Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony To Launch 3D TVs By Late 2010

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the some-reclicking-may-be-necessary dept.

Displays 249

eldavojohn writes "The Financial Times is reporting that Sony is announcing 3D TVs for late 2010 at the IFA technology trade show in Berlin. It's another glasses-based technology with "active shutter" being employed (the same stuff teased at CES as well as employed on NVIDIA's glasses). Expect to see 3D Bravia television sets, Vaio laptops, PS3s and Blu-ray disc players compatible with this technology."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

porn (5, Interesting)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | about 5 years ago | (#29299475)

3D porn, anyone ?

Rob Malda's hung like a toddler (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299505)

His cock is mighty tiny I tells ya. Last night at the glory hole I thought I was sucking off a 2 year old with a merkin on until I realized it was CmdrTaco.

Re:Rob Malda's hung like a toddler (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 5 years ago | (#29299579)

Sheesh. Typical Mac user. Take your filth back to the bathhouses and porta-potty glory holes, ya sicko.

Re:Rob Malda's hung like a toddler (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300399)

GTFO back to 4chan. They need to reinforce the fences, or electrify them or something, goddamned fucking /b/tards keep managing to escape out to the rest of the internet, tracking their filthy footprints all over the place..

Re:porn (1)

Velox_SwiftFox (57902) | about 5 years ago | (#29299547)

This is drearily likely to be the driving force behind the growth of the technology.

Look at history. Video cassettes, the Internet, silicone rubber formulae...

Re:porn (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 5 years ago | (#29299863)

This is drearily likely to be the driving force behind the growth of the technology. Look at history. Video cassettes, the Internet, silicone rubber formulae...

It would be closer to the truth to say that Disney's support of VHS put a VCR in every home.

Re:porn (3, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 5 years ago | (#29300271)

driving force behind the growth of the technology.

Freud: "Too easy"

Re:porn (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300467)

Me to Freud: "Just like your wife."

Re:porn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299607)

3D porn, anyone ?

I can't wait to see shemale porn in 3d. That would be awesome.

Hrmm (2, Interesting)

acehole (174372) | about 5 years ago | (#29299523)

I saw a couple of 3D tvs shown at a tradeshow I went to about a month ago. There were two different types, one I looked at closely had a different type of glass on the front which made the image behind 3D. The other by sony didnt have it as far as I could see and looked just like a normal TV.

Sucks to be me though, I've got a dominate eye so I can't see the 3D stuff. Just looks like an out of tune tv. Guess i've got that to look forward to when they go mainstream :P

Re:Hrmm (1)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | about 5 years ago | (#29299591)

I'm the same way, practically blind in my right eye. If someone could explain the difference to me, say compare whay a full HD tv would look like by a 3D tv, that would be great.

Re:Hrmm (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 5 years ago | (#29299605)

Sucks to be me though, I've got a dominate eye so I can't see the 3D stuff. Just looks like an out of tune tv. Guess i've got that to look forward to when they go mainstream :P

Um, almost all of the population has a "dominant eye" with a very small fraction having no ocular dominance at all [wikipedia.org] . I haven't had the chance to demo any of these technologies but if you're asserting that ocular dominance renders them useless then I think Sony's market is drastically small. I'm not an optometrist but are you saying you experience ocular dominance far more than the average person? To a debilitating extent?

Re:Hrmm (1)

acehole (174372) | about 5 years ago | (#29299679)

To clarify, one eye is significantly weaker than the other to the point I can't read things if I close my other eye to see out of it. My vision primarily is out of the one eye.

Re:Hrmm (1, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about 5 years ago | (#29299701)

Try glasses or contact lenses.

Re:Hrmm (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 5 years ago | (#29299843)

Kind of an idiotic thing to say, really. While they do help many, corrective lenses are certainly not a panacea (nor are the surgical options, which for many of us don't even exist). Like many, my vision with corrective lenses is extremely poor in one eye. Looking at "3D" is not only ineffective, it gives me a blinding headache. Probably there are enough people for whom this is true that "3D" display technology based on 2D devices will fail in the marketplace.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about 5 years ago | (#29299949)

I wear glasses, and one of my eyes is significantly worse than the other one (I also sometimes use contact lenses, but I really like glasses).

If it's impossible to correct vision in one of your eyes, then it sucks to be you. But most people still can use 3D-glasses with contact lenses or regular glasses.

