Slashdot Mirror
New Advance In 3D TV Technology
sciencehabit writes "If you've pondered whether to sink a cool couple of grand into a fancy new three-dimensional TV but didn't want to mess around with those dorky glasses, you may want to sit tight for a few more years. Researchers at Hewlett Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto, California, report that they've come up with a new 3D technology that not only doesn't require viewers to wear special glasses, but it also can be viewed from a wide variety of angles. The advance could propel the development of mobile 3D devices as well as TVs."
hp isn't dead?
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
I remember seeing standalone 3D displays at SIGGRAPH over 10 years ago.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
they were around $1500 or so last year for a set in the 50" range. at most
the cheap ones start for $1000 for a 50" set
Where can I pre-order my opt-out of all this 3D tech?
I remember that scene from Back to the Future II all too well, thank-you-very-much! :P
It's all about the printers these days. Give it a few more years for that fad to die out, and maybe we can get consumers to buy all new TVs then.
This could be the last innovation we see from HP Labs for a while. About a month ago, HP abruptly shut down most Labs projects that weren't deemed to have near-term commercial potential, and laid off a bunch of senior researchers. This is on top of several rounds of of cutbacks over the last 10 years.
It's no longer possible for large corporations to sustain research labs. The financial analists on Wall Street won't allow it.
I never seen 3D look any good at any time ever (except real life of course). What will be different about this?
From the summary:
"not only doesn't require viewers to wear special glasses, but it also can be viewed from a wide variety of angles."
I do not see how this is possible without changing the laws of the universe. Maybe some marketing person just decided they can re-define what 3D means.
ive never had the least desire to buy a "3d" set as it never comes close to expectations.
If I want to actually watch and enjoy a movie I watch it in 2d so I avoid anything that says 3d. I don't know anyone that actually enjoys 3d except for the initial novelty that has worn off since Jaws 3D.
I don't think "3d" will work until you can actually change your focus to different depths, just like in the real world.
... and not much more. Once the novelty has worn off (say once I watched Jaws 3), the additional hassle of everyone having to wear ridiculously expensive glasses and cram together in front of the TV to get as perpendicular to the screen as possible pretty much destroys the whole movie watching experience for me. Coupled with the fact that every damn movie now is full of contrived scenes so we can experience the wonders of this "new" technology. I'll stick with the good 'ol 2 visual dimensions thanks.
Welcome 3072fps! With 64 viewing angles required, that's a pretty large amount of bandwidth.
Viewing angle is one of the factors missing from the stereo-vision hack being marketed as "3d" today. Another is focal depth.
Supplying 64 different angles of view is (barely) a start. It'll still foul up your visual processing, though, because the focus cues to your brain are entirely wrong. And that, unfortunately, leads to neurological problems like headaches.
You're not going to see actual 3d displays for a while. First we need the tech, then we need it standardized so manufacturers have a consistent target to shoot for, then we need content, for which we're going to need new recording tech...
Don't hold your breath.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't want to see another 3D-related post unless we've got working holograms.
I spent close to $10K last year to obliviate my need for glasses, I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a TV that requires me to wear them again. 3D w/o glasses, I might entertain, I'm going to wait a long while for the technology to be flushed out. Will not be an early adopter. That said, I've 3D capable computer monitors and graphics cards, and have not turned on either, yet, despite having all the hardware required.
Have flat panel screens become so thin that they lost a dimension? Can I paint a TV on my wall and plug it in?
"One of our researchers bought a Nintendo 3DS when they came out, and we've spent the last two years figuring out how to scale up the screen."
A few weeks back I applied at a company doing exactly that as a demo many years ago.
What about a special hat or hair ribbon with a reflector that tells the TV where your head is? Then it can create two images for each eye in the direction of the hat. You wouldn't need 64 different angles like the one in the article and could use existing 3D movie stock (2 images/angles per frame).
There may be a limit to the number of viewers, though, depending on how fancy the TV is, because each "beam" is custom-aimed per viewer.
Another approach is to repeat the "parallax zone" similar to the corduroy-like plastic 3D image stickers used on the cover of some children books. You'd only need two source images, not 64 with that also.
With those, you have to put your eyes into the right zone to see the 3D affect, but the zones are roughly 5 degrees apart. One might have to shift in their chair to be in the right zone.
For an over-simplification, the left image is seen at every odd number degree (35,37,39,41,...) and the right image is seen at every even degree number (36,38,40,42,...). If shift your head until the left eye is in an odd degree (say 41) and your right eye is in an even degree (say 42), then you can see the 3D image. If you move your head to 43/44 (left/right) you will be able to see it again. (At 42/43 would be seen reversed depth because the eye matches are swapped and noses would look like dimples.)
I imagine one's back would get tired of being in one spot for long, but if the zones are say 2 degrees or less apart, then one can alternate leaning to the left and then the right every 10 minutes or so in their chair to avoid getting stiff.
Table-ized A.I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8e6dbgk26U
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Call me when we have non-flickering 3D holograms ("Help us Obi Wan"). 10% of the population can't see these fake 3D videos, me among them. It's a fake and a sham.
Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufw2D8oMJ64
Table-ized A.I.
Content, plot, depth, character development, realistic dialogue, original material, meaningful stories, a story that stands on its own instead of relying on gimmicky special effects (especially 3D). And I don't care if it's in black and white at NTSC resolution.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
OK the TV would definetly be better than the current version. If the price was close to std TV prices they may well do OK. BUT now if they take that technology to computer monitors (and I see no reason why they couldn't/wouldn/t) and were about the same price of even a a little more, I'd buy one for sure. Playing games on them would be a blast. Especially since I'd would not have to wear glasses to use the 3-D part. Crysis in 3D? Oh yeah.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".
Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.
Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..
http://www.pcworld.com/article/117303/article.html
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/
Other than that, it's all good news. I think we'll all be glad to be free of the glasses.
\.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVL3uW9uV4E
Table-ized A.I.
La decoración de uñas en temporada de verano es una moda que se impone en todas las mujeres y hoy en día se pueden mostrar muchas decoraciones de uñas de distintos colores y diversos diseños ya que se han empleado varios negocios sobre la cosmetología y todo lo que tiene que ver con el maquillaje.
...3D is nothing but a headache waiting to happen.
Call me when they've got glasses that can determine my focal point in real time and adjust the image accordingly.
File glasses free 3D with flying cars and holographic storage.
Here's a clue for you. The very best 3D TV's at the moment are those that support passive glasses by using alternate strips of polarized filter material on the display. Even this trivial technology has massive problems with viewing angles.
It gets worse. Recently, analogue TV broadcasts were replaced with digital. All digital TV boxes use frame-buffers, and can do things like image zoom. However, the clods behind the move to digital FORGOT that backward compatibility is essential. For 3D broadcast TV to take off, 3D channels MUST be backward compatible with older 2D kit. This could have been achieved at ZERO cost by accepting that 3D would be broadcast as so called side-by-side stereo images, and having ALL digital TV boxes having a preset zoom that filled the entire TV picture with one half of the broadcast frame. Unfortunately, no-one thought to include this default setting in any of the digital TV boxes.
The vast majority (99%+) of all the recently rolled out digital TV reception equipment lacks an ability to zoom on only one half of the broadcast image, which would have converted the 3D image to a perfect (if slightly lower resolution) 2D one. The consequence of this is that no American network wants to produce essential content in 3D. Sitcoms and soaps and quiz shows and other studio productions would have been no-brainers for 3D shooting. Imagine if the same screw up had occurred when colour transmissions began. Colour show transmissions ONLY receivable on colour TV sets.
This screw up has damned 3D TV. The ONLY content worth anything to the consumer is 3D feature films from Hollywood, and these are very limited in number. If a TV station does choose to shoot some 3D content. it must broadcast the content on a special 3D only channel, and then broadcast the 2D version on a separate 2D channel.
3D is a gimmick, and a pretty bad one at that. It makes little difference in most of the films that use it (the mega expensive 3D in 'The Hobbit Part 1' was just terrible). When 3D is used well, it tends to be in the same familiar ways that never really link to the dramatic content of the drama. 3D would probably be most effective in simple fixed set studio shows (including the news and chat formats), but like I said, the incentive for shooting these in 3D is killed by the backward compatibility issue.
Trying to flog new display tech solutions (which are always snake-oil) is moronic when the market needs to perfect the passive glasses systems that are both practical and cheap. If 3D stands any chance of success, it needs to get very real very quickly.
You guys should know, components are cheap now, If TV makers built basic sets without all the WiFi and fancy flash; they would actually lose money. Which brings us to 3D, the whole point of 3D is to keep the TV profitable for the manufacturer.
It's the same reason cars look like electric shavers and the steering wheel attached to a Computer instead of a gear box, to keep the Item profitable for the company. We simply wouldn't have any of these products anymore if they only made basic items, all the companies would be out of business.
I'm not defending them though, I still like my Steering Wheel attached to the actual wheels and non-3D TV's. Just saying why it's happening, the root of the problem seems to be Money. And until we have a Star-Trek kind of 'Work not for money, but for the betterment of Humanity' kind of world, then I don't see it changing anytime soon; you can expect more useless features coming soon.
Let me know when someone does 4D images - then you could have a movie containing 3D objects.
I already don't want it since it's an HP product and thus garbage so the entire rest of the logic in that summary falls apart.
I always had those ASUS nVidia video cards that would come with those 3D LCD glasses, and enjoyed playing games in 3D since the original Unreal. It was extremely cool and kept wishing this was available on a bigger screen. Now it's trivial to set up a PC with a 3D TV, and also the PlayStation 3 has many full 3D games, and there's the 3DS. I always liked the experience and I'm really happy that it's widely available. Movies look great in 3D as well, and some fun can be had with the 2D > 3D software conversion that most TVs have now.
So yeah, I care about 3D. Looking forward to the Oculus Rift as well.
Twinstiq, game news
Kind of like this from Dolby?
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/dolby-3d-glasses-free-3d.html