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."

Comments

Netcraft confirms:

[joebagodonuts]

hp isn't dead?

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[RoccamOccam]

But what does HP Lovecraft have to say?

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That is not dead which can eternal lie

Yet with strange eons even death may die.

A bit more cryptic than Netcraft, honestly.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[fishybell]

As someone who works-ish (contract for a NOC) with HP, I can say yes, floundering as they are, they exist. Some things like eprint (buzzword) eInk (buzzword buzzword) and instant ink (buzzword buzzword buzzword) do very well. There was a company-wide e-mail a little while ago about 3-d tech that was very, vague. I think this is what they were talking about, and I think it might put hp back on the map.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[Bad Mamba Jamba]

Forget HP. Isn't 3D dead? For that matter was it ever really alive?

I still can't imagine any value for 3D in my living room. The screen is too small and the effect is totally lost. For that matter I'm still struggling with any value add even on an IMAX screen. Except perhaps increasing sales of Tylenol.

I'm excited for HP delivering on a dead technology. Three letters - ROI. Just sayin...

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[davester666]

Obviously, they must try harder to die. And they will.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[havana9]

Yes, you should use kilowatts, but because the numbers are bigger, car makers still prefer to use horse power on the advertising.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[GNious]

[OT] Depends on region - noticed ads in eastern europe which didn't include horse-power but kilo-watts for cars.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[peragrin]

You, like Myself and about 15% of the population don't view the world perfectly stereoscopically. therefore Fake3D!!!!! just leads to headaches and poor view performances.

If you don't need glasses, it is a start. but the real trick will be is it just another illusion or is it a hybrid of real, and fake 3D to give actual depth to images.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Please, I know that this is Slashdot but not all of us speak in Perl. Could you at least try to say it in Python or something similar?

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[newcastlejon]

On a more practical note:
"Thou canst not kill that which doth not live, but you can blast it into kibble."
Quake user manual.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[The Rizz]

I can't tell if this is a car analogy or not.

I don't think so ... I'm fairly certain there was something about hot grits, Natalie Portman, and/or GNAA in there.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[mug funky]

good explanation.

i always figured people would have no problem, and decoupling focal plane with parallax would be an easy thing for a brain to do - after all, the same happens when doing one of those magic eye things.

then i realised... hardly anyone can do those magic eye things.

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[cthulhu11]

Wash your mouth out with soap!

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What, with SOAP? Give it a REST!

Re:Netcraft confirms:

[cthulhu11]

You mentioned the unspeakable horror of P****n, what did you expect?

Why is this taking so long?

[TubeSteak]

I remember seeing standalone 3D displays at SIGGRAPH over 10 years ago.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[alen]

no one cares about 3d

only people i know who bought 3d bought it only because they wanted the most expensive set and they watch regular cable TV on theirs

almost everyone i know doesn't care about 3d and won't buy one unless its the same price as a regular TV or its a feature on all sets

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[AK Marc]

I bought a 3D TV because it was cheaper than any others. Turns out LG was making proprietary glasses for each TV, and so, when last year's is done, nobody wants a TV with no glasses when you have to special order them for $300 each (not available in stores). They've switched to passive glasses now, but used proprietary active glasses previously, changing with each model year, and not available across all sets.

But the point is I have a 3D TV and got it for $300 less than the 2D of the same size and features.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[DragonTHC]

lenticular displays are not new. They are annoying though.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[jrumney]

I remember glasses-free 3D displays being one of the next big things exhibited by every Japanese electronics company at the World Design Expo in Nagoya, 1989.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[jrumney]

About 1 minute into this video for example, is a simulated fish tank, which was one of the more impressive prototypes. A lot of it was probably smoke and mirrors, and some of them weren't particularly convincing (I remember some rear projection systems that you had to stare at for a while before your eyes started to decieve you into seeing depth, and some "3D displays" were clearly just showing 3D computer graphics on a 2D display, which is nothing special these days, but in 1989 was enough to get people excited. But the impression I had at the time was that there was technology there that would be commercialized within 10 years.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

