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!

New Advance In 3D TV Technology

samzenpus posted 1 year,27 days | from the more-real-than-real dept.

Displays 143

sciencehabit writes "If you've pondered whether to sink a cool couple of grand into a fancy new three-dimensional TV but didn't want to mess around with those dorky glasses, you may want to sit tight for a few more years. Researchers at Hewlett Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto, California, report that they've come up with a new 3D technology that not only doesn't require viewers to wear special glasses, but it also can be viewed from a wide variety of angles. The advance could propel the development of mobile 3D devices as well as TVs."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Behind the times (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230697)

What is TV but the alienantion of not-thought mediated by flickering? We are all giraffes at heart, and we drink the stagnant waters of golf claps. Burn! Burn! I louse to the foot fungal florid ferment of your heart, BOB!

Netcraft confirms: (3, Funny)

joebagodonuts (561066) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230699)

hp isn't dead?

Re:Netcraft confirms: (2)

RoccamOccam (953524) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230797)

But what does HP Lovecraft have to say?

Re:Netcraft confirms: (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230877)

That is not dead which can eternal lie

Yet with strange eons even death may die.

A bit more cryptic than Netcraft, honestly.

Re:Netcraft confirms: (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232849)

Obligatory Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Re:Netcraft confirms: (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232929)

Please, I know that this is Slashdot but not all of us speak in Perl. Could you at least try to say it in Python or something similar?

Re:Netcraft confirms: (1)

fishybell (516991) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230961)

As someone who works-ish (contract for a NOC) with HP, I can say yes, floundering as they are, they exist. Some things like eprint (buzzword) eInk (buzzword buzzword) and instant ink (buzzword buzzword buzzword) do very well. There was a company-wide e-mail a little while ago about 3-d tech that was very, vague. I think this is what they were talking about, and I think it might put hp back on the map.

Re:Netcraft confirms: (1)

Bad Mamba Jamba (941082) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231569)

Forget HP. Isn't 3D dead? For that matter was it ever really alive?

I still can't imagine any value for 3D in my living room. The screen is too small and the effect is totally lost. For that matter I'm still struggling with any value add even on an IMAX screen. Except perhaps increasing sales of Tylenol.

I'm excited for HP delivering on a dead technology. Three letters - ROI. Just sayin...

Re:Netcraft confirms: (3, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232699)

You, like Myself and about 15% of the population don't view the world perfectly stereoscopically. therefore Fake3D!!!!! just leads to headaches and poor view performances.

If you don't need glasses, it is a start. but the real trick will be is it just another illusion or is it a hybrid of real, and fake 3D to give actual depth to images.

Re:Netcraft confirms: (1)

havana9 (101033) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232039)

Yes, you should use kilowatts, but because the numbers are bigger, car makers still prefer to use horse power on the advertising.

Re:Netcraft confirms: (1)

GNious (953874) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232245)

[OT] Depends on region - noticed ads in eastern europe which didn't include horse-power but kilo-watts for cars.

Why is this taking so long? (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230719)

I remember seeing standalone 3D displays at SIGGRAPH over 10 years ago.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230745)

no one cares about 3d

only people i know who bought 3d bought it only because they wanted the most expensive set and they watch regular cable TV on theirs

almost everyone i know doesn't care about 3d and won't buy one unless its the same price as a regular TV or its a feature on all sets

Re:Why is this taking so long? (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230907)

I bought a 3D TV because it was cheaper than any others. Turns out LG was making proprietary glasses for each TV, and so, when last year's is done, nobody wants a TV with no glasses when you have to special order them for $300 each (not available in stores). They've switched to passive glasses now, but used proprietary active glasses previously, changing with each model year, and not available across all sets.

But the point is I have a 3D TV and got it for $300 less than the 2D of the same size and features.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231667)

Cool tv, bro.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231733)

The reason to push 3d is simple, advertising revenues.

Now they can place ads in front of things you are trying to enjoy while not technically completely obscuring them! Just like real life!

