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!

Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the do-it-without-the-glasses dept.

143

Engadget recently had a chance to try out Panasonic's 3D demo rig, and, aside from the goofy glasses, report some impressive results. "Active shutter 3D technology once again did not fail to impress, though large format action content like the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony and action sports footage was far more impressive than the movie trailer. The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it and nothing makes that more apparent than video from a large stadium. Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout, the framerate was smooth and the picture sharp, a marked difference from the jittery motion we witnessed during JVC's 3D demo earlier in the day."

cancel ×

143 comments

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

3D (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29393331)

This all 3D-to-the-eyes is an old trick, but over the past year I've started to think that now theres actually good technology available for it.

I purchased myself the NVIDIA 3D Vision [nvidia.com] and played with it on various games. My favourite game for the past year has been left4dead and the 3D effect on it is really outstanding - everything looks so much scarier and you actually feel like being there.

The old cheap tricks are quite obsolote now as tech has improvent. But the future of gaming and movies surely is in this 3D and "be there" experience. Even MS and Sony have admitted that just pushing megapixels and polygony amount isn't the best thing, as they're at their maximum already anyway. We always see these things in movies, but the technology isn't really far from there now.

Now the only thing is about making it convenient for end users.

Re:3D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393409)

hell yeah. now when black people who are 13% of the population appear in 90% of artificially diverse socially engineered commericals, it'll feel like they are really here in my living room! now wait for the legions of kneejerk slashdotters to assume i have a problem with black people. because if you don't want to see a group of people used as pawns and puppets in some social engineering game, if you reject all forms of social engineering as the manipulation that they represent no matter how "good" their stated goals might be, and if you think choosing actors because they are black does not lead to the colorblind society we'd like to live in, then you must be a racist right?

Re:3D (3, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | about 5 years ago | (#29393479)

Nice segue.

Re:3D (1, Interesting)

jayme0227 (1558821) | about 5 years ago | (#29393511)

See, it's not the fact that you're against social engineering that makes you a racist. It's the fact that you chose to use this forum to attempt to display your hatred for social engineering. It's the fact that you chose to talk about race in your out-of-place hatred of social engineering. It's the fact that, instead of talking about 3D technology, you're stuck talking about how you're not a racist. Just face it. You're a racist. Most of us are, especially those of us who come from small towns where racial integration is basically nonexistant. When I think back to my time in elementary and high school and can think of the one black kid in any of my classes, you'll understand if I unintentionally treat people of different races differently, even if it's because I'm trying so hard not to.

Instead of trying so hard to deny that you're racist, you can be like me and try to fix it. Then you can talk about cool new 3D technology and how amazing it is.

PS. I just graduated high school 6 years ago. I'm not thinking back to the 60's, just to the earlier part of this decade. Also, I wasted mod points to post this response and fully expect to be rated down as off-topic. I just feel that it is that important to respond.

Re:3D (-1, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29393551)

Nothing an AC says on /. is worth responding to. Seriously.

FTR. you response was excellent.

Re:3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393645)

So you are saying that the content of a post is unimportant, the important thing is whether or not the poster has a login cookie set? Huh?

Re:3D (0, Offtopic)

earlymon (1116185) | about 5 years ago | (#29393739)

Wow. You're replying about content and expecting a reply to a reply whose content was saying to ignore ACs?

Seriously. Wow.

It's like ... like ... /. 3D - rilly.

Re:3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394371)

You replied didn't you?

Re:3D (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29393417)

You wouldn't happen to have a Final Fantasy XI account by any chance?

If you do, have you tried nVidia 3D Vision with it?

Re:3D (1)

WarlockD (623872) | about 5 years ago | (#29394217)

Whats been holding me back is the 120hz monitor. Do you need one for it?

Does not disappoint? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29393361)

Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout

Personally, I don't think the "shuttered glasses" tech will last long. I've seen 3D movies with the polarized glasses tech, and it's amazing. It might be hard to pull off with a TV, but I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it

Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.

BTW, I RTFA and there's not really any more than in the summary.

Re:Does not disappoint? (3, Insightful)

earlymon (1116185) | about 5 years ago | (#29393401)

I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

Odd idea. An LCD element - subpixel - is light-permissive, meaning a polarizing action takes place to lower the (normally) constant backlight through the aperature.