Re:Hrmm (4, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | about 5 years ago | (#29300587)

If it's impossible to correct vision in one of your eyes, then it sucks to be you.

Insensitive clod.

Re:Hrmm (2, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 5 years ago | (#29299967)

Probably there are enough people for whom this is true that "3D" display technology based on 2D devices will fail in the marketplace.

Just as red/green status and traffic lights have failed because of the wide prevalence of red/green colorblindness?

It's a binocular world out there, and I don't think the rate of anomalous depth perception is high enough to change that.

Re:Hrmm (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 5 years ago | (#29300235)

Bad example -- the colors of traffic lights are not the only cue, the position also informs. There will be no widespread adoption of 3D displays until they get holovision working right. Stereo vision != 3D, it's just a simulation (tied to silly looking glasses) and thus it will remain a novelty.

Re:Hrmm (4, Interesting)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about 5 years ago | (#29300313)

> It's a binocular world out there...

It really isn't. Binocular stereopsis is not the most important depth cue that human vision uses, it's just a fairly compelling one that's easy to produce mechanically. Real-world vision uses a combination of relative size, parallax and relative motion, illumination, focus, and binocular cues to figure out depth information. There are one-eyed folks out there with excellent depth perception, and two-eyed folks with poor depth perception. Almost all of the depth action is visual-cortex post-processing.

One of the causes of eyestrain from typical binocular 3D systems is that the images mix up the binocular and focal cues -- the binocular info says that the stuff is a few meters in front of you, but the focal cue says it's all in the same plane.

I personally seem to be sensitive to the focal cue, for some reason -- I seem to get full-on migraines from ViewMaster[tm]-style binocular 3D viewers, and noticeable eyestrain from desktop-scale 3D systems, but can watch theatrical 3D movies comfortably, which I think is due to the differing screen sizes and distances.

Re:Hrmm (2, Informative)

spazdor (902907) | about 5 years ago | (#29300735)

It could be that 3d films are intentionally shot with depth of field [wikipedia.org] which is chosen to mimic the focus of a human eye.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#29300167)

You should have said "I am mostly blind in one eye" instead of "I have a dominant eye." This would clear up the confusion.

Re:Hrmm (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 years ago | (#29299821)

There's different degrees of dominance. He's probably got an extreme case where the other eye is mostly disregarded by the brain, possibly because it's defective. The eye, I mean.

Re:Hrmm (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29300297)

It's not defective, it's just that the eye is generating 32-bit values and the brain is expecting 16-bit ones, so there's an overflow and it aborts.

Re:Hrmm (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29300277)

My ex-wife has strabismus [wikipedia.org] , which is probably what the GP was referring to. She couldn't see 3D either.

Re:Hrmm (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29299889)

Everyone has a dominate eye.

Projectors? (3, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about 5 years ago | (#29299975)

What I don't understand is why we are not seeing cheap 3d for projectors using polarized glasses. It would take less than $20 worth of parts to take a standard projector and make it a 3d projector. Just replace the spinning color wheel on the projector with one that has the same colors twice with different polarizers on each side.

This cheapo solution of course lowers the luminance and requires either a slower color wheel or twice the frame rate on the DLP. for a little more money you could even recapture the lost luminance, but it would be simpler to use a brighter bulb. Neither of those are serious issues because projector luminance has more than doubled for the same price in the last few years, and so have color wheel speeds, so it's a tiny degredadation to use 3-d mode. Moreover it's demostrably tolerable to viewers since there are people who sell retrofits for projectors (that go over the front of the lens) that do exactly that. But the retrofit approach is expensive compared to just changing out the color wheel.

The question then is how do you drive it but that's all a software issue.

Re:Projectors? (4, Interesting)

Snowspinner (627098) | about 5 years ago | (#29300737)

Because you need a screen that will reflect the light back in a polarized fashion. In film terms, you're talking about a screen with silver crystals in it for reflectivity. But those screens are enormously fragile - which is part of why 3-D keeps flopping over in theaters - if one person throws their drink at the screen, or even touches it, the screen is wrecked for good and needs to be replaced.

That's not technology suitable for home usage. Which is why home systems have always been based on field sequential systems of 3-D.

It's not 3D (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 5 years ago | (#29299595)

Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.

Re:It's not 3D (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29299719)

Yeah, I saw the title and thought "wow, holograms". Instead they have glasses with shutters? Far less practical and realistic-looking than polarized lenses.

