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. :)
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.
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!
It's called playing sports.
No, it's really not.
But I understand you're just trying to make a witty comment. Good try! With practice you'll get it.
It's called playing sports.
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
1 x Internets for you, good sir. [cleans monitor]
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?
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.
Maybe you should actually do some research. Then you would discover that such products actually exist.
On my PC I have a 24" Benq LCD. It's colour reproduction is not up to publishing/pro-photographer standards, but as to your requirements it was "cheap and affordable" (a couple of hundred bucks from memory) and very, very low latency. I play plenty of games, including action games and even side-scrollers (via emulators) and they look fantastic. I have never noticed any ghosting/blur whatsoever.
As a TV I have a Panasonic plasma. I watch a fair bit of sport and a lot of movies, so I specifically sought something which had good blacks, good colour reproduction and could handle fast movement. A half-decent plasma will do all of these things. I don't know what you call "cheap" but this was about Australian $1500 for a 42" screen about four years ago. I consider it excellent value so far. Compared to what you could buy even 10 years ago its absolutely stunning - I remember forking out nearly $2000 for a 68cm flat screen Sony CRT in about 2001, which looked great at the time but looks horrible by comparison to the plasma now.
I kind of agree with you about the focus on 3D TVs, but it's not right to complain about a lack of cheap, good TVs and monitors.
Read Pynchon.
Good for you, I really value and care about your lack of interest in my opinion. Please keep posting your deep insights in this comments section where one usually posts comments with opinions and/or facts.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Me.
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
Getting slow in your old age, Slashdot? ;p
Why do you want a game that's limited by the size of your room?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)