Slashdot Mirror
Toshiba To Launch No-Glasses 3D TV This Year
angry tapir writes "Toshiba is readying two 3D televisions that can produce images with the illusion of depth but don't require the user to wear glasses, the company said Monday. It will launch the televisions in Japan in December. Toshiba will offer a 12-inch model and a 20-inch model. They'll cost around ¥120,000 (US$1,430) and ¥240,000 respectively. Toshiba's new TVs have a thin sheet of small lenses in front of the display. This splits light from the screen and sends it to nine points in front of the TV."
I know it's really late, but I finally saw Avatar the other day. Of course, I had to watch it in 2D since my home TV is not 3D enabled. You can really tell where they were using 3D for the sake of 3D.
If we use technology only to show off technology, we can't expect anything interesting to come of it.
It must have a raisin detre.
(Of course given how much they are gouging per pair of glasses, there's a handicap built in there.)
Someone had to do it.
Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.
I have to pin point one of the 9 optimal viewing angles within a small margin of error and never move?
The inconvenience has simply shifted. Makes sense in the handheld world, but this seems a bit ridiculous.
I don't get the hype lately for 3d that requires glasses, I seem to recall 3d movies being around since The Three Stooges, let alone Jaws 3d and the like. I know it's not exactly the same as modern movies, but how is it so very different? A 3d display that doesn't require glasses, that's finally something worth getting interested in.
I'd absolutely have to try one of these before I'd even consider getting one.
There's all those issues about viewing angles, movement, and so many others.
At those prices, they'll probably sell out their initial stock in Japan, but that doesn't mean it's good, just that it's new status worthy hi-tech.
I'd hate to buy one of these and have my kid grow up with borked eyes.
and for the math challenged that works out to US$2,860 for the 20 inch model. :)
Honestly, this "3d" stuff doesn't look that good, anyway. Whether I'm watching a "2d" movie or a "3d" movie doesn't matter to me in the slightest. That means I'm not going to waste money on an overly expensive television for something that I don't even care about. What a waste.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
3D TV will not take off until people don't need special glasses. Otherwise it'll be a niche for watching the occasional movie. Fortunately there are several that are no-glasses - here's hoping they're not 5-years away, like all cool tech seems to be.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
I was at a Toshiba media event earlier this year and they were very clear that this generation of glassless screens have horrible fields of view and are only good for advertising in public places like airports where, by walking by them, you'll get the 3D effect. It's almost analogous to the old 3D baseball cards where you'd move them and get the illusion of depth.
When I was a kid, I used to want 3D TV, but only for one purpose: watching football.
I thought it'd be great to be able to have a projection of the play in the room, and be able to do an instant replay and walk around all the players, etc. Of course the technology for that's nowhere near close, but I can't imagine any other reason to have 3D TV. Every other type of program I've watched has been fine in 2D, and I've never thought they would be enhanced with 3D.
I've seen 3D movies and while they're a slightly amusing novelty, I don't care about them. Give me 3D sports that I can walk through as though they're in the room, and I'll be happy. Other than that, I just don't care.
next step, remove the TV itself... then move on to invent a machine that can view the future, trying to save the world's destiny with a simple envelope
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
These will be great for those whose job it is to create 3D models for games, movies, ads, etc. A perfect tool for easily visualizing your creation without having to put on glasses to have a good look. Great for engineers and architects as well.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Like the Nintendo 3DS, this will require that you look directly at the screen to see the 3D effect. Anyone looking at the screen from an angle will not see the effect.
This of course makes it kind of useless as a TV, but I think it's perfect as a computer monitor. Just a bit too expensive.
This tech, as mentioned in the comments already, is simply shifting the inconvenience from wearing glasses to staying still. Microsoft has come up with a prototype of 3D displays with head tracking technology, and a lens that can shift exactly which direction the light is seen from.
http://bit.ly/MS3ddisplay
Unless you can walk around it and see it from all sides, it's not 3D. What we're talking about is stereoscopic 2D.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Who wants a 12" or 20" TV these days?