How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

Re:Does not disappoint? (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29393439)

How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast?

I'm not really sure, to be honest. But it seems not to be impossible. Actually what I'd really like is a holographic TV. We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

earlymon (1116185) | about 5 years ago | (#29393579)

But it seems not to be impossible.

Expensive though. I think LCD would be the wrong approach. I'm guessing a mask of the alternating polarization pattern laid *precisely* over the pixels of a light-emissive tech (plasma, SED) might work. (Before anyone asks - bad idea to polarize a polarizer.)

Samsung was advertising some 3D-ready tech for their DLP line on their web - for the few days before they discontinued the line and that part of their website.

We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

The holograms or the late '70s physics course? /ducks

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | about 5 years ago | (#29393939)

I have one of the Samsung 3d ready DLPs but didn't buy the hardware necessary to use the 3d tech. With all the 3d stories lately I've been wondering if my set will work with this new stuff or not.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 5 years ago | (#29393973)

Samsung was advertising some 3D-ready tech for their DLP line on their web - for the few days before they discontinued the line and that part of their website.

If money is not an issue, you could try building a 3D setup yourself with two projectors and appropriate polarization filters. And the glasses you sneaked back from that movie, of course.
You'd still have to have some 3D content though, but it should work. You can always take 2 cameras on your holiday trip... :)

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | about 5 years ago | (#29394203)

If you are lucky, you shouldn't need to sneak the glasses. Every 3D movie I've gone to in my area they hand out sturdy 'recyclable' glasses [wikipedia.org] that they never bother to collect back.

Re:Does not disappoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394623)

3dporn, 3d popup ads, 3D-Kindle Pop UP Books

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

Steve Franklin (142698) | about 5 years ago | (#29394051)

Why are we so hung up on making a 2D display look 3-dimensional? Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 5 years ago | (#29394557)

Why are we so hung up on making a 2D display look 3-dimensional? Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

I've seen it done and seen it in action. I was a bit disappointed when I read TFS and saw that this still relies on the user wearing special glasses.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394919)

Consider 2D: you can get by with, let's say, 1000 pixels for 1m of screen, and a framerate of 60Hz. That gives rise to several density figures that must be met: 1 px/mm^2, 1 Mpx framebuffer, and, most crucially for current tech, 60Mpx/s total throughput.

Now let's consider a stereoscopic version of that 2D display. The pixel density is the same, while the framerate is doubled (or vice versa, depending on which tech), the framebuffer is doubled, and the total throughput is doubled to 120 Mpx/s.

So in exchange for doubling most parameters, and adding some sort of mux/demux hardware (whether time-sliced, polarization, or whatever), what's gained? Complete coverage, from one viewpoint, of the entire pyramid from the viewpoint, through the screen plane, out to infinity. Your resolution scales with distance in a manner consistent with the visual system's capabilities. And the geometry degradation, from reasonably close viewing positions, is no worse than that with 2D displays viewed off-axis.

Finally, consider a volumetric display covering 1 cubic meter at the same resolution. Now you need a Gpx framebuffer, and 60 Gpx/s (assuming 24-bit color, that makes for 1.44 terabits/s!). In exchange for this thousand-fold increase in complexity and cost, you do eliminate the demux goggles, but you still only have imaging for a small area -- only 1m deep! Now maybe for a sitcom occurring mainly indoors, that cubical volume could work ok, but for movies, you're always going to wind up with significant amount of background, and sometimes even action, effectively "painted" on the back wall.

The strength of volumetric displays is that they're viewing-point independent; as you move your head around, you can see accurate perspective of everything. This makes them valuable for certain industrial and scientific applications, but doesn't add much to entertainment (in fact, it would drive production costs up, to avoid bloopers when viewers can look from any angle). There are also issues with opacity -- just because light is emitted from a surface doesn't mean you can't see light shining through from another deeper surface. Again, while this translucency may actually be a boon for model visualization, it's bad for entertainment.

So, frankly, there's no reason we don't create 3D displays; we do, but you can't afford them, and they don't do what you really want anyway. Since your eyes each perceive everything in 2D. multiplexing 2 channels of 2D is really the best fit for playing back artificial visual experiences.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

russotto (537200) | about 5 years ago | (#29394563)

Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

Well, there's the old rotating disc displays, with a disc which sweeps out a volume; the image is projected onto the disc. The disc is still 2D, but the light from the image to your eye is actually coming from a space, not a plane. Apparently similar things are actually used; the generic name is swept-volume volumetric display.

