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
TV with added splitting headache!
I know I want high wattage wireless power beamed directly at my forehead. I don't know about anyone else, though.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
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."
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?
The alternative was already invented some time ago... Its called LSD. No glasses, batteries or any of that junk required; and everything looks 3D, even things that other people can't see!
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.
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.
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"?
Anyone here think that will not be a major selling point?
(and dont forget the wireless sex toys)
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.