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231747)

Is it a coincidence that 16:9 and widescreen popularity coincides with a sudden trend of little banner ads at the bottom of the screen?

Re:Why is this taking so long? (3, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231015)

lenticular displays are not new. They are annoying though.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231209)

I think almost everybody has seen a nintendo 3ds by now. The article says the number of positions were greatly increased, that may help getting rid of the ghosting. If the display is a bit larger, you can only position yourself to see the correct 3d image at a smaller part of the screen, for the rest the light beams meant to hit your left and right eyes get mixed up.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231913)

Now I'm reminded of all the times I try out one of those lenticular displays on a trade show exhibition floor and tilt my head sideways complaining that I can't see any 3D effect :)

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232947)

lenticular displays are not new. They are annoying though.

I read that as "testicular display". That got me confused. I was scratching my head for a while, then I reread it. Damn, I need new glasses.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231485)

I remember glasses-free 3D displays being one of the next big things exhibited by every Japanese electronics company at the World Design Expo in Nagoya, 1989.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (3, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231597)

About 1 minute into this video [youtube.com] for example, is a simulated fish tank, which was one of the more impressive prototypes. A lot of it was probably smoke and mirrors, and some of them weren't particularly convincing (I remember some rear projection systems that you had to stare at for a while before your eyes started to decieve you into seeing depth, and some "3D displays" were clearly just showing 3D computer graphics on a 2D display, which is nothing special these days, but in 1989 was enough to get people excited. But the impression I had at the time was that there was technology there that would be commercialized within 10 years.

Re:Why is this taking so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232989)

Why can Japan get life-sized projected holographic entertainers like Hatsune Miku [youtube.com] and we're stuck with flat TVs? I want a screenless display that people can sit around and view at all angles simultaneously.

where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230731)

they were around $1500 or so last year for a set in the 50" range. at most

the cheap ones start for $1000 for a 50" set

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230793)

Just checked. If you go with plasma, you can get a 50 inch 3D TV for $800. The problem is, the glasses cost $120 a piece, so by the time you've outfitted a family of 4 with glasses, you've spent $480 on glasses. So the TV is cheap, but the glasses are kind of pricey.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

futuresheep (531366) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231195)

Samsung make glasses that work with the 2012/2013 Panasonic TV's that are $20.00 each. 3rd party glasses can be had for less than $50.00.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

Kahlandad (1999936) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231309)

Or, if you have a passive 3D TV, get multiple pairs of glasses for the price of a movie ticket.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231437)

Samsung make glasses that work with the 2012/2013 Panasonic TV's that are $20.00 each. 3rd party glasses can be had for less than $50.00.

I bought a new Samsung 51" Plasma 3D TV just before the holidays for $1000. It came with 2 pairs of Samsung glasses. They would be fine for kids, but I found that they let in too much light from the side, you have to use them in the dark. I bought a pair of Bluetooth Enabled Glasses for Samsung 3D Displays from monoprice for $45 which work much better as they have side blockers.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231211)

You aren't shopping right. We have 15 pairs of 3D glasses for one of our systems, and some other pairs for other systems. They only cost like $50 each. Buy generic ones, you don't need name brand ones sold through the TV manufacturer.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43233023)

I got a 55" nearly top of the line 3DTV for around $1000 with 6 pairs of glasses included.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

log0n (18224) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231163)

Wife recently surprised me with a late xmas gift - new 42" LG w/ led, passive 3d vs active (uses the same RealD theater glasses) and came with a free soundbar - $475ish @ Microcenter, etc. Tried some demo 3d content via Roku, instantly hooked and have since gone all in (new bluray 3d player + 7-8 movies). It's a gimmick, but now that I've got home 3d, I can't see myself ever going without it (assuming I can stay w/ affordable 3d in the future). The set also has a realtime 2d->3d conversion and while is isn't real 3d, it does a pretty good job of faking added depth to just about everything. Watched the entire super bowl in simulated 3d, was quite enjoyable.

http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-42LM3700-led-tv [lg.com]

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

n30na (1525807) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231253)

I got a 47" one for more like 600, it's not super fancy, but it's not terrible either.