One could imagine a similar thing with less moving parts; perhaps a transparent substance (solid or a fluid confined in a container) which fluoresces when hit by some number of laser beams. Or a transparent substance which becomes momentarily opaque under similar circumstances, allowing it to be projected upon.

Re:Does not disappoint? (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 years ago | (#29394161)

We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

I took that same course - it was in 1978 I think. The hologram said something like "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi - you're my only hope". What was the name of that course again...

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 5 years ago | (#29393753)

How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

Double the resolution in the LCD and use fixed polarizing filters that alternate 90 degrees every other pixel (or in a pattern that minimizes jitter?) Apply a 50% duty cycle to the LCD?

(Probably more expensive than DLP or simply moving the LCD shutter movement to the glasses, but this was just a 10 second crack at how it might be possible with an LCD)

iZ3D (1)

annenk38 (163418) | about 5 years ago | (#29394827)

The technology already exists, and is already on the market. iZ3D 22" monitor retails on newegg for about $300. There are still a few problems (noticeable cross-talk) that still need to be ironed out, but given how this is the first monitor to actually hit the market I expect later editions to resolve this issue.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

chaboud (231590) | about 5 years ago | (#29394913)

I don't see what the big headache is here. If you orient the sub-pixels 90 degrees apart, you get very little cross-talk with most image patterns. You could use a wave-plate (or some other optical de-polarizer) to de-polarize and then re-polarize if you're looking to use commodity LCD panels.

Not only does this seem pretty simple, but I think it already exists.

Sadly, you'd still be wearing glasses.

Re:Does not disappoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394943)

The active component in an LCD is a layer of organic molecules which rotate the angle of polarization of light which passes through this layer. The strength of the effect, i.e. the amount by which the angle of polarization changes, depends on the orientation of the molecules. The orientation of the molecules is changed by an electric field of varying strength. Light from the backlight first passes through a polarizer, then through the liquid crystal layer, then through another polarizer. The second polarizer filters out the light which had its angle of polarization changed.

You could make an LCD with matching alternating patterns of polarization on the back and front filter. Another set of polarizing filters in the pair of glasses would then each allow only one of the two orientations through, separating the images for the left eye and the right eye.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#29393471)

BTW, I RTFA

Chump. You have a 5-digit UID, you're supposed to wait for a noob to read it and post a summary in the hope of garnering positive karma, which you could then mod down as you chortle diabolically about redundancy.

Seriously, what is the world coming to? A 5-digit UID who actually RTFAs (heretic!) and then passes along some useful information to the rest of us?

We have entered *the twilight zone*. (Do do do do, do do do do, etc)

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 5 years ago | (#29393763)

actually I think it's (ne NE ne NE, ne NE ne NE, etc.)

Re:Does not disappoint? (1, Interesting)

spun (1352) | about 5 years ago | (#29394001)

Your argument is invalid because I lost my left eye in a game of lawn darts. QED. What the hell is this about, anyway? Could someone summarize it for me? You see, due to my injury, I can only read in 2D. I promise not to mod you down, or to chortle diabolically.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

Shark (78448) | about 5 years ago | (#29394459)

I *didn't* RTFA, twice. Some of us have to stay true to tradition and make up for such heretics as that blasphemous mcgrew.

Re:Does not disappoint? (4, Interesting)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 5 years ago | (#29393509)

I've seen both polarized films and shutter glasses, and they are not the same. You might as well be watching Creature from the Black Lagoon [wikipedia.org] even with modern films. Additionally, without expensive projection equipment, the polarized technique is virtually impossible. It is no where near home ready, whereas the shutter glasses most definitely are.

Re:Does not disappoint? (3, Interesting)

rabtech (223758) | about 5 years ago | (#29394113)

Actually with DLP it isn't that hard to do the wavelength filtering that some modern cinema 3D systems are using, where the RGB components are projected twice, each with a slightly different wavelength of red, green, and blue light. Filters on either side of the glasses only let the "correct" wavelengths through. Supposedly it is a very natural-looking process, since you don't get the flickering or odd polarization effects. Oddly enough this would be easier to do with a single-chip DLP system than a three-chip system because you can split the color wheel up using the correct filters.

