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!

Toshiba To Launch No-Glasses 3D TV This Year

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the harder-to-hold-than-a-3ds dept.

Television 218

angry tapir writes "Toshiba is readying two 3D televisions that can produce images with the illusion of depth but don't require the user to wear glasses, the company said Monday. It will launch the televisions in Japan in December. Toshiba will offer a 12-inch model and a 20-inch model. They'll cost around ¥120,000 (US$1,430) and ¥240,000 respectively. Toshiba's new TVs have a thin sheet of small lenses in front of the display. This splits light from the screen and sends it to nine points in front of the TV."

cancel ×

218 comments

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

I saw Avatar the other day (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33790706)

I know it's really late, but I finally saw Avatar the other day. Of course, I had to watch it in 2D since my home TV is not 3D enabled. You can really tell where they were using 3D for the sake of 3D.

If we use technology only to show off technology, we can't expect anything interesting to come of it.

It must have a raisin detre.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790748)

If I want raisins, I buy Raisin Bran.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790898)

I didnt bloody see any raisins when i went to avatar !!!

Do you think if i went back to the cinema they would give me some ?

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791016)

Only Raisinets, so I hope you like your raisins chocolate covered.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791398)

Sounds raisinable to me.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790848)

It must have a raisin detre.

Indeed. Most movies have real useful purposes to them: 2012 produces food and clothing while Crazy Heart transports them to the store, and Saw VI maintains the roads we need to transport them with. The Princess and the Frog distributes electrical power, while Up in the Air does the same for water.

But Avatar, completely unlike all other movies, is just something people watch for fun. USELESS!

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33790902)

That phrase means reason for being, and the problem with 3D is that it has no reason for being. I was somewhat skeptical myself of Roger Ebert's assertion that 3D is already present in the movies we have. And damned if he wasn't right. You watch a movie and if you're paying attention, it's practically 3D already, unless you count that garish over done crap which passes for 3D these days.

When they film the scenes correctly your mind can easily reconstruct it to give you that 3D feel to it, without a lot of expensive technology.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791002)

Well, just get a good book and you can reconstruct the scenes entirely in your mind, so by your argument all movies are pointless.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33791076)

It doesn't give the same feel of depth.

Sure, yes, you can perceive the third dimension in a 2D representation. If you couldn't then it would likely be painful or pointless to watch tv, look at photographs, anything like this. Stereoscopy is just one more trick (and not in any way a new one) that can suspend disbelief and make the images seem just a little bit more real and present.

If it doesn't work for you or if you just don't like it then fine, but the effect is real.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

quenda (644621) | about 4 years ago | (#33791122)

But what about still photos? IMHO, they have far more to gain from stereoscopy, as they lack the motion cues.
The last consumer '3D' camera I saw was far back in the film days.
Why are there none here now? You don't need to worry about expensive processing, just view the photos on any 3D-ready TV or monitor.
Maybe one day still photography will be a bigger driver of 3D TV sales than Hollywood is.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33790876)

Is this [boxofficemojo.com] raisin enough for ya?

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33790912)

I remember being tricked by that once in Canada. They really mean grape. So, it's really translated "for being grape." You tricky Canadians may think you've pulled one over on me, but I proved you.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (5, Informative)

mkiwi (585287) | about 4 years ago | (#33790948)

Sometimes I like raisins, usually inside a cookie. Of course, in French raisin means grape, so you could also somehow be referring to wine.

Or maybe you meant "raison d'être."

For the record, I'm fine with either interpretation.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1, Insightful)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33790974)

Not only that, I was just reading a story at Ars about how Jon Landau believes everything should be 3D [arstechnica.com] . He calls out studios on hasty 3D conversions. I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black. His film had plenty of problems.

"Converting a movie from 2D to 3D is not a technical process. It is a creative process,"

You know what? After watching your flick at IMAX in 3D and halfway through wanting to leave with my headache, you're doing it wrong. As has been brought up before in previous Slashdot discussions, you can't get a proper 3D effect that will fool the brain with current technology. Stop trying to convert 2D films to 3D, especially for the point of being "OMG 3D" like parent mentioned.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#33791158)

Not only that, I was just reading a story at Ars about how Jon Landau believes everything should be 3D [arstechnica.com] . He calls out studios on hasty 3D conversions. I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black. His film had plenty of problems.