Re:where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232681)

Europe, if i see your prices, i think it's a fraction of what we pay here. i've recently looked at 32-40" tv's, here prices range from 500-1000€ for regular ones, double that if you want 3D
so if you talk about 50 inch, that's several thousands of euros for one here

Where can I pre-order? (4, Funny)

CoolGopher (142933) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230795)

Where can I pre-order my opt-out of all this 3D tech?

I remember that scene from Back to the Future II all too well, thank-you-very-much! :P

Re:Where can I pre-order? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230917)

Where can I pre-order my opt-out of all this 3D tech?

I remember that scene from Back to the Future II all too well, thank-you-very-much! :P

Apply to least-favored eye [amazon.com], starting just within the ridge of bone surrounding the orbit, and moving inward and down in a smooth enucleating motion. Avoid exposing delicate fabrics or electronic devices to aqueous and/or vitreous humors that may be released under pressure.

Re:Where can I pre-order? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231477)

Where can I...opt-out of all this 3D tech?

Just dial 1-800-POKE-1-EYE and we'll send somebody over.

Wrong 3D (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230831)

It's all about the printers these days. Give it a few more years for that fad to die out, and maybe we can get consumers to buy all new TVs then.

Re:Wrong 3D (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230933)

In a few years, they'll be able to print them!

Yeah I know, a TV isn't 100% made from ABS plastic, blah blah blah...

Re:Wrong 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232903)

I know your comment is tongue-in-cheek, but advancements are being made in hobbyist 3D printing with different materials like polycarbonate and nylon. More importantly, there has been some recent progress in printing circuit boards. It's nothing that could be used in complex electronics yet, but progress is progress!

Re:Wrong 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231249)

The problem with 3D is the programming. I personally refuse to watch something filmed in 2D and adjusted to make it 3D, it never does look very good. Finally something that makes those colorized films not looks so terrible.

Too bad HP Labs just laid off a bunch of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230841)

This could be the last innovation we see from HP Labs for a while. About a month ago, HP abruptly shut down most Labs projects that weren't deemed to have near-term commercial potential, and laid off a bunch of senior researchers. This is on top of several rounds of of cutbacks over the last 10 years.

It's no longer possible for large corporations to sustain research labs. The financial analists on Wall Street won't allow it.

Re:Too bad HP Labs just laid off a bunch of people (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231217)

Yet HP has plenty of cash to squander on questionable acquisitions; between Compaq, Palm, and Autonomy they spent well over $35 billion.

And look how successful those investments were! Oh wait...

3D is a Gimmick (3, Insightful)

hairyfish (1653411) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230843)

I never seen 3D look any good at any time ever (except real life of course). What will be different about this?

Re:3D is a Gimmick (1)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231107)

When your eyes focus on a point in space... say, the distance from you to a tv screen, your eyes already receive different images that your brain fuses into a single 3d image inside your head.

The reason "3D" sucks is because it's not really "3d"... it's forced stereo viewing at specific viewing angles... forced because the filters over each lense only allow the light from the designated perspective to hit your eye. Everyone in the theater experiences this stereao viewing from the same two angles, regardless of their distance from the screen.

When you aren't wearing any glasses, however, the stereo viewing isn't forced on you. Any 3d image that you see will correspond with how far you are from what it is you are looking at. The eyes of people further away from a screen would have to converge less than those of people who were closer, and it would be no more problematic for your perceptions than dealing with a pop-up book.

Re:3D is a Gimmick (2)

bugs2squash (1132591) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231233)

It will turn out actually to be pop-up technology. They'll probably have to warn people not to watch Mike Tyson on it. But then that's good advice for 2D too,

Not Possible. (1)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230859)

From the summary:
"not only doesn't require viewers to wear special glasses, but it also can be viewed from a wide variety of angles."