Re:Does not disappoint? (3, Interesting)

chenjeru (916013) | about 5 years ago | (#29395073)

Not true. I've just been to the IBC in Amsterdam and the place is chock-full of 3D tech, including screens using autostereoscopic (no glasses needed), polarized and shutter glasses. They are all coming off some flavor of LCD/plasma. Many of the polarized screens were made by Hyundai.

The main reason that we will see shutter glasses in the home (unfortunately, IMHO) is that you can easily use the same screen for both 3D and non-3D viewing - it's just alternating full-resolution frames. The polarized and autostereoscopic screens both have noticable pixel distortion or reduced resolution when viewed as 'normal' screens. Since the retailers will have to sell you a 'normal' HD screen that ALSO does 3D, the shutter glasses will almost certainly win in the near-term consumer market.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29393829)

Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.
Not only that, but I maintain that the focus being completely weird is exactly what's wrong with 3D. Your eyes try to focus on something hovering in front of the TV, and rapidly discover that that doesn't work. The result is a splitting headache.

I honestly don't get why everyone is going on about how wonderful an idea it is. It's been tried twice before and failed twice before, and my bet is that it's a fad yet again.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

asicsolutions (1481269) | about 5 years ago | (#29393899)

This exists and I saw it demoed about 5 years ago at SID in boston. It was amazing, aside from there being a few sweet spots and if you weren't there, then you loose the effect.

Re:Does not disappoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393965)

Polarized glasses are less appropriate for home viewing than shutter glasses. So long as the IR emitter the shutter glasses are syncing to has a wide enough field, shutter glasses will work better than polarized lenses if I am lying down on the couch, have my head on the shoulder of my loved one, or am just returning from the kitchen. Polarized light needs to keep certain angles between the glasses and the light emitted from the video source. When you are trapped in a chair at a movie theater this is less of a problem than when you are mucking about at home.

Signed,
A 3D Vision Researcher

Re:Does not disappoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394351)

Luckily I have the patent on shuttered contacts...

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

DomHawken (1335311) | about 5 years ago | (#29394601)

I agree that that 'the "shuttered glasses" tech' won't last - I'm old enough to remember the enchantment of getting the first issue of a 3D comic for free with Sugar Puffs back in the 70's (albeit you had to save up some tokens). You got the cardboard glasses with colored perspex and a magazine full of red and blue offset adventures of the Honey Monster - great stuff to experience and show your mates, but a one time experience then the novelty wore off very quickly. I lost the glasses under a pile of other comics pretty quickly too and the novelty factor wasn't strong enough to make me that bothered to look for them. Sugar Puffs didn't release a second installment, so I guess I wasn't the only one. The shuttered approach is the next step, but the glasses are a big barrier to general adoption. They are also nightmare for epileptics and migraine sufferers who trigger with photo-electric flashing - a small minority I know, but they are clearly not ideal. Give me a small flatbed system, with a full-colour holographic representation of the movie me an my mates can sit around and watch. Better still, give me a large one I can project into the middle of the room and sit inside. No glasses though - please.

Re:Does not disappoint? (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | about 5 years ago | (#29394777)

The concept of 2d depth of field is funny considering it only happens on the z axis.

Re:Does not disappoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394957)

they have those, saw on on display at microcenter. Was linearly polarized though, not circular like the reald.

Glasses breaks the deal for me (4, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | about 5 years ago | (#29393429)

Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 5 years ago | (#29393515)

Yes, exactly, thats why these silly "console" gaming systems will never catch on. Charging those PS3 controllers is such a hassle.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393613)

The sega master system used shutter glasses to get 3D. It worked, but was kind of a pain in the ass.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

lordofthechia (598872) | about 5 years ago | (#29393765)

Especially since it essentially halved the perceived TV refresh rate (to 30 fps) so flicker city!

Though missile defense 3D was pretty cool...

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394769)

But film is projected at 24 fps and the ntsc standard for tv has been 30 (29.97) fps for ages. 30 fps is plenty fast enough for the motion to be seen correctly in most situations.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29393527)

I do if the Movie makers are using 3d in a clever way.