"Converting a movie from 2D to 3D is not a technical process. It is a creative process,"

You know what? After watching your flick at IMAX in 3D and halfway through wanting to leave with my headache, you're doing it wrong. As has been brought up before in previous Slashdot discussions, you can't get a proper 3D effect that will fool the brain with current technology. Stop trying to convert 2D films to 3D, especially for the point of being "OMG 3D" like parent mentioned.

The 3D effect worked decently well for me, better than I expected. There was one part of it that screwed with me though.

If I was looking more or less at the center of the screen, to the periphery it would appear (fairly convincingly) that certain objects were jutting out, past the boundary of the screen. Then I would sometimes attempt to follow those objects with my eyes and the illusion would continue ... until my eyes reached the actual boundary of the screen. Then the entire image would suddenly collapse back into a 2D picture until I again was looking more directly at the screen.

The 3D was far better than I was expecting, which wasn't much. It's still nothing like a true hologram where you could walk all the way around it and see it from many different angles. I couldn't even remain in my seat and move my eyes very far around it without dispelling the illusion. The headaches are something I did not experience but have heard often. I think that could be remedied by becoming conscious of whether you are straining your eyes in order to force a certain perception, as a setup like that might tempt you to do.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 4 years ago | (#33790998)

Technology for the sake of technology has eventually lead to some really great things. How many people used computers for the sake of computers? Then, eventually, we slung together the Internet and flash video porn. That wouldn't have happened if people weren't using computers long before there was porn to be had.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (2, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 years ago | (#33791166)

Since the dawn of man there has been porn, and since the dawn of computers there has been computer porn. Computer porn was being produced on things that wouldn't even be called a coumputer today.

http://asciiporn.us/ [asciiporn.us]

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791366)

Do you remember punch card porn?

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791184)

I guess you never saw those completely-fills-one-5.25"-floppy, 4-looping-frames, black and white porn movies?

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

shoutingloudly (986897) | about 4 years ago | (#33791364)

I love how this gets moderated as "Insightful" rather than "Funny."

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

kurokame (1764228) | about 4 years ago | (#33791004)

Robot overlords don't need no stinkin' raisins.

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (2, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33791050)

"Of course, I had to watch it in 2D since my home TV is not 3D enabled.

Yo, you can't actually get 3D avatard for home use yet. For some reason the movie that was supposed to drive the 3D revolution hasn't had a 3D bluray outing. I think they probably figure they can re-release as 3D later on and cash in again.

Maybe it's not a fad but some practical joke? (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791542)

What's really telling - Avatar had some in-setting "analogue print" photos. On a fridge (a better one, sure - one with a window, I'd like to see some consumer ones like that - but still a fridge). And the only screen really utilising 3D, in the setting of the film, never displayed recorded images, just (in setting) CGI imagery. Almost a parody of itself.

Would be hilarious if Cameron largely tries to push cheap 3D tech for some other purpose (doesn't he have physics background? Many research disciplines should benefit, especially some "cool" or those revving up recently; also general info/educational purpose...), but knows what is the only way to get the industry onboard.

Other than that - 3D photography is just a few years younger from "normal" one, with good effect achievable for around 150 years...and hardly anybody cares. Aside from cases where stereoscopy should introduce some actually useful info, "3D" films seem to add mostly another imperfect way of seeing depth information...one which might essentially fight at times with another system of interpratation our brains are already using.

Plus from what I see, a semi-darkened room and decent projector seems to give the nicest feel to a lot of people... (maybe that's conditioning, maybe not) Now, only for some decent LED ones to show up...

Re:I saw Avatar the other day (1)

CheeseToasty (1915258) | about 4 years ago | (#33791692)

3D is something that will grow on people and I think it has its place in the future in some way if only a stepping stone to somewhere else (holograms being the ultimate end game!)

Here’s my take on what it is now...

1) There is a disconnect between what the general expectation is for 3D... avatar style footage 100% of the time when in fact with the different technologies they might just see southpark style depth overlays.

2) At the moment there's still a big market push and it will take big backing from the tv land people to change their ways for it to take off

They will initially need to find a happy medium of chauvinistic 3D and original shots while maintaining general viewing pleasure for all ... and this should eventually lead into a completely different broadcast setup for a 3d viewing of the same show/event.

But atm with all the uncertainty it seems like a catch-22 where the mainstream consumer can't justify the extra cost without the content... and tv/film producers don't want to invest too heavily in a technology that might only be a fad.