I already have a "3D TV" (actually, as you say, stereo), and an old videotape with a "3D" movie. Of course, it's the old red/green stereo technology.

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299735)

You obviously don't work in marketing.

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299827)

Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.

If the "money shot" makes me duck, I'll consider it 3D.

Re:It's not 3D (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29299905)

The 3D on this TV is so good that not only will the money shot make you duck, it'll give you an STD too.

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300121)

When the hell is the money shot ever directed towards the one filming?

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300299)

In 3D porn.

(Seriously. I have such a video.)

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299877)

Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.

The term "3D" predates home computers by decades. Although not technically accurate it's a legitimate marketing term. If you called it "Stereo TV" most people would assume Stereo Sound not picture. The average person wouldn't have a clue what you meant by Stereo Picture but everyone knows what you mean by a 3D picture. Holographic displays have been promised for decades but it's still a long way off from making an appearance in your living room. 3D displays are possible with current technology.

Re:It's not 3D (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | about 5 years ago | (#29299919)

Correct. This is 3D, by the notable Johnny Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

True 3D involves more than just a screen and glasses, and I doubt it would work for several people. Unless, of course, they can send a different images to different angles or use the glasses as the actual screens.

What we have now is just an illusion of depth. It's not even a new concept, it's just that the glasses aren't colored anymore, and became way more expensive.

I understand "active shutter" is a different execution of the concept, but it has been done already and did not become popular. It's too gimmicky...

Re:It's not 3D (1)

GameMaster (148118) | about 5 years ago | (#29300123)

Actually, it works just fine. They use a similar technique in the new 3d projectors theaters have been installing for movies like James Cameron's Avatar. They use passively polarized glasses instead of the active shutter glasses in this article, but it's the same basic effect. They wouldn't be wasting the money to install them if a significant portion of the population wasn't capable of seeing the effect.

Of course, for dynamic content like video games, you could increase the effect dramatically by pairing it with head tracking technology like that demonstrated by Johnny Lee. In fact, there's even an Open Source project called FreeTrack that uses standard webcams and simple LED circuits to do exactly that at extremely low costs. They've had a stable release version out for a while now.

Actually it can be (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about 5 years ago | (#29300003)

Unless I can move my head to look around something, it's not 3D. If they want to call it 'stereo' TV, that's fine, but it's not 3D.

Well even a hologram goes away when you move past the film. What you mean is you want the image to change depending on your position in the room up to a point (where you are behind the hologram).

And indeed some TVs can do this. the ones with linticular lenses in principle can offer different views to different parts of the room. the stero headsets however don't.

Re:It's not 3D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300019)

Hello, I'm a typical Slashdot pendant. I'm also one of those people who whine when I see "Episode IV" at the start of the Star Wars crawler.

Re:It's not 3D (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29300085)

Fine, then you an the 8 other people can sit around and hurumph about how it's not technically true while the rest of us(mostly) enjoy the new technology.

Exactly the kind of attitude that makes for a developer that's difficult to work with.

Re:It's not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300723)

Actually, you can do both. Just because someone comes up with something cool, doesn't mean you can't call them on their bullshit.

Re:It's not 3D (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 5 years ago | (#29300117)

With a decent 3D display and the video cameras they are now pushing for consoles, a single-player experience really -could- be 3D. I'm talking about the Johnny Lee demo where he moves around and the camera tracks his head, changing the angle of everything on the TV.

With a really, really good 3D display they could do it for multiple players. But I don't really see that happening any time soon.

Re:It's not 3D (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#29300185)

Wrong. Depth is the third "D", and this tech provides depth perception.

Re:It's not 3D (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29300345)

That would be stupid for a TV anyway. Everyone in the room would see a different angle of the broadcast.

Yay! (3, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 5 years ago | (#29299613)

And, of course, there is a industry-wide, agreed upon standard for the 3D encoding and formats, right? Right??

Re:Yay! (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#29299703)

Yes .... Blueray 3D and HD 3D!

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299743)

C'mon, of course there is. This is Sony we're talking about, after all.

Re:Yay! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29300515)

So, is it Memory3D or 3Dstick? Or 3DStickPro? Or... (list goes on and on)

Re:Yay! (1)

Rolgar (556636) | about 5 years ago | (#29300205)

If their machine works, and wins the format war, it will BECOME the industry standard, and everyone will have to license the right to use their formats.