I mean, you would want a remote for your tv? do you really want to have to find your remote and batteries just to watch TV?

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | about 5 years ago | (#29393975)

do you really want to have to find your remote and batteries just to watch TV?

Apples and oranges. You're asking if I'll take a small hassle (remote and batteries) over a big hassle (getting off my ass and walking over to the TV to change channels), and you're comparing it to a question about whether I'll take a small hassle (glasses and batteries) over absolutely no hassle (just watching the damn thing).

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29395139)

do you really want to have to find your remote and batteries just to watch TV?

Apples and oranges. You're asking if I'll take a small hassle (remote and batteries) over a big hassle (getting off my ass and walking over to the TV to change channels), and you're comparing it to a question about whether I'll take a small hassle (glasses and batteries) over absolutely no hassle (just watching the damn thing).

Oh, BFD. Just leave it in 2D mode until you want to make an event of watching something in particular in 3D.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 5 years ago | (#29393541)

Whatever became of those autostereoscopy displays? They eliminate glasses entirely - the struck me as being the future of 3D displays. It basically has the effect that an additional back-light modulating high-frequency LCD panel controls the incidence at which light is transmitted through subsequent colour pixel layers - thus giving you a an appropriate view of a 3D image, depending on the viewing angle.

Where has this technology gone?

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (4, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | about 5 years ago | (#29393771)

Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
-Taylor

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (2, Interesting)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 5 years ago | (#29394123)

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
-Taylor

Girls in glasses are hot. I don't know where the idea that glasses make you ugly comes from. Maybe the contact lens manufacturers.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394923)

You couldn't get non-ridiculous frames until about 1989. No lie.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 5 years ago | (#29394991)

It comes from ugly glasses. Aesthetic product design is lacking in the US below the obscenely expensive level. Of course if you have a fetish because your mother wore glasses it doesn't matter...

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (2, Interesting)

jayme0227 (1558821) | about 5 years ago | (#29394235)

I'm just waiting for the 3d glasses that work well with my current glasses. That's what sucks about the current technology. If you have glasses, you're forced to awkwardly place a second pair of glasses in front of your current pair. So instead of *just* the typical headaches and other complaints, you also have to deal with a smaller field of vision to look through and constant rubbing on your lower nose. On top of that, the "coolness" of the 3d effect is lost after about 8 seconds into the movie or show, except for the 1-2 times in which something is being thrown at the camera, but you're forced to wear the stupid glasses for the rest of the two hour movie.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (3, Insightful)

tgzuke (737692) | about 5 years ago | (#29394297)

I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room. -Taylor

Yeah, but I'm not usually trying to multitask while wearing swimming goggles, and eyeglasses don't get in the way of doing other things. Like most people, if I'm watching TV, I'm also doing other activities: cooking, browsing the Internet on my laptop, etc. So long as these 3D glasses interfere with my normal vision, they won't be a part of my entertainment system.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

amiga500 (935789) | about 5 years ago | (#29393923)

The 'free' pair of red and blue lensed glasses made any 3D movie worth going to when I was a kid. I would continue to get enjoyment from the glasses long after the movie was over. Do these LCD glasses make you look cool and give you X-Ray vision as well?

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394131)

My brother only has one eye (he had Retinoblastoma as a kid) and will never be able to use this technology. I also wear regular glasses as well and find putting more glasses on top of my existing glasses to be a pain.

Re:Glasses breaks the deal for me (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | about 5 years ago | (#29394603)

I think most people already get the idea that viewing things in 3D requires special glasse, so I hardly doubt that it would be a significant problem. Plus, people would probably use it to view only 3D-capable movies; I'm skeptical that this would be the enabler for popular sitcoms going 3D any time soon...

Except porn, but only because porn knows no bounds.

Lets get these out of the way (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29393431)

A) I have no ears and can't use them! Sucks to be yyou, there not selling to your demographic

B) I only have one Eye. Clearly they should stop developing product for people with two eyes.

C) I have problem[X]. we don't care.

D) It's not real 3d. STFU. It has Height, width and depth. 3.D. It is only 1 angle, but still 3d.

E) I don't like it! So? why do you bother posting

well, that should address 80+% of the incoming posts.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 5 years ago | (#29393593)

well, that should address 80+% of the incoming posts. You forgot the 50% of the posts containing the word "pr0n"!