My anecdotal evidence is no more powerful than yours, and you don't know me (so I'm not refuting your "only people I know" statement), but I do care about 3D. We just got a 3D TV earlier this year. Before that I got the 120Hz Asus 3D-capable monitor and Nvidia 3D setup for my 2nd monitor on my home computer, and a laptop that also runs Nvidia 3D. And I just got the Fujifilm 3D camera for stills and videos. The camera can be set to record every picture you take in both JPG (2D) and MPO (3D) formats. When viewing those pictures on my computer (or my TV), it's absolutely amazing to me how much better the 3D pictures look than their flat, 2D counterparts. A 2D photo can convey a sense of depth, to some extent, but a good 3D photograph is truly stunning!

I know it's de rigeur on /. to talk about how much we hate 3D, and complain because somehow every one of us is in the 5% (or whatever) of people who can't see 3D, but the truth is, I love 3D. When it's done well. (And there's a huge difference in movies that were shot in 3D, and those that were converted in post-production.)

So I'm not denying that 3D is a niche market. I just wanted to speak up as someone who's living in that niche, and loving it! When I take my little 3D camera out now, it's like I'm learning photography all over again. It really makes you look at the world in a new way. My biggest regret is that there aren't more people with 3D-capable displays for me to share my photos with.

(But if you're interested in seeing some of what people are doing with 3D photography, there's a site called Phereo where people can upload and share their 3D photos. And if your 3D TV is a Smart TV, they have an app you can load to view those photos on your TV. I'm not associated with them, except as an occasional user.)

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[ConceptJunkie]

It's fine that you like 3D, but from my point of view, the whole argument for it fails at "When it's done well."

I've never seen 3D anything that was "done well". It's just distracting, period. When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[The Rizz]

When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.

I saw it over 20 years ago at an IMAX somewhere on the US west coast. Polarized light + polarized lenses is all it takes, and looks as realistic as looking out a window.

The problem with all the "modern" attempts at it are they (a) are trying to be more complicated so they can patent it, and (b) are using special effects like throwing crap at the screen, which is distracting. (a) will hopefully go away as companies just say "fuck it" and make cheap patent-free 3D implementations, and (b) will hopefully go away when 3D is as commonplace as color TVs.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[ConceptJunkie]

I've seen a polarized light 3D IMAX movie at least once, at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga a few years ago. It was pretty cool, but it doesn't work _that_ well as far as I'm concerned. And it definitely wasn't a gimmicky production, but a nice documentary about sea life.

I suspect the "modern" attempts are doing more than just trying to create a patentable implementation and are really trying to improve the experience. I can't imagine that if it were possible to make a cheap, patent-free 3D implementation and use it to sell more sets that companies wouldn't be falling over each other to get it into consumers' hands.

In any event, I don't foresee getting 3D hardware unless it happens to come as part of something I purchase for other reasons, and I can't imagine having any desire to buy media for it beyond maybe one item to "check it out".

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[mug funky]

if that were the case, screens would have been made taller, not shorter.

it pretty much goes like this:

some new technology comes along. it goes into cinemas, because it can be much bigger and more expensive, and wouldn't really fit in a living room.

the cinema types rejoice and finally hail the final defeat of television land.

then some bright spark does the same thing on a scale that fits in television land.

then the cinema guys implement the next big thing, rinse and repeat.

google glass is sitting there, somewhere in the future, promising to fuck the shit out of cinema land and television land.

but it probably wont.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[mug funky]

"when it's done well" is the opposite of the anthropic principle, and can be used to cynically defeat any proposition without even trying.

ever see 2D pictures not done well? go to facebook for a few seconds and realise that in the right hands, even the easiest enabling art form can be done in a terrible way that makes your eyes bleed and brain melt (and then the brain will leak slowly out of the bleeding eyes).

that said, i have an instinctive mistrust of small cameras. a small camera means a small sensor means a shitty lens means everything's in focus and you have one of the biggest tools in your photographer's toolkit completely removed.

a 3D camera with big sensors would be amazing.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[mdielmann]

I bought a 3D TV because it was cheaper than any others. Turns out LG was making proprietary glasses for each TV, and so, when last year's is done, nobody wants a TV with no glasses when you have to special order them for $300 each (not available in stores). They've switched to passive glasses now, but used proprietary active glasses previously, changing with each model year, and not available across all sets. But the point is I have a 3D TV and got it for $300 less than the 2D of the same size and features.

