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."

Comments

3D

[sopssa]

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.

Re:3D

[swanzilla]

Nice segue.

Does not disappoint?

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Does not disappoint?

[earlymon]

I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

Odd idea. An LCD element - subpixel - is light-permissive, meaning a polarizing action takes place to lower the (normally) constant backlight through the aperature.

How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

Re:Does not disappoint?

[biryokumaru]

I've seen both polarized films and shutter glasses, and they are not the same. You might as well be watching Creature from the Black Lagoon even with modern films. Additionally, without expensive projection equipment, the polarized technique is virtually impossible. It is no where near home ready, whereas the shutter glasses most definitely are.

Re:Does not disappoint?

[rabtech]

Actually with DLP it isn't that hard to do the wavelength filtering that some modern cinema 3D systems are using, where the RGB components are projected twice, each with a slightly different wavelength of red, green, and blue light. Filters on either side of the glasses only let the "correct" wavelengths through. Supposedly it is a very natural-looking process, since you don't get the flickering or odd polarization effects. Oddly enough this would be easier to do with a single-chip DLP system than a three-chip system because you can split the color wheel up using the correct filters.

Re:Does not disappoint?

[93 Escort Wagon]

We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

I took that same course - it was in 1978 I think. The hologram said something like "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi - you're my only hope". What was the name of that course again...

Re:Does not disappoint?

[chenjeru]

Not true. I've just been to the IBC in Amsterdam and the place is chock-full of 3D tech, including screens using autostereoscopic (no glasses needed), polarized and shutter glasses. They are all coming off some flavor of LCD/plasma. Many of the polarized screens were made by Hyundai.

The main reason that we will see shutter glasses in the home (unfortunately, IMHO) is that you can easily use the same screen for both 3D and non-3D viewing - it's just alternating full-resolution frames. The polarized and autostereoscopic screens both have noticable pixel distortion or reduced resolution when viewed as 'normal' screens. Since the retailers will have to sell you a 'normal' HD screen that ALSO does 3D, the shutter glasses will almost certainly win in the near-term consumer market.

Glasses breaks the deal for me

[rotide]

Having to wear special glasses, 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 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.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me

[Facegarden]

Having to wear special glasses, 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 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.

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
-Taylor

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me

[tgzuke]

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room. -Taylor

Yeah, but I'm not usually trying to multitask while wearing swimming goggles, and eyeglasses don't get in the way of doing other things. Like most people, if I'm watching TV, I'm also doing other activities: cooking, browsing the Internet on my laptop, etc. So long as these 3D glasses interfere with my normal vision, they won't be a part of my entertainment system.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me

[TheSync]

Whatever became of those autostereoscopy displays?

The most mature non-glassed 3D technology is lenticular lenses (same as the post cards), but unfortunately you get a resolution reduction for every additional "view" you provide, and you need to provide about 45 views before it starts to look really good and not have very large "un-sweet spots" where you get an image with the wrong parallax in your eyes.

I saw a nice autostereo display based on a Quad-HD 2D LCD screen with a lenticular lens array, but these are not really commercially viable yet.

Acousto-optical wave computer-generated holography is advancing as well, but still needs a few years.

Lets get these out of the way

[geekoid]

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.

Sweet!

[longfalcon]

TV with added splitting headache!

Re:Wireless Electric Induction?

[biryokumaru]

I know I want high wattage wireless power beamed directly at my forehead. I don't know about anyone else, though.

Everything in focus is usually considered a flaw

[PingXao]

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.

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company

[Rockoon]

Microsoft audio and visual appliances and Microsoft cars.

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company

[Facegarden]

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

Re:Will never catch on

[iceOlate]

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!

Re:Everything in focus is usually considered a fla

[bickle]

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.