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 years ago | (#29393847)

Well done for raising the pr0n average there.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29393865)

I like those posts~

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | about 5 years ago | (#29393709)

I have no ears and still wear glasses you insensitive clod! A little thing called elastic holds them to my head.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29393815)

of course, my point is that people complain about stupid and irrelevant shit when ever 3D comes up.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (2, Insightful)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | about 5 years ago | (#29394023)

You mean people will complain about stupid and irrelevant shit, regardless of what is said (i.e. my previous post).

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29393811)

It doesn't support FOSS and ....oh, fuck it.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394169)

D) It's not real 3d. STFU. It has Height, width and depth. 3.D. It is only 1 angle, but still 3d.

Of course it isnt real. I can tell by the pixels. Plus I have seen quite a few shops in my time.

Re:Lets get these out of the way (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 5 years ago | (#29394863)

Wait till they test it with goatse. I'm sure the comments will change after that.

Wireless Electric Induction? (1)

TTURabble (1164837) | about 5 years ago | (#29393443)

Couldn't they couple this with the up and coming "long(er) distance" wireless electric induction technology to set up some sort of power transmitter under your couch/bed/recliner/movie style seating so that you wouldn't ever have to keep it charged or worry about batteries?

Re:Wireless Electric Induction? (4, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 5 years ago | (#29393529)

I know I want high wattage wireless power beamed directly at my forehead. I don't know about anyone else, though.

Re:Wireless Electric Induction? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29393671)

I know I want high wattage wireless power beamed directly at my forehead. I don't know about anyone else, though.

What are you talking about? You and I were just discussing that before you...

Oh. I don't want the beam either.

Good for Alice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393461)

Now Ralph doesn't have any more excuses to put off buying her a TV!

Sweet! (3, Insightful)

longfalcon (202977) | about 5 years ago | (#29393517)

TV with added splitting headache!

Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (2, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | about 5 years ago | (#29393531)

During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (5, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 5 years ago | (#29393609)

Microsoft audio and visual appliances and Microsoft cars.

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394523)

Blue Screen of Death now in 3D!

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (1)

stillnotelf (1476907) | about 5 years ago | (#29393641)

I don't know, but you seem to be proposing that it will be Japanese...

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (3, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | about 5 years ago | (#29393785)

During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

Maybe Daewoo? They make cars and microwaves and forklifts and assault rifles, that's all you could ever want!
-Taylor

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29394189)

If I could get a forklift with a microwave and an assault rifle mounted on it, I wouldn't need the car.

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 5 years ago | (#29394261)

I have a nice Daewoo .380. Is Walther PP copy. Very nicely made.

Re:Panasonic: John Q Public's Electronics Company (1)

seandiggity (992657) | about 5 years ago | (#29393795)

During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars. 30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

Thomas L. Friedman, is that you?

Everything in focus is usually considered a flaw (3, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | about 5 years ago | (#29393535)

Depth of field is important to film makers. They don't want everything to be in focus. It looks too much like video instead of film. For live sporting events, that may be fine, but the fact that the movie trailer looked like shit is no surprise at all.

Re:Everything in focus is usually considered a fla (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 years ago | (#29394067)

Pixar started incorporating DOF in their movies long ago.....

Re:Everything in focus is usually considered a fla (4, Insightful)

bickle (101226) | about 5 years ago | (#29394073)

There's no law that it *HAS* to be in focus. A filmmaker could specifically keep one section in focus and other layers of depth out of focus. Furthermore, it's not usually considered a flaw. It's considered a choice.

Oh my God! (0, Redundant)

Poorcku (831174) | about 5 years ago | (#29393617)

3D Porn...

Re:Oh my God! (1)

cherokee158 (701472) | about 5 years ago | (#29394543)

OMG, 3D pop-up advertising.

Will never catch on (1, Insightful)

parlancex (1322105) | about 5 years ago | (#29393629)

I actually laughed out loud when I scrolled down the article and saw the picture of the man wearing the glasses. While I'm sure it looks lovely when you're wearing them, as long as your 3D display technology requires headgear it will never replace or even slightly displace mainstream conventional displays. Period.

Instead of wasting their time developing this kind of technology they should be working on developing alternatives.