This is one of the reasons why I haven't bought a 3D TV. I'm okay with passive (half my family already wears glasses), and I find it good enough at the theaters. Damned if I'm going to buy some active system, even if it is superior for 3D. Those proprietary glasses (why are they always proprietary?!) are going to suck the money out of your pocket and either need to be constantly charged or just sit on a shelf collecting dust. The other reason is I have no intention of paying a premium for a TV with a different, precisely-applied film on the screen basically the key difference for passive 3D screens). Even I, who is a fan of 3D, have no intention of using it all the time. If it costs much more than a comparable 2D screen, I'm not buying it.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[mug funky]

poppycock. it's nothing to do with patents.

IMAX 3D is the exact same thing as twin-lens DCI. single lens DCI is it's more problematic cousin that's seen more in budget conscious cinemas that can't afford the twin-lens setup.

the reason it was restricted to IMAX for so long was twofold:
- expensive - you need twice as much film and twice as much projector, and the precision engineering to keep them as perfectly in sync as possible to keep people from throwing up.
- technically difficult. the IMAX format is a massive piece of film. take 70mm and turn it sideways, but keep the same aspect ratio so you effectively double the size of the frame (like how A3 paper is two A4 pieces side-by-side). the advantage there is the tolerances in the projection and camera systems are effectively 1/16 the tolerance of regular 35mm systems for the same mechanical tolerance. this means when the film inevitably jumps around in the projection gate, there's still very good alignment between the left-eye projector and the right-eye projector, and you don't get up-down bobbing between your eyes as much as you would with 35mm.

that said, there's still a lot of bobbing around and it's quite distracting.

twin-lens DCI does the same thing, but without film. it's a solid-state chip that doesn't move, so left-right eye alignment is kept forever (or until someone knocks it).

single-lens DCI uses active glasses and is really shit. ask at the cinema what they're using. if they can't tell you, don't go there.

* disclosure - i'm a film guy, or was one until the film industry got hit by the GFC and nobody made ads anymore.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[AK Marc]

I don't disagree. I'd not have paid more for 3D, but for whatever reasons, this last-year model 3D TV with no glasses with it (why don't they all come with 4 glasses?) and no glasses available to buy, for any price (at that store, they are $300 on Amazon), was cheaper than the nearly identical 2D TV next to it. 3D you can't use was apparently a liability. I'm OK paying less for useless 3D.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[ConceptJunkie]

But we're talking about televisions, and the media made for televisions is made with TV/movie cameras. The big ones. Of course I'm not comparing 3D photos taken with a Nintendo 3DS (which is a pretty cool implementation for such an inexpensive piece of hardware), with IMAX 3D movies. I've seen an IMAX 3D movie in an IMAX theater, and I wasn't impressed with it above any other 3D format I've seen. It wasn't horrible, but for me the 3D effect distracted from at least as much as it enhanced the experience, and I can't see how a 3D TV would be any better.

When 3D undergoes the same revolution in quality that we saw when SD television gave way to HD, I think it will become more widely accepted and used. That said, however, 3D simply does not bring enough to the table to enhance the experience (whether at home or in the theater) compared to the improvements in sound and display technology we've seen in the past few decades. When talkies became possible, silent movies quickly disappeared except for those cases where the artists specifically chose that format for artistic reasons. Ditto color vs. black-and-white. I don't think 3D will ever become that kind of default unless radically new technological advances make it much better. Dolby is a household name because it redefined the sound experience, as is Technicolor. 3D hasn't hit that level of success yet, and I don't think it ever will.

