3d tv

[Julohan]

My parents were touring a big electronics maker. I won't say the name. They went to the display and R&D centers there. They said something about 3d tv's. Now, I know the televisions will be 3d. But, will bluray support this or will this be another format?

[Killigath]

3D TV's means that they are ready for 3D. I own a Samsung DLP myself and its 3D ready. As it stands you have to have a PC hooked up to your TV in order to view stereo 3D. You have to buy a transponder and 3D shutter glasses for it to work too (like Tridef.com's solution).

There is no current blu-ray player but several companies are working on one. The biggest hurdle in all this is content. There just aren't that many regular DVD's produced in 3D and the ones that are tend to be IMAX documentaries or cheesy movies like Spy Kids.

All that said, HD 3D is on the horizon. I would say in the next year to 2 years it will be here. If you are in the market for a TV and are interested in 3D, go ahead and get a 3D ready TV.

If you are interested in S-3D Gaming / Video you can read more at www.mtbs3d.com

[Julohan]

So this technology won replace bluray. It will be an add on to the bluray disc on player?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Julohan

So this technology won replace bluray. It will be an add on to the bluray disc on player?

Current Blu-ray players will support red+blue encoded 3D (not the best type) - and there's a similar type of glasses that should work on the Journey to the Centre of the Earth 2D+3D Blu-ray title (assuming you don't get ripped off with a 2d only version - the 3d version is time limited ).

The above type encode the left+right into one picture (eg. using red+blue or similar).

Companies are working on new Blu-ray players that will support a better version of 3D. Another company is trying to put their 3D tech as a firmware upgrade to the Playstation 3. There are 3D groups working to make a 3D standard for Blu-ray too (players, content...).

[mattym]

Philips were demoing a 3d tv that you dont require glasses for. Most impressive! http://www.research.philips.com/tech...ov_3ddisp.html

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by mattym

Philips were demoing a 3d tv that you dont require glasses for. Most impressive! http://www.research.philips.com/tech...ov_3ddisp.html

It looks good. In that page they're also advocating converting 2D content to 3D:

Originally Posted by Article

Automated 2D-to-3D conversion

These tools rely on automatic depth computation from the ordinary video by analysing the image – motion, luminance, texture differences - and estimating a depth map. Based on the quality of the computed depth map, the appropriate depth gain is applied to create the 3D effect. The easy-to-use tools allow designers to profit from their creativity in content creation by automating a large part of the work with no compromise in high-quality standards.

I doubt very much that would create accurate 3D, and it seems sort of like how 'super-upconverting technology can seemingly create 'create full 1080p video from SD video'. I don't think that (guess-work 3D from a 2D source) could be any where near as accurate or good as proper, real 3D.

Originally Posted by Article

Verification of the complete broadcast chain for the 3D format based on to 2D-plus-depth - from production to distribution and reception – is key for 3D television to enter the consumer market.

2D-plus-depth seems to me to be similar in a way to a height map in computer graphics.
See this quote from wikipedia about the advantages of a voxel over a height map:

Most commonly, voxel terrain is used instead of a heightmap because of its ability to represent overhangs, caves, arches, and other 3D terrain features. These concave features would not be possible in a heightmap due to only the top 'layer' of data being rendered, leaving the bottom layer (making up the inside of said caves, or the underside of arches or overhangs) not to be displayed.

So to me, those are the sorts of things that the Phillips system would not be able to accurately store or display in 3D (which is why storing 3D as 2 or more separate streams would probably be a better system than the Phillips' one I think - or use voxels instead but that would probably use much too much memory/resources and would probably only work properly for CGI not live action).