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:

[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:

[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?

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]

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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,

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: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.

[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'.

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.

Holograms

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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.

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: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!".