If you like 3D, that's great. It's freely available and doesn't cost much these days. It simply doesn't interest me. But lots of technology struggled for years until just the right implementation (or price) came along. The advances we have seen in the last 20 years, if we stop to take stock of everything we take for granted, are nothing short of amazing.

Re:Why is this taking so long?

[cthulhu11]

When I bought my LCD/LED to replace the DLP that broke (Fuck you very much, Samsung!) I saved hundreds by forgoing 3D and hundreds more by forgoing the yellow-pixel foo. YMMV.

where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[alen]

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

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[CastrTroy]

Just checked. If you go with plasma, you can get a 50 inch 3D TV for $800. The problem is, the glasses cost $120 a piece, so by the time you've outfitted a family of 4 with glasses, you've spent $480 on glasses. So the TV is cheap, but the glasses are kind of pricey.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[log0n]

Wife recently surprised me with a late xmas gift - new 42" LG w/ led, passive 3d vs active (uses the same RealD theater glasses) and came with a free soundbar - $475ish @ Microcenter, etc. Tried some demo 3d content via Roku, instantly hooked and have since gone all in (new bluray 3d player + 7-8 movies). It's a gimmick, but now that I've got home 3d, I can't see myself ever going without it (assuming I can stay w/ affordable 3d in the future). The set also has a realtime 2d->3d conversion and while is isn't real 3d, it does a pretty good job of faking added depth to just about everything. Watched the entire super bowl in simulated 3d, was quite enjoyable.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-42LM3700-led-tv

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[futuresheep]

Samsung make glasses that work with the 2012/2013 Panasonic TV's that are $20.00 each. 3rd party glasses can be had for less than $50.00.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[n30na]

I got a 47" one for more like 600, it's not super fancy, but it's not terrible either.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[Kahlandad]

Or, if you have a passive 3D TV, get multiple pairs of glasses for the price of a movie ticket.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[David_Hart]

Samsung make glasses that work with the 2012/2013 Panasonic TV's that are $20.00 each. 3rd party glasses can be had for less than $50.00.

I bought a new Samsung 51" Plasma 3D TV just before the holidays for $1000. It came with 2 pairs of Samsung glasses. They would be fine for kids, but I found that they let in too much light from the side, you have to use them in the dark. I bought a pair of Bluetooth Enabled Glasses for Samsung 3D Displays from monoprice for $45 which work much better as they have side blockers.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[Racemaniac]

Europe, if i see your prices, i think it's a fraction of what we pay here. i've recently looked at 32-40" tv's, here prices range from 500-1000€ for regular ones, double that if you want 3D
so if you talk about 50 inch, that's several thousands of euros for one here

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[futuresheep]

I like the monoprice and panasonic glasses more myself for the exact same reason, but when the kid has a sleepover, I'd much rather hand out the Samsungs. :-)

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[futuresheep]

That would also mean buying an LCD TV instead of a plasma. The difference in price for an LCD that has the image quality of a plasma is far greater than the savings from the free glasses.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand?

[mug funky]

* for a given value of picture quality.

LCDs have been on par or exceeded plasma since 2008 at least. but you may be thinking of a different thing than me. for me it was always about colour rendition, and plasmas just lacked dynamic range where it counts. contrast ratio numbers that are printed on the bezel of the set are not the same as dynamic range when you've gone in and turned off all the stupid bells and whistles so you can just look at the pictures the TV is being fed with.

Where can I pre-order?

[CoolGopher]

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

Re:Where can I pre-order?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

Apply to least-favored eye, starting just within the ridge of bone surrounding the orbit, and moving inward and down in a smooth enucleating motion. Avoid exposing delicate fabrics or electronic devices to aqueous and/or vitreous humors that may be released under pressure.

Re:Where can I pre-order?

[Tablizer]

Where can I...opt-out of all this 3D tech?