What's more annoying... (1)

skids (119237) | about 4 years ago | (#33790720)

...wearing glasses or holdig your head still? I guess we'll get a good old fashioned vote-with-your-dollars verdict soon.

(Of course given how much they are gouging per pair of glasses, there's a handicap built in there.)

Re:What's more annoying... (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33791126)

... wearing glasses or paying 2500 dollars for a 20 inch screen???

Re:What's more annoying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791684)

20 inch is not that bad unless it is widescreen.

Re:What's more annoying... (2, Interesting)

quenda (644621) | about 4 years ago | (#33791146)

There is a third alternative: contact lenses.
You need a circular-polarising projector system, as used in cinemas, and matching contact lenses.
It does not matter if the lens rotates.

Now how do I get a patent for this?

Re:What's more annoying... (1)

ksandom (718283) | about 4 years ago | (#33791170)

If it's anything like the 3D still pictures that used the same technique years ago, then I'd say you don't have to hold your head that still. I'm actually quite interested to see this in action. I know it's been in the works for a while now.

Do not want (2, Insightful)

youngone (975102) | about 4 years ago | (#33790724)

Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.

Re:Do not want (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33790768)

Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.

Me too but sometimes I want to watch the pretty pictures.

Re:Do not want (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 years ago | (#33790830)

Movie trolls running wild? I can't say, but it sure seems like people only want...

Michael Bay - XplosionsX! For their plots.

Re:Do not want (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33790858)

who cares what it's all about
as long as the kids go

-Roger Waters

Re:Do not want (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#33790906)

who cares what it's all about as long as the kids go

-Roger Waters

Sounds like every pointless Vietnam-style war we've fought over the last ten years.

Sorry, for a moment I forgot we were talking about movies and box office sales.

Re:Do not want (4, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#33791092)

I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?

Re:Do not want (3, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 4 years ago | (#33791414)

They shouldn't be, but hollywood certainly seems to be adamant that they are mutually exclusive.

Re:Do not want (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | about 4 years ago | (#33791624)

Yes.

The TV manufacturers that are so desperate to sell us TVs that they push technology we don't really need or want, should also invest in TV production and distribution--by improving the quality of the shows, I might be inclined to upgrade my viewing device. As it is, I don't really need a 3D TV to watch Big Bang Theory.

Re:Do not want (1)

SpeedBump0619 (324581) | about 4 years ago | (#33791630)

I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?

What 'Citizen Kane' really needed was some CGI. Then Welles could have made the movie he was really dreaming of, where Rosebud was shark with a frickin' laser on its head! What a let down.

So instead of having to wear glasses... (2, Insightful)

Zathain Sicarius (1398033) | about 4 years ago | (#33790732)

I have to pin point one of the 9 optimal viewing angles within a small margin of error and never move?
The inconvenience has simply shifted. Makes sense in the handheld world, but this seems a bit ridiculous.

Re:So instead of having to wear glasses... (1)

spitzak (4019) | about 4 years ago | (#33791326)

Actually the design is such that 8/9 of the possible viewing positions show the right image. For a certain angle of positions you see images 1&2, then 2&3, then 3&4, etc. Eventually you see images 9&1 (which would be backwards) but as you continue moving your head you are back to 1&2.

The big problem with this design is that you need 9 different images, not just 2. Interpolating an existing pair will not work as the resulting image pairs will be with 1/8 the stereo effect between an adjacent pair. Instead you need to extrapolate which gets increasingly difficult. Or you need to actually create all 9 pictures directly, which is why about 100% of the images for these devices is CGI.

3d hype. (1)

HeadSoft (147914) | about 4 years ago | (#33790744)

I don't get the hype lately for 3d that requires glasses, I seem to recall 3d movies being around since The Three Stooges, let alone Jaws 3d and the like. I know it's not exactly the same as modern movies, but how is it so very different? A 3d display that doesn't require glasses, that's finally something worth getting interested in.

Re:3d hype. (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 4 years ago | (#33790770)

It is allowing studios to hide really poorly written and acted scripts from kiddies that are more impressed with shiny 3d. It is now at the stage where if I see the movie is being advertised as being 3D I write it off as garbage without even bothering to see it now.

Re:3d hype. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33790786)

I assume you also know not to watch "Transformer" movies too, but so what? I thought Avatar was a pretty good, very visual, film. Better than most of the popcorn crap out there.

