3D no glasses

[donaldsonjune]

hello all,

anyone see the commercial with the gaming system that had the 3d tech with no glasses? how long before this tech gets to hdtv's?

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by donaldsonjune

hello all,

anyone see the commercial with the gaming system that had the 3d tech with no glasses? how long before this tech gets to hdtv's?

That's the Nintendo 3DS, it's not that impressive really.

[Leopold BUTTERS]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

That's the Nintendo 3DS, it's not that impressive really.

That doesn't really answer his question

[jj5206]

it is going to be a while until this technology is going to be implemented into 3DTV's. The 3D effect on the 3DS looks great and actually works, but the problem is is that you need to be within a certain area for the 3D to work. If you are a little to the left or right then the picture will look blurry. That is why this hasn't been put into TV's yet because companies currently cannot find a way around this. So one person in that "sweet spot" would have a good 3D effect but everyone else would be seeing a blurry picture...

[NewOrder79]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

That's the Nintendo 3DS, it's not that impressive really.

Agree

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

That's the Nintendo 3DS, it's not that impressive really.

It was cool, but it was more or less depth than actual Avatar-style 3D.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by donaldsonjune

hello all,

anyone see the commercial with the gaming system that had the 3d tech with no glasses? how long before this tech gets to hdtv's?

a long time and IMHO possibly never. The issue is that such a system needs to project the right image in the right location so that your right eye sees the right image and the left one the left one. For Laptops, hand held device, where you have one person watching it head on, it is a relatively easy task and that is why some use glasses free 3D in that way. But a TV room or HT room, means several people seated at different locations and that either means people need to be at the right place or the right place needs to be any where the person sits. None of which is easy.
.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a long time and IMHO possibly never. The issue is that such a system needs to project the right image in the right location so that your right eye sees the right image and the left one the left one. For Laptops, hand held device, where you have one person watching it head on, it is a relatively easy task and that is why some use glasses free 3D in that way. But a TV room or HT room, means several people seated at different locations and that either means people need to be at the right place or the right place needs to be any where the person sits. None of which is easy.
.

It's possible. I have the theory of having some of the pixels as spheres, but that's a WHOLE 'nother story.

But researchers at MIT have created "parallax-barrier 3D" which pretty much eliminates the two-sides blurryness of the 3DS!

Edit: Damn it! I had that theory and MIT stole it. Crap, I need to go there. I have a bunch more. Unless someone steals it

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a long time and IMHO possibly never. The issue is that such a system needs to project the right image in the right location so that your right eye sees the right image and the left one the left one. For Laptops, hand held device, where you have one person watching it head on, it is a relatively easy task and that is why some use glasses free 3D in that way. But a TV room or HT room, means several people seated at different locations and that either means people need to be at the right place or the right place needs to be any where the person sits. None of which is easy.
.

I wouldn't say never, because technology is constantly changing and at a very fast rate. So the way 3D is produced and shown will change as well, and this will incorporate 3D without glasses so that everyone can watch it, and no just one person like at the moment.

But it is one of those things that'll take time to develop properly, but I do believe that by the end of this decade there will be a way of showing 3D without glasses, or at least the beginning of such a thing.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Jezza

I wouldn't say never, because technology is constantly changing and at a very fast rate. So the way 3D is produced and shown will change as well, and this will incorporate 3D without glasses so that everyone can watch it, and no just one person like at the moment.

But it is one of those things that'll take time to develop properly, but I do believe that by the end of this decade there will be a way of showing 3D without glasses, or at least the beginning of such a thing.

ITT: ^^^Look up!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

It's possible. I have the theory of having some of the pixels as spheres, but that's a WHOLE 'nother story.

But researchers at MIT have created "parallax-barrier 3D" which pretty much eliminates the two-sides blurryness of the 3DS!

Edit: Damn it! I had that theory and MIT stole it. Crap, I need to go there. I have a bunch more. Unless someone steals it

parallax-barrier and lenticular lenses are nothing new. Again the issue is not making it, but making it work in real life. You can go back several years and look at articles about both those techs. And for extremely expensive medical/scientific displays product already exists. The issue is that such displays have N sweet spots where it works . And for watching movies/TV at home people won't buy a TV and then need to arrange the furniture and sit at specific locations for it to work.