Just dial 1-800-POKE-1-EYE and we'll send somebody over.

Wrong 3D

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wrong 3D

[ArcadeMan]

In a few years, they'll be able to print them!

Yeah I know, a TV isn't 100% made from ABS plastic, blah blah blah...

3D is a Gimmick

[hairyfish]

I never seen 3D look any good at any time ever (except real life of course). What will be different about this?

Re:3D is a Gimmick

[cheater512]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT7hcWFu7q4
"It's got better resolution than the real world."

Re:3D is a Gimmick

[mark-t]

When your eyes focus on a point in space... say, the distance from you to a tv screen, your eyes already receive different images that your brain fuses into a single 3d image inside your head.

The reason "3D" sucks is because it's not really "3d"... it's forced stereo viewing at specific viewing angles... forced because the filters over each lense only allow the light from the designated perspective to hit your eye. Everyone in the theater experiences this stereao viewing from the same two angles, regardless of their distance from the screen.

When you aren't wearing any glasses, however, the stereo viewing isn't forced on you. Any 3d image that you see will correspond with how far you are from what it is you are looking at. The eyes of people further away from a screen would have to converge less than those of people who were closer, and it would be no more problematic for your perceptions than dealing with a pop-up book.

Re:3D is a Gimmick

[bugs2squash]

It will turn out actually to be pop-up technology. They'll probably have to warn people not to watch Mike Tyson on it. But then that's good advice for 2D too,

Not Possible.

[LikwidCirkel]

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.

Re:Not Possible.

[EmperorArthur]

It's possible it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Instead of 3d as you see in theaters it might be the 3d you see in pictures. When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/tensor-display-3d-tv_n_1665976.html

I'm really excited about this technology for just that reason. I think the idea of a TV that looks just like a window would be amazing. Imagine video conferencing. Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

Re:Not Possible.

[Khyber]

Orrr, maybe we have better light waveguide building tech to put on the front of the panel.

Re:Not Possible.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

It's far, far, far, worse than that: HP did discover how to change the laws of the universe; but the best use that their marketing people could think of was '3d TV'.

Re:Not Possible.

[clickety6]

Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

"Get out from under the desk, Jones. Nobody believes you've dropped your pen...again!".

Re:Not Possible.

[hippo]

Now imagine the bandwidth.

Re:Not Possible.

[EdZ]

When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

And if there are enough views (i.e. they change with a small enough angle, that angle being the angle subtended by the distance between your eyes at normal viewing distance) you have a passive multiview autostereo display. Which have been around for quite some time, so I can only imaging this HP thing is merely a semi-new implementation.

am I the only one that actively avoids 3d?

[Dan667]

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.

Re:am I the only one that actively avoids 3d?

[Randall311]

3D has jumped the shark...

Re:am I the only one that actively avoids 3d?

[drinkypoo]

I don't know anyone that actually enjoys 3d except for the initial novelty that has worn off since Jaws 3D.

ITYM "M" 3-D, HTH HAND

Re:am I the only one that actively avoids 3d?

[White Flame]

I like noodling around with some of the tech for computer visualization, but don't really care about it for media consumption.

The thing that sucked is that I wanted to watch The Hobbit in 48fps, but that was only available with the 3d version with the other goofy theater features. The 2d version was only 24fps at the theater I went to, and was showing at a more convenient time. Still, even wanting to watch it in higher framerate, I was completely fine with foregoing the 3d.

focus...

[HeyBob!]

I don't think "3d" will work until you can actually change your focus to different depths, just like in the real world.

3D is a good party trick...

[multiben]

... 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.

Forget 48fps.

[viperidaenz]

Welcome 3072fps! With 64 viewing angles required, that's a pretty large amount of bandwidth.

Possible, but not yet.