Re:3d hype. (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 4 years ago | (#33790992)

Next time you watch Avatar, please don't fall asleep. Or just go watch Ferngully, it was better anyways.

Re:3d hype. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33791012)

I will do my best. I don't see a point arguing about personal preference.

Incidentally if this sort of TV is a success I can see applications in human machine interfaces. I work in ATC and I definitely think a 3D UI would be worth the trouble.

Re:3d hype. (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791432)

Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers? (shouldn't we move away from subjectivity of single human operators in this field, away from the model that's half a century old and didn't really shift to what technology could allow already?)

Re:3d hype. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33791516)

Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers?

Possibly. ATC operators in many markets are selected for the quality of their vision so the variation between individuals might be smaller.

Re:3d hype. (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 4 years ago | (#33791102)

Avatar is an example that proves the point, the actual movie was horrible, but the impressive use of 3D made it bareable, it was certainly NOT better than most of the popcorn crap out there, if anything it was worse.

Re:3d hype. (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791412)

So, a year later that's still the most used example by far...

Re:3d hype. (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | about 4 years ago | (#33790796)

It's just like explosions. Except that explosions often require more creative effort to make them look good.

Re:3d hype. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790798)

but every movie is being advertised as 3D.

There are genuinely good 3D movies, Coraline for example. And that's impressive because it's stop motion.

Re:3d hype. (1)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#33790960)

It is allowing studios to hide really poorly written and acted scripts from kiddies that are more impressed with shiny 3d. It is now at the stage where if I see the movie is being advertised as being 3D I write it off as garbage without even bothering to see it now.

It does accomplish one useful thing. 3D and other experiences you currently can't get at home are the right way to fight piracy. I like that a damn sight better than taking old grandmas, dead people, and children to court. I also like it better than bribing politicians for increasingly draconian laws just to prop up an industry that refuses to learn how to deal with the information age. For that matter, it's better than ACTA and other secret treaties that threaten the integrity of our entire political process by occurring behind closed doors beyond public scrutiny.

In the fact of that, things that have always been around, like poorly written scripts covered up by some kind of visual effect, are downright benign.

Re:3d hype. (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33791194)

Funny how people blast Wii gamers because it's not as "shiny 3d" as the Xbox360 or the PS3, but when the topic switches to 3D movies the Wii gamers are suddenly right, i.e. the content is more important than the presentation.

Re:3d hype. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790790)

I don't get the hype lately for 3d that requires glasses, I seem to recall 3d movies being around since The Three Stooges, let alone Jaws 3d and the like. I know it's not exactly the same as modern movies, but how is it so very different? A 3d display that doesn't require glasses, that's finally something worth getting interested in.

It's just a fad. Every few decades or so 3D makes a comeback. I don't think display technology is advanced enough to trick the brain long enough to watch a movie without it being (sometimes literally) a pain.
Maybe if they make 3D porn it'll finally stick.

Re:3d hype. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790872)

>>>Maybe if they make 3D porn it'll finally stick.
Hollywood makes 3D porn all the time, the problem is they haven't figured out how to broadcast it well. Yeah, the first company to do that is going to clean up. Umm, of course, isn't that the point of this whole thing?

Re:3d hype. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33790944)

Given that the status quo is 3D movies, as in using the mind to translate into 3D, I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon. The big problem is that nobody really knows how to make it work properly. Eventually when they can do it properly without glasses, then it might take off, but it'll take somebody to figure out how to use it effectively.

I'd expect for it to be a long time from now, if ever, there's a huge number of people that have been watching TV and movies for years and decades that already know how to turn the image on screen into something that's just as 3D as the glasses. It's going to be hard to beat that.

Re:3d hype. (2, Informative)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 4 years ago | (#33790900)

I don't get the hype lately for 3d that requires glasses, I seem to recall 3d movies being around since The Three Stooges, let alone Jaws 3d and the like. I know it's not exactly the same as modern movies, but how is it so very different? A 3d display that doesn't require glasses, that's finally something worth getting interested in.

Those old movies used "complementary color anaglyphs" to simulate 3D which resulted in distorted color. Modern 3D glasses use polarized light or timed shutters so there is no color distortion (just headaches for some).

The glasses-less technology for Nintendo 3DS uses "autostereograms". I heard there was a study done by Sega 15 years ago that stated children with extended exposure to autostereograms developed vision problems.

