Slashdot Mirror
Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint
Engadget recently had a chance to try out Panasonic's 3D demo rig, and, aside from the goofy glasses, report some impressive results. "Active shutter 3D technology once again did not fail to impress, though large format action content like the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony and action sports footage was far more impressive than the movie trailer. The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it and nothing makes that more apparent than video from a large stadium. Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout, the framerate was smooth and the picture sharp, a marked difference from the jittery motion we witnessed during JVC's 3D demo earlier in the day."
This all 3D-to-the-eyes is an old trick, but over the past year I've started to think that now theres actually good technology available for it.
I purchased myself the NVIDIA 3D Vision and played with it on various games. My favourite game for the past year has been left4dead and the 3D effect on it is really outstanding - everything looks so much scarier and you actually feel like being there.
The old cheap tricks are quite obsolote now as tech has improvent. But the future of gaming and movies surely is in this 3D and "be there" experience. Even MS and Sony have admitted that just pushing megapixels and polygony amount isn't the best thing, as they're at their maximum already anyway. We always see these things in movies, but the technology isn't really far from there now.
Now the only thing is about making it convenient for end users.
Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout
Personally, I don't think the "shuttered glasses" tech will last long. I've seen 3D movies with the polarized glasses tech, and it's amazing. It might be hard to pull off with a TV, but I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.
The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it
Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.
BTW, I RTFA and there's not really any more than in the summary.
Free Martian Whores!
It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?
I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.
A) I have no ears and can't use them! Sucks to be yyou, there not selling to your demographic
B) I only have one Eye. Clearly they should stop developing product for people with two eyes.
C) I have problem[X]. we don't care.
D) It's not real 3d. STFU. It has Height, width and depth. 3.D. It is only 1 angle, but still 3d.
E) I don't like it! So? why do you bother posting
well, that should address 80+% of the incoming posts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Couldn't they couple this with the up and coming "long(er) distance" wireless electric induction technology to set up some sort of power transmitter under your couch/bed/recliner/movie style seating so that you wouldn't ever have to keep it charged or worry about batteries?
Now Ralph doesn't have any more excuses to put off buying her a TV!
TV with added splitting headache!
30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?
Depth of field is important to film makers. They don't want everything to be in focus. It looks too much like video instead of film. For live sporting events, that may be fine, but the fact that the movie trailer looked like shit is no surprise at all.
Microsoft audio and visual appliances and Microsoft cars.
"His name was James Damore."
3D Porn...
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
I actually laughed out loud when I scrolled down the article and saw the picture of the man wearing the glasses. While I'm sure it looks lovely when you're wearing them, as long as your 3D display technology requires headgear it will never replace or even slightly displace mainstream conventional displays. Period.
Instead of wasting their time developing this kind of technology they should be working on developing alternatives.
I don't know, but you seem to be proposing that it will be Japanese...
Pics or it didn't happen!
During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.
30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?
Maybe Daewoo? They make cars and microwaves and forklifts and assault rifles, that's all you could ever want!
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars. 30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?
Thomas L. Friedman, is that you?
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
I stand corrected - evidently, the display tech is not an issue:
http://hdguru.com/ces-2009-3d-hdtv-flat-panels-are-coming/345/
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Face tracking is the future of 3d tvs not funny glasses. People are vain it will never become mainstream. I am aware they are different things... to a degree.
Comparatively face tracking has many advantages.
1. The tech can be used and worked on RIGHT NOW. Most laptops sold these days come with a webcam. Using this you can have full 3d applications right now. Having a preinstalled base of millions clearly helps.
2. Headtracking can be used in games and applications to allow you to interact with the environment. And to have 3d as good as an object in front of you. You can use it to work like a window rather than a pane, moving forwards gives you a wider field of vision, moving to the left allows you to see more to the right and so on. Recorded 3d clearly won't allow you to change where you are viewing.
3. Most importantly it makes it so you don't have to wear stupid looking glasses. This is the main problem and it will kill panasonic's 3d tv.
4. Utility, Having a camera on your tv is way more useful and flexible than silly glasses.
The downside of course is that this doesn't provide 3d as in depth it provides 3d as in view. This can be fixed by having a mechanism for the tv that allows it to have auto-stereoscopy (This tech exists of course). This will be limited likely to a few viewers at first and improve.
