3D Without Eyeglasses

[hendra]

Is it technically possible to make a 3D Display that doesn't require a pair of Eyeglasses?

[killat0n]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3d+hdtv+without+glasses

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by killat0n

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=3d+hdtv+without+glasses

First time I've seen that lmgtfy link. Very funny

Without looking at the links though, I think 3M is demoing a unit at CES that acheives 3DTV without glasses. As I understand it though, you have to sit in a very specific position in relation to the unit to acheive the desired effect.

[Jimmy Smith]

3D without eyeglasses is very limited. Prototype displays that don't require glasses are often subject to very poor viewing angles. They are also far more expensive. When the alternative is paying alot more for an otherwise inferior experiance most seem to agree that glasses are the way to go for now. Eventually glasses free displays will overtake glasses based ones but not for a long time.

[kingofgrills]

Phillips pulled their no-glass 3D sets from the market last year or so. They were deemed to be too expensive, and they didn't sell well during the economic turndown.

If you ask me, I wouldn't want to spend that sort of $$$ on a potential migraine enducer.

[vega2K]

I wonder if 3D without glasses has the same concept as Stereoscopic 3D photographs, where you cross your eyes to see two images until a third one comes to view in the middle - check these links out to see what I mean
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowel...ereoscopic.htm
http://www.3dphoto.net/world/space/space.html

If this is the same concept, I will be investing heavily in regular eyeglasses company stocks.

[HiDefRev]

The only thing those images do is give me a headache !!!

[KingBing]

When they can pull off decent 3d effects without the glasses then I will start taking 3d seriously.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by HiDefRev

The only thing those images do is give me a headache !!!

Exactly. That is my point about 3D without glasses. I just don't see how it is possible, without some serious eye strain.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by HiDefRev

The only thing those images do is give me a headache !!!

lol i just popped a contact out of my eye trying to do whatever they wanted me to do and i didn't see a thing.

[Rob J in WNY]

Pretty crazy imagery. Reminds of the "magic eye" thingies from the early '90s. Seems to be based on a similar principle, but definitely too much effort required for most people to utilize for the entire viewing experience.

[owa]

Originally Posted by vega2K

I wonder if 3D without glasses has the same concept as Stereoscopic 3D photographs, where you cross your eyes to see two images until a third one comes to view in the middle - check these links out to see what I mean
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mjpowel...ereoscopic.htm
http://www.3dphoto.net/world/space/space.html

If this is the same concept, I will be investing heavily in regular eyeglasses company stocks.

Cool links. It took me a while on the first one but after that I got the hang of it, the rest were much easier. The ones in the graveyard were really easy. The bledge-brook one gave me some trouble but after getting it, I thought it was one of the better looking ones. Oh, I had a lot of trouble with most of the space ones though (the ones from 3dphoto.net). They were much harder for me for some reason (maybe the lack of a background?).

[radagast]

Originally Posted by hendra

Is it technically possible to make a 3D Display that doesn't require a pair of Eyeglasses?

I saw a news item that ESPN is wanting to launch a 3D sports network. And also one of the satellite networks is also. Glasses will be needed I assume.

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by KingBing

When they can pull off decent 3d effects without the glasses then I will start taking 3d seriously.

+1. I think moving toward active 3D shuttered glasses for 3D is a bit of a stop-gap and a mistake. The industry should push forward with the development of a 3D system that does not require glasses.

Man, that would suck to be the odd person out without glasses for a movie night or Super Bowl party. I also wouldn't want to double up on my everyday glasses. that would be pretty uncomfortable.

I don't think this will be a successful endeavor for personal consumers.

[callas01]

well like myself, I don't like glasses at all... I don't wear sunglasses or perscription, good thing I have decent eye sight. I am not into the whole 3D endeavor personally.

[Wollan]

As far as I know, all and every auto-stereoscopic solutions today is severely limited when it comes to positioning yourself to the tv. Both angle and distance has to be within smaller margins.

Glasses totally frees you from that and the quality remains the same wherever.

They will probably have to track pupils and guide the projected light somehow before auto-stereoscopy becomes really practical.

A laptop would be an ideal target for todays auto-stereoscopic tech (single user, easily adjusted) but for the living room we will need glasses.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Wollan

As far as I know, all and every auto-stereoscopic solutions today is severely limited when it comes to positioning yourself to the tv. Both angle and distance has to be within smaller margins.

Glasses totally frees you from that and the quality remains the same wherever.

They will probably have to track pupils and guide the projected light somehow before auto-stereoscopy becomes really practical.

A laptop would be an ideal target for todays auto-stereoscopic tech (single user, easily adjusted) but for the living room we will need glasses.

Auto-stero will eventually replace glasses based displays. However given how far off auto-stero is from being viable home viewing the current generation using active shutter is a great stop gap. Having to wear glasses is an inconvience but I believe the positive benefits outweigh the inconvience

Since supposidly the 3D Blu-Ray standard is display nuetral and can work with both polarized and shutter glasses I wonder if it also could be adapted to auto-stereo displays without needing to again rebuy our movies.

[Wollan]

3D blu-rays works totally fine on auto-stereoscopy. As you said yourself, the standard is display/tech agnostic.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Wollan

3D blu-rays works totally fine on auto-stereoscopy. As you said yourself, the standard is display/tech agnostic.

Thats good to here. But I figure by the time auto-stero is viable something better then Blu-Ray (a 2160p format) will be avalible. Both are many years away.

[zoon_ii]

it'll have to be something higher than 1080 p if according to what this article says is true.

I can follow the logic behind what it is saying. I'm taking from it that in order to provide a wide viewing angle, the tv has to project multitple views to different directions at once, so needing the extra pixels is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the 1080 p sharpness we're now becoming accustomed to.

Philips
unveiled a killer new 3D HDTV at the 3D Biz Ex event in Hollywood earlier this week, with a hefty price tag to boot.

The 56″ Quad Full (3840×2160 resolution), autostereoscopic 3D HD TV does not require special glasses to be viewed and has a 160 degree viewing angle.

Put simply, autostereoscopic displays work by projecting a different image into each eye, though there are a range of technologies which can be employed to achieve this effect. The Philips TV boasts 46 simultaneous views, seen depending on the angle the viewer is watching from.

The 8.29 megapixel monster will cost in the region of US$25,000 and will initially be targeted at businesses rather than home users. Philips does hope that 3D HDTV will eventually become a consumer product, however, and have been working hard to ensure that content is available to take advantage of their hardware. Their 3DWow technology facilitates the conversion of regular HD movies to 3D and will be promoted heavily along with the TV.

Read more at Wired and you can also visit the Philips 3D website for more information on their projects.