I was using Google Earth yesterday and I noticed that if I gave some spin to the landscape (i.e. make it "coast" in a given direction) I was getting a stunning 3d effect as the landscape (Arizona mountains) scrolled below my view...
Start at Lat. 35 2'37.26"N Long. 11419'6.20"W, Eye Alt. just under 8000 ft.
Give Google Earth just the slightest "nudge" upwards so you scroll slowly south. The model has to coast on it's own to see the 3D.
For just using photos it's an amazing effect.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Stop focusing on the 3D wishwash and please manufacture cheap and affordable low latency screens. And no the advertised 2(0)ms 5(0)ms now mainstream products are not good, they still blur/ghost the image very much.
The loss of crisp and details on the image is still absurd, you cant play a simple sidescrolling game or scroll text without the image turning into an agravating and stressfull eye exposure in a short to long term use.
And the more detailed the image is, the worse and more easily apparent how poor quality your products are.
Untill then, i won't bother even considering buying anything 3D. Actually, even after that.
Perhaps stereovision works better for some people than it does for others.
My father and I definately appreciate 3D, while my girlfriend gets nothing out of it. To her, everything looks fake when in 3D.
That said, I can understand the common sentiment that all it adds to movies is novelty. Perhaps now, yes, while the technology is young. That's always the case with new tech (if 3D can be considered new).
But in a few years time, when the novelty has worn off and people have more experience playing with 3D as a medium, perhaps then we will start seeing more sensible and practical use of 3D.
In gaming, stereoscopic 3D is definately much better than monoscopic 3D. There's just no contest.
In my experience, one can estimate distances and thus timing better, objects have proper shape causing objects and tunnels to no longer be camouflaged by clusters of bitmaps, etc.
I guess we'll see how it turns out (pun unintended).
What's really telling - Avatar had some in-setting "analogue print" photos. On a fridge (a better one, sure - one with a window, I'd like to see some consumer ones like that - but still a fridge). And the only screen really utilising 3D, in the setting of the film, never displayed recorded images, just (in setting) CGI imagery. Almost a parody of itself.
Would be hilarious if Cameron largely tries to push cheap 3D tech for some other purpose (doesn't he have physics background? Many research disciplines should benefit, especially some "cool" or those revving up recently; also general info/educational purpose...), but knows what is the only way to get the industry onboard.
Other than that - 3D photography is just a few years younger from "normal" one, with good effect achievable for around 150 years...and hardly anybody cares. Aside from cases where stereoscopy should introduce some actually useful info, "3D" films seem to add mostly another imperfect way of seeing depth information...one which might essentially fight at times with another system of interpratation our brains are already using.
Plus from what I see, a semi-darkened room and decent projector seems to give the nicest feel to a lot of people... (maybe that's conditioning, maybe not) Now, only for some decent LED ones to show up...
One that hath name thou can not otter
This splits light from the screen and sends it to nine points in front of the TV.
What if you only have eight eyes?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Is it just me, or does the thought of nine people crowding around a 12" screen seem a little absurd?
Lenticular lens 3D is pretty awful to look at, with artefacts galore. I'd wanna see this TV before I buy.
A witty
Look e.g. here: http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/home/index.page
You can buy them. Now.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
This must be the first TV to wear eyeglasses.
I guess I am one of the few NOT to hate on 3D? What I would like though is for my movie theatres to stop f*cking charging me an extra $4 for a pair of 3D glasses, when ive already got a dozen pairs of them at home. I never dump them in the box, why so they can be thrown out / recycled? I can recycle them myself with 0% energy. While you are at it, maybe you can not charge me $17 for a drink, popcorn and candy. I welcome 3D in the home, it will save me alot of money.
Vertical couch!
Getting slow in your old age, Slashdot? ;p