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[fyngyrz]

No, but nice try. This system is *exactly* like normal stereo-vision, except there are more planes of display. The same factors that cause headaches with single-plane stereo-vision are in play on every one of these. At any one viewing position, you have exactly what you had before: stereo-vision. Only gross movement will change that, and even then, in very coarse steps. So there's no change in either the nature or affect of the problems here, and in fact, they are caused by exactly what I said: incorrect focus depth cues.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[CityZen]

With enough viewing angles, you get focal depth. That's what focus is, after all: bending the rays from the desired angles to meet your retinas.
The question, of course, is "what is enough?" It's actually more about the density (how many differently-angled rays are hitting your pupils?) than the absolute number.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[fyngyrz]

With enough viewing angles, you get focal depth.

No. You don't. Look at any deep scene in front of you. Focus on the guy handing you a copy of Playboy. When you do so, the mountain in the distance is a fuzzy mess. Now focus on the mountain in the distance: The guy with the Playboy is a fuzzy mess. Changing your viewing angle will in no way affect this; it's a function of how small your pupil is (f-stop) and how compressed the lens in your eye is (focal distance.)

You can add display angles until they become a linear function of viewing angle, and you still haven't done anything to solve the problem of what your brain tells your eyes to do when it perceives depth and you change what you're focused on from one apparent depth to another, only the subject isn't at a different depth, it just looks like it is. Wrong message, wrong reaction, eventual problems.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[Zouden]

But the lenses in your eyes will still be focusing an image from the TV screen. The image is generated by the flat plane of the screen, therefore you need to focus on a flat plane even when the 3D effect makes you think there's a variety of distances in front of you. It's no different to a cinema screen.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[fyngyrz]

If you have two eyes, you already *HAVE* stereo vision. You experience it because when you are focused on a single point, that point is giving two different images to each eye.

Yes, of course.

This is the way you naturally perceive 3D.

No. That is part of how you perceive 3D. Other inputs include varying parallax, focus depth, and viewing axis priority. The problem with stereo-vision screens is that they don't provide varying parallax; they provide static parallax, and so when you move or even roll your eyes, the cues are wrong. Stereo vision displays don't provide actual depth, so when your eyes are driven by your brain's (entirely correct) notion of distance to refocus, the attempt fails. As to layering, this also works with parallax so that when you move, the layering changes based on depth, which also informs you as to what the depth is, except, again, not with a stereo display. Moving beyond this, when you move your eyes in the real world, you actually do get to see more/different stuff, and again, a stereo display cannot and does not provide this. Not even in the proposed system. It will provide it if you move very coarsely (they're talking about 1/64th of the viewable display, potentially), but do the math -- that's a big move, not an eye roll.

people who are looking at this kind of display from any different position would see something slightly different than you did... going so far as to approximate a course(sic) resolution holography

Right. It moves the bar on one issue; you get multiple angles if you move in a coarse fashion. It doesn't address any of the others. If you stay in one place, what's more, it is no different -- at all -- from a one angle display. That's what you get. One angle. The depth cues are still wrong, your focus distance is still driven by the wrong information because the very parallax you are being fed says "this is the focus distance", but the image tells you that the focus distances are varied. That's the problem; that's the source of the weird feeling in your head when you look at any stereo image that is actually two flat images. There are an almost unlimited set of focus cues there, and your brain can't use them, because all but one are wrong. Whereas if the image was actually 3D, things further away would be further away, allowing your entire visual system to function more normally, completely.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[lxs]

Oh but you have to do it vertically as well as horizontally and you'll end up with a light field display. Needs a lot of resolution though, so maybe finally a valid use for 8K video displays in television.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[mark-t]

Ah.... I think I see where you are confused. The lenses in your eyes would be focused at the distance of the tv screen itself. Not at a the distance of the virtual "3d" image, since that is the distance that it would actually be in focus. When you are in a theater, your eye lenses remain focussed at the distance that corresponds to the distance from you to the screen as well. It is the difference between the two images that your eyes receive that gives your brain the appearance of depth, not optical focal length.

Re:Possible, but not yet.