That is why I think never has a good chance of happening. This would either need a hell of a lot of sweat spots that don’t interfere and work with stereoscopy (and not multi-scopy like the Epson example to reduce interference in a nine view system) or be able to be tailor made and modifiable for the surroundings.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jezza

I wouldn't say never, because technology is constantly changing and at a very fast rate.

agree, that is why I used possibly

So the way 3D is produced and shown will change as well, and this will incorporate 3D without glasses so that everyone can watch it, and no just one person like at the moment.

shown maybe but produced, it does not need to. As long as you have two images it does not matter how it is displayed.

But it is one of those things that'll take time to develop properly, but I do believe that by the end of this decade there will be a way of showing 3D without glasses, or at least the beginning of such a thing.

maybe, but the issue with a decade is that it basically means that right now no one is even close to knowing how it can be done. And that is the issue. Everyone is working on it, since it would be the holly grail of 3D but by the same token it is not a tech one but a social one. Let's take a couch: two hetero guys sitting on that couch will leave a few inches between them; A couple might be leaning against each other with their heads touching (or almost touching); there might be 5 small kids on that couch. Obviously in all these scenarios the location of the eyes will be different on the horizontal frame.

That is why I think it is important that people realize that it is far away and the possibility of never.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

parallax-barrier and lenticular lenses are nothing new. Again the issue is not making it, but making it work in real life. You can go back several years and look at articles about both those techs. And for extremely expensive medical/scientific displays product already exists. But the RECENT study at MIT already solves much of the issue. Even Sony had a tech demo where you can actually look at a 3d screen from a 360 degree angle.The issue is that such displays have N sweet spots where it works . And for watching movies/TV at home people won't buy a TV and then need to arrange the furniture and sit at specific locations for it to work. Already aware of this.

That is why I think never has a good chance of happening. This would either need a hell of a lot of sweat spots that don’t interfere and work with stereoscopy (and not multi-scopy like the Epson example to reduce interference in a nine view system) or be able to be tailor made and modifiable for the surroundings. I'm not sure what sweat spots are but that just sounds nasty. The fact is that it's possible. Like the one I told at MIT, it would basically be an lcd screen with two layers. And the way it's configured it virtually creates millions of point to give the 3D perspective.

Because the slits are oriented in so many different directions, the 3D illusion is consistent, no matter whether the image is upright or rotated 90 degrees. Adding more perspectives changes the pattern of the slits, but allows just as much light to pass.


HR3D

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, that is why I used possibly



shown maybe but produced, it does not need to. As long as you have two images it does not matter how it is displayed.


maybe, but the issue with a decade is that it basically means that right now no one is even close to knowing how it can be done. And that is the issue. Everyone is working on it, since it would be the holly grail of 3D but by the same token it is not a tech one but a social one. Let's take a couch: two hetero guys sitting on that couch will leave a few inches between them; A couple might be leaning against each other with their heads touching (or almost touching); there might be 5 small kids on that couch. Obviously in all these scenarios the location of the eyes will be different on the horizontal frame.

That is why I think it is important that people realize that it is far away and the possibility of never.

What the hell does orientation have to do with anything?

[Anthony P]

Technical:


The issue is this. Lets' take a simple example, one person view like the DS and a lenticular (the same for PB) lens.




or
parallax barrier



now what happens if you sit a bit off an now the left eye is where the right eye is located in this mage? the left eye will see the right image so that is wrong. And how about the right eye? well either it also sees the right image and so 2D or it gets even more messed up.

and this is a simple one person example.
For multiple people you need more views so instead of two (A/B)

you need more images. Now some like Epson (that I mentioned above) did have an idea


to fix some of the issue (i.e. what if the left eye is where the right eye should be.