Re:3d hype. (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791386)

Huh, did we somehow get back to the Roaring Twenties [wikipedia.org] ? (note how the title "The Man From M.A.R.S." suggests something stranegly similar to...). Or if one insists on something widely used, for a time... [wikipedia.org] (note what was used during the "golden era" and later Stereovision - w00t, the disco will soon return?)

Besides, the stereographic sister of photography is only a few years younger than the latter; easily done for a long, long time to a satisfactory level of quality. And for one and a half of a century...still hardly anybody cares, except for a novelty factor.

Try it or Toss it... (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#33790756)

I'd absolutely have to try one of these before I'd even consider getting one.
There's all those issues about viewing angles, movement, and so many others.
At those prices, they'll probably sell out their initial stock in Japan, but that doesn't mean it's good, just that it's new status worthy hi-tech.

Child depth perception and development (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | about 4 years ago | (#33790776)

I'd hate to buy one of these and have my kid grow up with borked eyes.

Re:Child depth perception and development (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#33790832)

I'd hate to buy one of these and have my kid grow up with borked eyes.

Just don't watch the Swedish Chef and your child will be fine.

Re:Child depth perception and development (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791044)

Though it won't matter to a lot of people; they already don't mind relegating large part of raising their kids to one/few of those black boxes...

¥240,000 (2, Informative)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 4 years ago | (#33790810)

They'll cost around ¥120,000 (US$1,430) and ¥240,000 respectively.

and for the math challenged that works out to US$2,860 for the 20 inch model. :)

Re:¥240,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790908)

taxes muthafucker

Re:¥240,000 (2, Interesting)

treeves (963993) | about 4 years ago | (#33791802)

I can't believe x/y = 2x/2y got a +4 informative mod!

Don't see the point (0, Redundant)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#33790816)

Honestly, this "3d" stuff doesn't look that good, anyway. Whether I'm watching a "2d" movie or a "3d" movie doesn't matter to me in the slightest. That means I'm not going to waste money on an overly expensive television for something that I don't even care about. What a waste.

Great, if it scales up. (1)

mbourgon (186257) | about 4 years ago | (#33790838)

3D TV will not take off until people don't need special glasses. Otherwise it'll be a niche for watching the occasional movie. Fortunately there are several that are no-glasses - here's hoping they're not 5-years away, like all cool tech seems to be.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (2, Informative)

XaXXon (202882) | about 4 years ago | (#33790932)

I don't understand how people expect to see 3d without glasses in any useful way. In order to see 3d, a different picture needs to get to each eye. There are a limited number of ways of making that happen. You either emit the pictures in different directions resulting in a very small area in which they can be seen properly, or you emit them in all directions and wear glasses to only pick up on the correct one for the corresponding eye.

There's no magic way to make 3d happen.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#33791020)

No magic way, no.. but there's certainly other forms of 3D display.

From stacking a bunch of LCDs behind eachother to projecting images onto a rapidly spinning disc.

Or, even, drop the stereoscopic aspect and exploit other 3D visual cues - such as parallax when changing the observing angle ( remember that youtube wiimote headtracking vid? )

Thing is.. they all have problems of their own. Stereoscopic 3D with glasses is simply the most efficient with the least problems at this point in time; but as people have such an aversion to them for aesthetic reasons (see comments regarding 'silly, 'goofy', 'stupid-looking', etc. glasses - sometimes thinly hidden behind other arguments), I do suspect it will remain a niche use.. a niche I'll gladly help fill.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791280)

I was kinda hoping for those 3D glasses to become a fashion accessory soon, would be slightly fun ;p

Would there be much use for the parallax approach? Except in handheld devices perhaps, people wouldn't really like to change their position in relation to the screen to see something "nice" (the other plausible scenario would be screens with ads, etc. in public space, but only when/if it can deal with many pairs of eyes). And even there it translates much better to CGI generated on the fly than to displaying recorded images / cinematographic approach (even more serious in volumetric displays; it's not a coincidence that the only "true" 3D display in Avatar showed what is even in its setting a generated CGI)

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33791112)

Hypothetically -

You could use a screen that can change it's target zones by some form of facial recognition/eye targeting and some sort of dynamic direction grid thingy...It would have to scan constantly and readjust itself any time someone entered the room.