Thing is, I don't want a 3D TV. I want my 2d setup until we get holographic 3D that you can move around and choose your own perspective.

Re:Yay! (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29300427)

holographic 3D that you can move around and choose your own perspective.

Producers would probably hate that. They're trying to perfect the angle of the shot, but only one person can actually see it from that angle because you have to be in the exact middle of the viewing area in order to see it. Plus, any sort of distance shot would be un-viewable from anywhere significantly off-center because the target of the scene would be out of the picture at that angle. They'd have to move it into the foreground, spoiling the distance effect.

Re:Yay! (1)

dubbreak (623656) | about 5 years ago | (#29300301)

Excellent point. Sony doesn't have a good history with the industry adopting their formats or standards (e.g. beta, minidisc, ATRAC).

Personally I'll be waiting for the open standard not invented by Sony.

Re:Yay! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29300539)

You forgot their dozens of types of Memory Stick. I'm not sure but I think that all their Memory Stick types are more numerous than all the other flash memory types combined (SmartMedia, SD, CompactFlash, xD).

And yes xD is completely stupid, not only for the fact that there was already many formats of Flash media types on the market, but especially for the fact that they have both "regular" and "widescreen" memory cards.

Re:Yay! (2, Informative)

Narishma (822073) | about 5 years ago | (#29300629)

Counter examples: 3.5" floppy disc, compact disc, trinitron, bluray.

Re:Yay! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29300371)

The industry wide standard for Sony is whatever flaky new proprietary format Sony happens to be behind at the moment.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300453)

No, to avoid developing rival formats and confuse the market for 5 years, they adopted the existing free, open-source solution like they always do... ;)

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300789)

Seriously, that's the first thing I thought of, when I saw the word "Sony." It isn't going to work with anything else. If someone else were introducing it, there might be hope that it would at least be a proposed standard, or a defacto standard that a lot of vendors end up using. But it's Sony, which means it is already a dead end. Like the iPhone, it's a technological demo, perhaps even a nifty and inspiring one, but not a usable product.

Let's hope there aren't too many patents preventing the technology from advancing, so that we don't have to wait 20 years for the real deal to become available.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300805)

3D, huh? Gives new meaning to the term "Boob Tube"...

Heh Heh

My TV is already 3d.... (5, Funny)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about 5 years ago | (#29299653)

not sure what dimension you guys are living in but my tv has both width, height, AND depth. Already 3d.

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 5 years ago | (#29299781)

You want one of those modern flat-screen TVs, then.

You know, like this one [ebeaminc.com] from e Beam inc.

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#29299891)

you mean the ones that have width, height, and less depth?

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29300031)

I've been finding that TV has less and less depth for some time now...

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29300097)

Apparently you haven't seen the New Samsung ultra-ultra thin TV. Only exists on a 2d plane~

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#29300747)

not sure what dimension you guys are living in but my tv has both width, height, AND depth. Already 3d.

Does it exist in time too? If so then its 4d.

Re:My TV is already 3d.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300843)

I'm not sure which century you're from but the TVs now only have 2D with width and height. Haven't you heard about the new display technology based on strings that's just 1D?

Have they wondered... (2, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 5 years ago | (#29299659)

> It's another glasses-based technology with "active shutter" being employed.

Great, but I wonder if these companies ever think about people with eyesight problems (yes, talking about myself) who can't properly eperience glass-based 3D movies.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29299731)

What kind of eyesight problems do you have which prevent you from seeing 3D? My father is missing an eye (accident as kid), so he obviously doesn't see three-d but still can enjoy the movie.

aside -

I still have the stereoscope glasses from when I saw Disney's Lost World 3D theatrical movie. Do these things have any monetary value, or should I just toss them?

Re:Have they wondered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299879)

I still have the stereoscope glasses from when I saw Disney's Lost World 3D theatrical movie. Do these things have any monetary value, or should I just toss them?

Go hide them next to wherever you stashed your sense of self-respect and your Eagles LP's.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

Drummergeek0 (1513771) | about 5 years ago | (#29299917)

I have both of my eyes, but due to an alternating strabismus [wikipedia.org] , I have no depth perception making 3D useless. However, the effect you have to wear glasses to get I get from normal TV because that is how everything looks to me anyways.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29300449)

the effect you have to wear glasses to get I get from normal TV because that is how everything looks to me anyways.