but the issue is that something like this would require

1) Epson used 8, but why not 9 or 10 or 20
2) that things be filmed for 8 or 9 or 10 or 20 views from the get go (unless it is games where maybe the console could create all the views it needs)
3) that the display have 8 x more pixels (i.e. instead of 1080x1920 1080 x 15360)
4) you would be limited to 6 locations (i.e. 1-3,2-4,3-5,4-6,5-7, 6-8)
5) each of those 5 locations would see something different
6) but 5 locations does not mean 5 seats obviously 3-5 & 5-7 & 4-6 can't be all at the same place
7) the width changes the farther you go so that angle will only work for a specific range/distance from the screen.
DE<<AC so the eyes won’t be at the right place.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

What the hell does orientation have to do with anything?

because if it was two gay guys that where a couple and cuddling that would fall in the second category of couples. I also find guys (at least for Hetero) in general need more space then girls between them. So before someone would respond two guys could be cuddling while watching a film I wanted to exclude it from that category.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

because if it was two gay guys that where a couple that could fall in the second category of couples. I also find guys in general need more space then girls. So before someone would say two guys could be cuddeling while watching a film I wanted to exclude it.

Who said gay guys would cuddle? That's kind of stereotyping. What if the gay guys were just friends? Have you never heard of bromance? Plenty of guys that sit close to each other. And you seem to be judging it off western culture. Guys are a lot closer in other countries than in the west. Some guys kiss each other on the cheek. Have you not seen George W. Bush holding hands with Aarfat (err, I think I have the name wrong).

You know they do sell tvs in other coutries right?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

...HR3D

You can beleive what you want. Again, glasses free TVs for none-movie watching that cost a fortune already exist and are used in for medical and scientific purposes. That does not make them suitable even if someone was willing to spend the cash for movie watching. Do you wonder why they include an odd still image and not something captured by a film? why it is not talking of how many viewers can sit in the room and watch that film? because this is completely useless for that.


hey look



I guess that means flying cars are just around the corner

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You can beleive what you want. Again, glasses free TVs for none-movie watching that cost a fortune already exist and are used in for medical and scientific purposes. That does not make them suitable even if someone was willing to spend the cash for movie watching. Do you wonder why they include an odd still image and not something captured by a film? why it is not talking of how many viewers can sit in the room and watch that film? because this is completely useless for that.


hey look



I guess that means flying cars are just around the corner

Why are you getting so defensive? You're not making any sense at all.

If you read on it, it does talk of multiple users.

Second, you're throwing straws. Flying cars have nothing to do with 3DTVs. First, they're expensive. Second, you'd have to change entire infrastructures for them to be practical. Just like how those plug-in hybrids are having a hardtime lifting off becuase you need to plug them in. And they wont' survive long trips.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

Who said gay guys would cuddle?

not me, I said two heteros won't be cuddeling while watching a movie.

What if the gay guys were just friends? Have you never heard of bromance?

you don't need to be gay to have a bromance (actualy wouldn't they need to be htetero), it is a derogatory term for two guys that have a close friendship. As for if they where just friends, I have a couple of gay friends but I was never into any gay circles so if the distance is as important for them as heteros I am not sure.

Originally Posted by linkgx1

Who said gay guys would cuddle?

not me, I said two heteros won't be cuddling while watching a movie.

What if the gay guys were just friends? Have you never heard of bromance?

you don't need to be gay to have a bromance (actualy wouldn't they need to be htetero), it is a derogatory term for two guys that have a close friendship. As for if they where just friends, I have a couple of gay friends but I was never into any gay circles so if the distance is as important for them as heteros I am not sure.

Plenty of guys that sit close to each other. And you seem to be judging it off western culture. Guys are a lot closer in other countries than in the west.

well then add western hetero guys if it makes you happier does it realy matter? people cuddling can be very close to each other, some young kids on the same couch (but at a different time) would be a bit farther from each other, and an other time two adults leaving a few inches between them because they are not a couple and they want their personal space might be a bit more further no matter what that person space is depending on cultural differences would be even greater.

Some guys kiss each other on the cheek

yeah where did I stipulate otherwise? what does that have anything to do with anything? We are assuming people are sitting on a couch watching a 3D film.