Yeah I know, a bit light on details. Possible though, IMHO. May even be easier to use some sort of lasers + mirrors thing and target people's eyes directly.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

XaXXon (202882) | about 4 years ago | (#33791344)

hypothetically this is covered by what I originally said about displaying the images in specific directions - just that doing any type of facial recognition would be a long ways away. Also, can you imagine having to tell people they can't watch TV at your place because your tv only supports 2 simultaneous viewers?

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33791496)

Yeah, it's a pretty weird idea, to have a limited number of viewers or viewing positions available for a screen. If they could make it display in 2D mode (rather than headache mode) for anyone off the sweet spot that would go some way to mitigate it. But not that far.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point - 3D stereoscopy cannot just happen by magic. Somehow your left and right eyes need to pick up different images, and short of having polaroid lens implants, your going to need some sort of external technological solution.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33791348)

You can always set up a true holographic projector... like the stuff imagined in Star Wars.

The problem with true 3-D of this nature is that it takes a completely different filming process, and of course the bandwidth on such a system is simply insane. And you thought HD video was bandwidth intensive.

How you accomplish a system like that is not trivial either but it can be done. Some of the systems that have been explored are found with various kinds of volumetric displays [wikipedia.org] . Bandwidth really has been the big obstacle and that is something that due to Moore's Law is now getting within the realm of something doable.

Otherwise, most other systems are psuedo 3-D and really ought to be called stereographic, not something three dimensional. Stereographic systems date back to the 19th Century, and at least as long as there has been photography of any kind.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#33791452)

You've never heard of a lenticular "hologram?" The effect is dramatic, and even a decade ago was far superior to "9 points".

And it's cheap, too. Cheap enough to put on a greeting card or DVD box. Or a dramatic 4x3 poster.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 4 years ago | (#33790972)

Actually it won't really take off until it's the only option. I'm certain people still bought black and white TVs as long as they were for sale.

Re:Great, if it scales up. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#33791514)

Yeah but those people are as boring as the people who put cream and sugar in their coffee. You could buy a B&W TV for a while after color came out, but once they stopped taping in the higher fidelity of true black and white, there wasn't a point to getting one except to demonstrate that you don't really like tv,

In which case, why own one? Why not just get "people" magazine to keep up with all the stars and shows you've never heard of?

A big element of the objection to 3D, it seems, is for people to be able to feel superior to others for being able to be entertained by less sophisticated means. To which I have only the following to say: "Ball-in-a-cup."

Don't get excited (5, Informative)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 4 years ago | (#33790854)

I was at a Toshiba media event earlier this year and they were very clear that this generation of glassless screens have horrible fields of view and are only good for advertising in public places like airports where, by walking by them, you'll get the 3D effect. It's almost analogous to the old 3D baseball cards where you'd move them and get the illusion of depth.

Re:Don't get excited (2, Insightful)

thebes (663586) | about 4 years ago | (#33791006)

So, like the Jaws add in Back to the Future....?

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33790922)

When I was a kid, I used to want 3D TV, but only for one purpose: watching football.

I thought it'd be great to be able to have a projection of the play in the room, and be able to do an instant replay and walk around all the players, etc. Of course the technology for that's nowhere near close, but I can't imagine any other reason to have 3D TV. Every other type of program I've watched has been fine in 2D, and I've never thought they would be enhanced with 3D.

I've seen 3D movies and while they're a slightly amusing novelty, I don't care about them. Give me 3D sports that I can walk through as though they're in the room, and I'll be happy. Other than that, I just don't care.

Re:Yeah... (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33791226)

Give me 3D sports that I can walk through as though they're in the room, and I'll be happy.

It's called playing sports.

Re:Yeah... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791312)

No, it's really not.

But I understand you're just trying to make a witty comment. Good try! With practice you'll get it.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33791328)

It's called playing sports.

Re:Yeah... (1)

DeathElk (883654) | about 4 years ago | (#33791448)

1 x Internets for you, good sir. [cleans monitor]

Awesome! :) (1)

youn (1516637) | about 4 years ago | (#33790958)

next step, remove the TV itself... then move on to invent a machine that can view the future, trying to save the world's destiny with a simple envelope

Great for 3D modelers (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 4 years ago | (#33790996)

These will be great for those whose job it is to create 3D models for games, movies, ads, etc. A perfect tool for easily visualizing your creation without having to put on glasses to have a good look. Great for engineers and architects as well.

