots that fit in the "viewable pyramid" formed by the viewer's nose and the four corners of the screen. (It's fairly well established that anything in 3D projection that clips this pyramid destroys the illusion of 3D, because one eye view clips before the other, causing the audience to be subconsiously disturbed in their viewing). In any case, the 3D effect only operates within this pyramid.

This company has been pumped on and off for some time on various message boards that cover 3D - especially Imax boards. AFAIC, maybe their technology will do well on good 3D presentation systems, but TV-sized screens just won't cut it - all the tests I've seen of 3D on a TV are pretty much limited to novelty value.

/stillconfused

Viewing angle

[bravehamster]

Anyone know what sort of viewing angle you get on this thing? Doesn't seem like you could have a very good viewing angle without losing the depth aspect of the image. This could really hurt acceptance, because most peoples homes have seating arrangements with quite significant angles to the TV.

I've seen this... its not that cool...

[MasteroftheVoxel]

I saw 3D lenticular displays exhibiting DDD's work at SIGGRAPH 2001 and SID (Society for Information Displays) 2002.

I was not that impressed. Basically you see a large moving stereogram but the stereo separation is no where near as good as your average ViewMaster. Most of the time it doesn't look 3D at all. And your depth of field is very limited when it is 3D.

I talked to them for a while about how their technology works. Basically, they attempt to interpolate around the edges of objects in the foreground. Sometimes they can't and that limits how close to the viewer an object can appear. For example, imagine a camera moving by a tree only a few feet in front of it and with a complex landscape in the background. Around the edges of the tree there should be new landscape that one eye would see and the other would not. There is no way to recover this image data because in the original film it was blocked by the tree. Thin objects, like wires or poles or window frames are also especially difficult. Most of the time it requires an artist to do some hand tuning of the images.

I don't see what is special about their technique. Even if they do have some novel ideas for getting 3D out of 2D, I don't see how the data would be useful considering how bad 3D lenticular displays look - eg. limited depth of field, incorrect focal length for objects at different depths, very limited viewing angle.