No, you just never get the effect...

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#29299829)

I think that cinemas are realising it. A lot of people have difficulty with 3d for one reason or another. When 3d films first arrived there was no choice. Now often there are showings in 3D and showings without. My wife has a lazy eye and 3d looks as though it has a feint shadow image to her and gives her a headache.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 years ago | (#29299929)

> It's another glasses-based technology with "active shutter" being employed.

Great, but I wonder if these companies ever think about people with eyesight problems (yes, talking about myself) who can't properly eperience glass-based 3D movies.

No, what they're thinking is "we can sell a pair of glasses to EVERY VIEWER!! They won't be able to just invite the neighbors over to watch the game on their 82" TV, now the neighbors will have to buy their own 82" TV! Or buy a pair of our entirely reasonably priced 3D glasses for only $249.99 each..."

Re:Have they wondered... (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29300113)

Of course they do, but 3d movies [pack people in, so people like you are a tiny demographic.
If this is l;ike the demo I say, it will be an option built into the screen and firmware, not the only way to look at the screens.

Re:Have they wondered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300201)

If you do not have working binocular vision, then you cannot see in 3d without technology far more advanced than what is being proposed here. Beethoven wrote music that he could not hear since he knew it would be beautiful for those who could, who knows what he'd do today.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 5 years ago | (#29300283)

They also don't worry about blind people being able to see, or deaf people being able to hear. You aren't the target audience and your disability doesn't prevent you from playing the game.

Re:Have they wondered... (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 5 years ago | (#29300845)

Shutter based solutions should be equally viewable by people who are visually impaired all the way up to blind in one eye.

Ok, they only get the 2D experience. But that's all they would have got anyway, if their binocular vision is impaired.

Anaglyphic 3D would look crap to the monocular, but shutter and polarised 3D should look almost as good as the equivalent 2D presentation.

Unless Avatar changes my mind... (1)

kieran (20691) | about 5 years ago | (#29299711)

... I'm not much interested in 3D until the glasses ARE the display, to be honest. Should be great if you're doing 3D design though.

In Amerika, TV reasons for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299963)

In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."

-Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1970, Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era

And General Motors To Launch Volt in (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299749)

2011. Vaporware.

Yours in Ulyanovsk,
Kilgore T.

Glasses? Nah... (5, Interesting)

Arrawa (681474) | about 5 years ago | (#29299773)

I refuse sitting in my living room wearing those nasty 3D-glasses. I'll wait untill Philips opens up its WOWvx [wikipedia.org] department again. I've seen this live and my initial reaction was, well, WOW!

Re:Glasses? Nah... (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 5 years ago | (#29299989)

Hum, WOW. I've seen one viewer stereo TV, but here they claim multiple viewers + some foreground against background parralax. Do you know what's the tech behind it ?

Re:Glasses? Nah... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29300403)

Have you ever been to a science museum and seen the demo where they have a large concave darkened reflective surface, so it looks like you can shake hands with yourself? The basic idea is the same, but rather than reflecting light, each point on the surface emits light and you see a different subset of the pixels depending on where you are standing. Unlike glasses-based approaches, it supports multiple viewers and doesn't cause motion sickness when you move your head.

Re:Glasses? Nah... (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 5 years ago | (#29300573)

Hum I know the trick when you put a small object close to the focal point of a concave mirror and you see it appear somewhere else but you're starting with a 3d object in the first place here... how do they create the image ?

Not 3d (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 5 years ago | (#29299783)

Hum, where did I put my pedant hat... hum not here, not here... ah there we go. Hum hum

That's stereoscopic television, not 3d TV. I personally don't enjoy that much stereoscopic images, they don't look really believable to me. Stereoscopy is only one way we build a 3d model of our environment, the parallax created by our recent movements creates an accurate map too. Sure if you lose an eye, you'll have much poorer depth perception, but you won't lose it all. If you cover one eye, the world outside doesn't start looking like a TV image immediately... if you stay still for a long time it will, because you forget the parallax information you gathered.

Look at the wii headtracking videos on youtube... even though you're looking at a video of a guy simulating 3d on a video screen, it'll look 3d.

A real 3d TV would be holographic... it's waaay more complicated to make than movies this way. Rendering 3d animation in holographic format is doable but would require much more memory and rendering capabilities on the playback machine. The device is also much more complicated to build, but with 3 colored laser and a dlp system fine enough to change the phase of each pixel, it's doable.