Re:Will never catch on (1)

Facegarden (967477) | about 5 years ago | (#29393801)

I actually laughed out loud when I scrolled down the article and saw the picture of the man wearing the glasses. While I'm sure it looks lovely when you're wearing them, as long as your 3D display technology requires headgear it will never replace or even slightly displace mainstream conventional displays. Period.

Instead of wasting their time developing this kind of technology they should be working on developing alternatives.

This technology is pretty much ready for primetime, so they wanna see how people like it. The future will be glasses-free 3D and they are working on it but plenty of people don't mind the glasses, so it's worth a shot for them to produce these things. For people like you, well, wait. At least when it's all ready, these TV's will have driven the content production.

-Taylor

Re:Will never catch on (4, Funny)

iceOlate (1094287) | about 5 years ago | (#29393937)

The alternative was already invented some time ago... Its called LSD. No glasses, batteries or any of that junk required; and everything looks 3D, even things that other people can't see!

"Impressive Results"... (1)

slushdork (566514) | about 5 years ago | (#29393749)

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Pics or it didn't happen!

Face tracking (2, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29393981)

Face tracking is the future of 3d tvs not funny glasses. People are vain it will never become mainstream. I am aware they are different things... to a degree.

Comparatively face tracking has many advantages.

1. The tech can be used and worked on RIGHT NOW. Most laptops sold these days come with a webcam. Using this you can have full 3d applications right now. Having a preinstalled base of millions clearly helps.

2. Headtracking can be used in games and applications to allow you to interact with the environment. And to have 3d as good as an object in front of you. You can use it to work like a window rather than a pane, moving forwards gives you a wider field of vision, moving to the left allows you to see more to the right and so on. Recorded 3d clearly won't allow you to change where you are viewing.

3. Most importantly it makes it so you don't have to wear stupid looking glasses. This is the main problem and it will kill panasonic's 3d tv.

4. Utility, Having a camera on your tv is way more useful and flexible than silly glasses.

The downside of course is that this doesn't provide 3d as in depth it provides 3d as in view. This can be fixed by having a mechanism for the tv that allows it to have auto-stereoscopy (This tech exists of course). This will be limited likely to a few viewers at first and improve.

Re:Face tracking (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 5 years ago | (#29394003)

Also I'd like to point out another big problem. The main audience for this cutting edge tech is nerds. They are also the group that is least likely to give a rats ass about looking stupid. Awesome right?
Sorry, one big flaw with that. A lot of nerds already wear glasses. Stacking glasses really doesn't work well so i'd say 60% of the cutting edge people will find the product hardly useable at best.

Re:Face tracking (1)

Saysys (976276) | about 5 years ago | (#29394293)

your system only works one person at a time, any number of people can ware glasses and see the 3d tv;

eye tracking would fix the depth problem.

Wait for holographic display... (2, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 years ago | (#29394359)

Wait for a holographic display. Yeah, we're nowhere near being able to achieve it now. You'd need (horiz)(height) the bandwidth although compression should help a lot. You'd need a way to have a microscopic projector in each pixel, projecting a complete image.

Upside: No glasses. Your TV would literally look like a window into another world.

Downside: Scads of energy to throw enough light from each microprojector, horrendous bandwidth requirement.

Maybe the horrendous bandwidth requirement isn't a downside--it's the problem looking for the solutions that involve shoving 20 Libraries of Congress through a fiber every second.

Anyway, give me a call when these holographic window displays are available.

All I can say is bring on the 3D HD Porn (2, Interesting)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | about 5 years ago | (#29394737)

Anyone here think that will not be a major selling point?

(and dont forget the wireless sex toys)

Video, or it didn't happen! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#29394977)

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Goodbye video if this takes off (2, Interesting)

DoktorSeven (628331) | about 5 years ago | (#29395081)

As someone that is extremely left-eye dominant, 3d does not work for me. Period. I always wondered what the big deal about ViewMasters were when I was a kid, not realizing the things should be 3d (I saw them as two images of the same thing, well, one adjusted for the 3d effect everyone else was getting). If TV, movies and everything else starts following this the way everyone followed HD to screens that weren't compatible with my eyes either (any motion makes me sick, as I see horrible tearing and delays with LCD and plasma displays, even ones that are apparently the highest quality), I'm going to have to give up watching anything new.

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>