Re:Great for 3D modelers (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about 4 years ago | (#33791116)

Indeed, this will be awesome as a computer screen where the user dont move as much. Not so good as a television tho. I think they will soon realise this and make computer monitor insted of tv no body watch anyway.

3D Parallax Barriers (2, Informative)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about 4 years ago | (#33791060)

Like the Nintendo 3DS, this will require that you look directly at the screen to see the 3D effect. Anyone looking at the screen from an angle will not see the effect.

This of course makes it kind of useless as a TV, but I think it's perfect as a computer monitor. Just a bit too expensive.

Re:3D Parallax Barriers (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33791240)

Like the Nintendo 3DS, this will require that you look directly at the screen to see the 3D effect.

Wait, so if I look at my feet instead of the screen, I won't see the 3D effect? What a rip-off!

Microsoft's 3d Tech (1)

flowwolf (1824892) | about 4 years ago | (#33791068)

This tech, as mentioned in the comments already, is simply shifting the inconvenience from wearing glasses to staying still. Microsoft has come up with a prototype of 3D displays with head tracking technology, and a lens that can shift exactly which direction the light is seen from.

http://bit.ly/MS3ddisplay [bit.ly]

Re:Microsoft's 3d Tech (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 4 years ago | (#33791392)

Microsoft has come up with a prototype of 3D displays with head tracking technology, and a lens that can shift exactly which direction the light is seen from.

Yup - it's called a hat.

Stereoscopic, Not 3D (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 4 years ago | (#33791130)

Unless you can walk around it and see it from all sides, it's not 3D. What we're talking about is stereoscopic 2D.

Re:Stereoscopic, Not 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791304)

Thank you, professor. Now try shouting this from a taller mountain.

Re:Stereoscopic, Not 3D (1)

paul248 (536459) | about 4 years ago | (#33791538)

You're technically correct, but the mob has spoken. Just call your 3D "holographic" and get on with your life.

Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791310)

Who wants a 12" or 20" TV these days?

So? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 4 years ago | (#33791360)

I was using Google Earth yesterday and I noticed that if I gave some spin to the landscape (i.e. make it "coast" in a given direction) I was getting a stunning 3d effect as the landscape (Arizona mountains) scrolled below my view...
Start at Lat. 35 2'37.26"N Long. 11419'6.20"W, Eye Alt. just under 8000 ft.
Give Google Earth just the slightest "nudge" upwards so you scroll slowly south. The model has to coast on it's own to see the 3D.
For just using photos it's an amazing effect.

Request to the TV/Monitors industry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33791400)

Stop focusing on the 3D wishwash and please manufacture cheap and affordable low latency screens. And no the advertised 2(0)ms 5(0)ms now mainstream products are not good, they still blur/ghost the image very much.

The loss of crisp and details on the image is still absurd, you cant play a simple sidescrolling game or scroll text without the image turning into an agravating and stressfull eye exposure in a short to long term use.
And the more detailed the image is, the worse and more easily apparent how poor quality your products are.

Untill then, i won't bother even considering buying anything 3D. Actually, even after that.

Different perspectives (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | about 4 years ago | (#33791530)

Perhaps stereovision works better for some people than it does for others.
My father and I definately appreciate 3D, while my girlfriend gets nothing out of it. To her, everything looks fake when in 3D.

That said, I can understand the common sentiment that all it adds to movies is novelty. Perhaps now, yes, while the technology is young. That's always the case with new tech (if 3D can be considered new).
But in a few years time, when the novelty has worn off and people have more experience playing with 3D as a medium, perhaps then we will start seeing more sensible and practical use of 3D.

In gaming, stereoscopic 3D is definately much better than monoscopic 3D. There's just no contest.
In my experience, one can estimate distances and thus timing better, objects have proper shape causing objects and tunnels to no longer be camouflaged by clusters of bitmaps, etc.

I guess we'll see how it turns out (pun unintended).

Well, (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 years ago | (#33791660)

This splits light from the screen and sends it to nine points in front of the TV.

What if you only have eight eyes?

Nine "sweet spots" (1)

naturaverl (628952) | about 4 years ago | (#33791688)

From TFA: "The nine spots should enable several family members to watch a 3D image at the same time."

Is it just me, or does the thought of nine people crowding around a 12" screen seem a little absurd?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?