[mark-t]

If you stay in one place, what's more, it is no different -- at all -- from a one angle display. That's what you get. One angle

You mean like in real life? If you stay in one place, your eyes are each only getting one angle as well.

With existing 3d films, much of the heedache problem is caused by incorrect eye convergence for what your eye lens is actually focussing on (the distance from you to the screen). This is because they put the left and right images at different points on the screen instead of at the same one, to try to magnify the 3d effect. When you are looking at this type of display, regardless of what is being displayed, both your lens focal distance and eye convergence will actually be the same... you are looking at the distance from you to the screen. Differences between what the left and right eye actually see will add an appearance of depth, and can cause your perception of the image to either jump out of the screen at you (because of a large difference) or not (because of a tiny, or no difference), but because your focal length and eye convergence are actually the same, the headache problem that is caused by stereo film viewing will not occur. If they tried to separate the left and right images on a display like this the way they do in 3d films, the result would just be a blurry picture, and you would not be able to perceive it as 3D at all... much like watching a stereo 3d film without the special glasses.

Now, that said... there is another problem to deal with, which happens any time that a person's eyes suddenly get a new sense of depth. Vertigo. Different people have different measures of vulnerability to this, and this is a problem with existing stereoscopic 3d as well, but tends to be dwarfed by the problems caused by incorrect eye convergence, and will probably become more of an issue as this technology becomes common.

The biggest difference you would notice between a multifaceted display like this and a hologram is that moving your head up and down will not have any effect on your perception of the image depth, where with a hologram it would. Also, if you turned your head sideways, the depth perception would disappear completely.

Also, owing to the difficulty of creating cameras that could produce the kinds of images necessary for this to work, I think that the only types of 3d that we are liable to see from this technology for the immediate future would be computer generated images, and not any regular films.

The biggest difference between this and currently existing stereo "3D" is that if you move around with this kind of technology, then the images that your eyes get will actually change, just as they would in real life... since your eyes are literally receiving the image from a different angle. Unlike in a theater where every single viewer sees the exact same pair of images, with this technology, which images you see would depend on where you are watching the display from. The biggest problem with it, of course, is that unless the display is actually being watched from a lot of different angles, there is going to be a lot of wasted imaging going on, because nobody might be looking at it from a given angle to even appreciate all the different perspectives that the display is actually producing.

I can appreciate the skepticism you may have about this, owing to experiences you may have had with existing stereo "3D" films, but this is really completely different.

Holograms

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to see another 3D-related post unless we've got working holograms.

Re:Holograms

[jrumney]

Working holograms are easy. The problem with them that makes them unsuitable for 3D TV is that they cannot convey color information.

Re:Holograms

[narcc]

Times have changed. We can do color holograms now.

Very cool stuff:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/218

Re:Holograms

[wichawa]

Wow. I read a lot of comments until I read this one. I can't believe no one even half joked at this.

Personally won't buy 3D as long as I need glasses

[hermitdev]

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.

Re:Too bad HP Labs just laid off a bunch of people

[MrEricSir]

Yet HP has plenty of cash to squander on questionable acquisitions; between Compaq, Palm, and Autonomy they spent well over $35 billion.

And look how successful those investments were! Oh wait...

Seriously, It's been done

[Casandro]

A few weeks back I applied at a company doing exactly that as a demo many years ago.

Dot Hat

[Tablizer]

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.

It's Fake

[JeffElkins]

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.

3D is obsolete, Silly Head

[Tablizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufw2D8oMJ64

I'll happily trade 3D for

[DaveAtFraud]

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

Re:I'll happily trade 3D for

[the eric conspiracy]

Unfortunately that's not something that sells movies.

HP was NOT first, not even close

[7bit]

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.
\.

Maybe there's a more user-centric approach to 3D:

[Tablizer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVL3uW9uV4E

Until the viewer can choose their focus plane...

[hsthompson69]

...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.

Money, It's a Gas.

[Mike Frett]

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.

logical flaw

[slashmydots]

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.

Wanted 3D, bought 3D

[HalAtWork]

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.