MIT Developed A Movie Screen That Brings Glasses-Free 3D To All Seats (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via TechCrunch: MIT has developed a glasses-less 3D display for movie theaters. The Nintendo 3DS is one of a handful of devices to feature glasses-less 3D, but it is designed for a single users where the user is looking at the display head-on at a relatively specific angle. It's not something made for a movie theater with hundreds of seats, each of which would have a different viewing angle. What's neat about MIT's 3D display is that it doesn't require glasses and it lets anyone see the 3D effect in a movie theater, no matter where they are sitting. The MIT Computers Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) created the prototype display called 'Cinema 3D' that uses a complex arrangement of lenses and mirrors to create a set number of parallax barriers that can address every viewing angle in the theater based on seat locations. It works in a movie theater because the seats are in fixed locations, and people don't tend to move around, change seats or alter their viewing angle too much. What's also neat about the Cinema 3D is that is preserves resolution, whereas other glasses-less 3D displays carry cots in terms of image resolution. The prototype is about the size of a letter-sized notepad, and it needs 50 sets of mirrors and lenses. It should be ready for market once researchers scale it up to a commercially viable product.

Comments

Is 3D all that?

[tgibson]

I have yet to see a movie where I thought the 3D enhancements made the movie superior over a conventional screen. Regarding Nintendo's 3DS, I noticed that my daughters disable the 3D feature because they find it distracting. Is anyone pining for a movie to come out in 3D?

Waste of effort

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but theaters are obsolete, and gimmicks like 3D are only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits: no screaming kids, no people talking on their cellphones, a rewind button so I can go back if I didn't understand a line of dialog, a pause button so I can go to the bathroom, no sticky floors, the best-positioned seat instead of one way off to the side, whatever food I want instead of some crappy overpriced concessions, whatever kind of seat I want (such as a recliner), and the ability to watch the movie at whatever time I want?

Re:Waste of effort

[chispito]

Why would I want to waste my time and money watching a movie at a theater when I can just watch it at home and get many benefits...

I almost never get a chance to go to the theaters any more, but I still see the value in many cases. First, you're not at home. Sometimes it's nice to go out for the sake of going out. Second, most genres of film are better with an audience. Comedies are much better with an audience, though the audience can also spoil it if they aren't invested (much like stand-up). Third, the picture and sound are almost certainly better than what you have at home. I saw Interstellar at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and I'm glad I did. Home theaters are great, but they aren't the same.

2 Things...

[OfficeLackey]

As has already been said, I've yet to watch a movie with 3D and thought, 2D just wouldn't have cut it. This whole 3D thing is kind of a dead horse and I'm getting really tired of people kicking it. Secondly, you have to know that they will also build this into the next "gotta-have-it" television/monitor. Where does it end? It's high-def 1080p. No it's curved! Better yet, it's back lit. No, 4k! Oh 4K in 3D!! You know, any more I just want to watch a show/movie that the story doesn't suck. I want the story to draw me in so I am mentally engaged with it. NOT, "I'm watching the equivalent of paint drying". They might have used a really fancy paint sprayer, but it's still paint drying.... (Damn! I must be getting old)

Re:Is there really a need for this?

[jader3rd]

Are there a bunch of people for whom the 3D polarized glasses are specifically an issue?

It's been my experience, that the movie is fuzzier with 3D glasses. Both my wife and I had experience where we'd see a movie with her family in 3D, then go see it later on our own in 2D and were blown away the second time by how nice the film looked. Now we have kids and certainly don't have the time to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but because of our previous experience we always opt for 2D.

But can you look anywhere on the screen?

[RogueWarrior65]

This is a fundamental problem I have with 3D films. The focal point is always where the director decided it should be so if you try to look at something off to the side of the screen, the 3D illusion falls apart.

Re:should be ready when it's ready

[flopsquad]

It should be ready for market once researchers scale it up to a commercially viable product.

See also: quantum computers, invisibility cloaking metamaterials, and fusion.

Re:Interesting sleep arrangement

[Wraithlyn]

Just give it up. That cat will never go back in that particular bag. English changes over time with usage.

Personally, I'm fine with it. Intuitively, "begs the question" means the same as "demands the question"... because "begs" and "demands" mean the same damn thing. Phrases making sense intuitively is a good thing, IMHO.

Just use "assumes the conclusion" for the fallacy (which again, makes more intuitive sense anyway), and stop trying to perpetuate the original meaning which will never, ever take over as the common usage again.

Just my two cents.