Pixar started incorporating DOF in their movies long ago.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
There's no law that it *HAS* to be in focus. A filmmaker could specifically keep one section in focus and other layers of depth out of focus. Furthermore, it's not usually considered a flaw. It's considered a choice.
If I could get a forklift with a microwave and an assault rifle mounted on it, I wouldn't need the car.
I have a nice Daewoo .380. Is Walther PP copy. Very nicely made.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Wait for a holographic display. Yeah, we're nowhere near being able to achieve it now. You'd need (horiz)(height) the bandwidth although compression should help a lot. You'd need a way to have a microscopic projector in each pixel, projecting a complete image.
Upside: No glasses. Your TV would literally look like a window into another world.
Downside: Scads of energy to throw enough light from each microprojector, horrendous bandwidth requirement.
Maybe the horrendous bandwidth requirement isn't a downside--it's the problem looking for the solutions that involve shoving 20 Libraries of Congress through a fiber every second.
Anyway, give me a call when these holographic window displays are available.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Blue Screen of Death now in 3D!
Anyone here think that will not be a major selling point?
(and dont forget the wireless sex toys)
The technology already exists, and is already on the market. iZ3D 22" monitor retails on newegg for about $300. There are still a few problems (noticeable cross-talk) that still need to be ironed out, but given how this is the first monitor to actually hit the market I expect later editions to resolve this issue.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
As someone that is extremely left-eye dominant, 3d does not work for me. Period. I always wondered what the big deal about ViewMasters were when I was a kid, not realizing the things should be 3d (I saw them as two images of the same thing, well, one adjusted for the 3d effect everyone else was getting). If TV, movies and everything else starts following this the way everyone followed HD to screens that weren't compatible with my eyes either (any motion makes me sick, as I see horrible tearing and delays with LCD and plasma displays, even ones that are apparently the highest quality), I'm going to have to give up watching anything new.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
The summary/article is crazy if they think a 3D TV inherently gives you infinite depth of field. Sure, it does if both of your cameras happen to be pinhole cameras. Otherwise you've got the same aperture/DOF control you would otherwise.
the eyes are certainly attractive. perhaps the enjoyment of being denied a view of a woman's eyes is similar to the titillation of a bikini. alternatively, some women probably feel more comfortable wearing aviators because they shield them from the intimate act of looking into what Descartes called the windows of the soul, and so being complicit to this privacy is acceptable.
You sound like what people must have been saying a couple decades ago:
Having to use REMOTE CONTROLS, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.
It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your REMOTE CONTROL and some batteries first?
I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "convenience" factor of having "remote" television control.
Guess you must of been like born yesterday, seeing as lcd shutter glasses tech has been around since the mid 80's at the least.
Sega Master System with 3D Missle command is where I got my first taste.
The problem is, it needs a very high refresh to eliminate the flickering and headache factor.
Which is why the Nvidia 3D Vision requires 200hz LCD monitors.
I have a LCD shutter system that I can use on a CRT monitor, and the 3D movies and games rock on it. Sure, I'd rather it was on my big ass lcd tv, but while it can do 120hz refresh, it only does 60 in pc mode. =(
anyways, this has never made a big splash in the past, will it now? guess we'll find out.
Be seeing you...
Or Red Windshield of Death, now in extra-liquidy!
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I'll never bother with 3-d stuff until they make something you can watch without having to put on some ridiculous pair of glasses. For those of us who already wear glasses having to put another pair on top of the ones you've already got is uncomfortable at best. I'll hold out for real 3D, though I rather doubt that it'll come about in my lifetime.
Seriously.
Personally, I find the glasses too uncomfortable - and although the few 3D movies I've watched are a nice experience, they are not THAT convincing.
I think Holografika is on the right track - they would need a lot more funding though. 3D from any angle for any number of people... THAT's a 3D display if you ask me.
I am a little worried about all these fine new 3d techniques. The reason is I don't have binocular vision. That is, I don't use both my eyes equally much at the same time. Because of that I have never been able to see 3d using, for instance, the old red-green glasses. Simply because they require a normal vision that combined the input from both eyes. This also causes me to have impaired depth perception in real life - it's not that much of a problem, though. I have learned to compensate. I am interested in knowing if the active shutter glasses can be uses by people with my problem? (that is people who were not first in line when eyes were handed out)