To the point... where's my holographic tv!!

Sky TV sets or LSD? (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | about 5 years ago | (#29299853)

There was another /. comment regarding Sky doing this and attempting to lock you in to fake high definition 3D TV sets you can buy for a few thousand next year. 3D TV of the future is Hologram's The idea's are there, but you cannot do it right now and it certainly is not profitable. These ideas' have been floating around since the 1870's with stereo vision cards and glasses/lenses/photographs/viewers 3D is not new and is an alterted perception. Maybe dropping a few LSD tablets would be acceptable to be 3D. Thankfully I to see things without distortion :)

Re:Sky TV sets or LSD? (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29300329)

I'm sorry, but your post annoyed me so much I'm going to have to give you an Unwanted education [angryflower.com] . I hope English isn't your native language.

details that were omitted (5, Funny)

jjeffries (17675) | about 5 years ago | (#29299867)

The Sony 3D TV will only play back Beta tapes and DRM-ed content off Memory Sticks(TM), and it will install a rootkit on every device in your house before committing seppuku.

Re:details that were omitted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300055)

what!?

no Blu ray? stingy bar stewards.

Re:details that were omitted (2, Interesting)

mnky-33 (1293220) | about 5 years ago | (#29300585)

Actually Sony is one of the few companies which have changed their ways. Most of their tech is fairly open and compatible, they've got better since the rootkit fiasco.

this is to slow you form copying and recording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29299909)

thats all end of storey and remember the SONY ROOTKIT

Polarized will always win - iz3d (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 5 years ago | (#29299931)

http://www.iz3d.com/ [iz3d.com] is glasses-based, but it's polarized light instead of shutters. I think motion sickness is a bigger risk with shuttered glasses. Polarized light looks better, feels better, and costs $300.

I want one of these :)

Why binocular "stereo" approaches WILL fail (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 5 years ago | (#29300033)

This tech will fail because simply sending two image streams isn't good enough -- it encodes assumptions about eye spacing, viewing distance and angle that are too restrictive. People aren't going to jump for a system that shows you a distorted and headache-inducing scene if you aren't sitting precisely in front of the center of the screen.

I've tried out a more sophisticated system that generates five points of view (from a 3D model) and fans them out with optics that don't require glasses. This greatly reduces the viewing-angle problem -- but it STILL sucks, because shifting between discrete views as you move your head is too disorienting, and because with current tech generating five views reduces your resolution by a factor of 5.

Real 3D won't dominate until it's being fed to a head-mounted display (or the equivalent), and/or we're shipping true 3D data (not just two fixed viewpoints).

True Volumetric Displays (2, Interesting)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 5 years ago | (#29300053)

Will we ever have that trope of nearly every near-future sci-fi story - the true volumetric display [wikipedia.org] with an image that appears in midair like a living statue made out light, no eyeglasses, panes of glass, contact lenses, volatile gases, or brain implants required? Is there anything in the labs today that make this a true definitely-maybe-keep-your-hopes-up-sure-to-have-it-twenty-years-from-now technology, like fusion reactors?

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!

The technology is all fine and dandy... (1)

shock1970 (1216162) | about 5 years ago | (#29300145)

but until they create a COMFORTABLE set of glasses that can rest on my face, there's no fricken way I'm buying into any of it!

DLP has had "3d" for years (1)

falzbro (468756) | about 5 years ago | (#29300171)

DLP has had 3d [dlp.com] for a long time. I think my TV has it. This is an interesting trick [youtube.com] . Other than that, no one cares.

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300285)

Man, Acid has made my TV 3d for years. And it only cost $5!

All I can say is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300323)

W007z0R 4 Xtreme Pronz!

Program support? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 years ago | (#29300483)

And who exactly is going to be creating programming to watch on these so-called 3DTV's? Anyone? Bueller? Will I be able to watch Mythbusters in 3D this fall? Next fall? Fall of 2020 even?

Do we really need Rootkit mentioned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29300691)

Seriously? I know it's good LOLZ for a lot of you, but in what way does the Electronics arm of Sony have to do with Sony's music department? And in what way does it relate to something that happened a good number of years ago??

I think I'm going to start mentioning the fact Nintendo killed the GameGenie by suing them into oblivion. Because apparently WE CANT LET THINGS GO. I mean sure it happened before a lot of people were probably born here, but it's still relevant, right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>