I do not see how this is possible without changing the laws of the universe. Maybe some marketing person just decided they can re-define what 3D means.

Re:Not Possible. (4, Informative)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230885)

It's possible it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Instead of 3d as you see in theaters it might be the 3d you see in pictures. When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/tensor-display-3d-tv_n_1665976.html [huffingtonpost.com]

I'm really excited about this technology for just that reason. I think the idea of a TV that looks just like a window would be amazing. Imagine video conferencing. Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

Re:Not Possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231151)

You get up and walk around during conferences?

Re:Not Possible. (2)

clickety6 (141178) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232185)

Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

"Get out from under the desk, Jones. Nobody believes you've dropped your pen...again!".

Re:Not Possible. (1)

Luke727 (547923) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232825)

From the link, to make it work you need the same footage from 25 to 30 angles. Might be doable in a few specific scenarios, but it's not practical in general.

Re:Not Possible. (1)

Khyber (864651) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230899)

Orrr, maybe we have better light waveguide building tech to put on the front of the panel.

Re:Not Possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230901)

It's quite possible, in fact, if you can recreate the light field coming from real objects, which this device actually does (to a certain degree). Go read the Nature article, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11972.html

Possible, but not yet. (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230937)

Viewing angle is one of the factors missing from the stereo-vision hack being marketed as "3d" today. Another is focal depth.

Supplying 64 different angles of view is (barely) a start. It'll still foul up your visual processing, though, because the focus cues to your brain are entirely wrong. And that, unfortunately, leads to neurological problems like headaches.

You're not going to see actual 3d displays for a while. First we need the tech, then we need it standardized so manufacturers have a consistent target to shoot for, then we need content, for which we're going to need new recording tech...

Don't hold your breath.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (0)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231043)

Actually it shouldn't cause any headaches. The headaches you get from stereovision are caused because primarily because of the convergence of your eyes not actually aligning with the distance you are focusing on, which is the distance from your face to the viewing screen. This happens entirely because your eyes are being force-fed two separate images, from two specific viewing points, that aren't necessarily the correct distance apart based on how far you are from the screen, and your brain has to give your eyes additional instructions on how to converge to fuse those images into a single 3d one in your brain.

In this case, however, your eyes aren't being forced to see anything other than what they would normally see. Both your eyes' focal distance and convergence distance will always be the same... the distance from you to the screen. You will either see a blurry image, much like you would at a 3d theater without wearing any glasses, or else a fully 3d image... depending on how far apart the views are that your eyes are actually receiving.

Again, this is only because your eyes aren't being force-fed only one particular viewing angle.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231225)

No, but nice try. This system is *exactly* like normal stereo-vision, except there are more planes of display. The same factors that cause headaches with single-plane stereo-vision are in play on every one of these. At any one viewing position, you have exactly what you had before: stereo-vision. Only gross movement will change that, and even then, in very coarse steps. So there's no change in either the nature or affect of the problems here, and in fact, they are caused by exactly what I said: incorrect focus depth cues.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (0)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231627)

If you have two eyes, you already *HAVE* stereo vision. You experience it because when you are focused on a single point, that point is giving two different images to each eye. This is the way you naturally perceive 3D.

With stereo-viewing that you see in 3d movies, however, it's slightly different. The different images that are coming at your eyes are from forced perspectives that do not correspond to the distance that you are from the screen. Your eyes, seeing only the images that the filter over each presents, tend to try to fuse the two images into one in your mind, and their convergence does not reflect the distance you are actually focused on, which is the screen. This is what causes the headaches.

Each multifaceted pixel on this kind of display is small enough, when viewed at a reasonable distance, to easily be mistaken as a single point by normal visual processing, and different images that it shows at different viewing angles would, in fact, correspond to what you might normally see in something at that distance. Further, unlike stereo viewing, where the viewing perspective is forced into each eye of every viewer, regardless of where they are sitting in the theater, people who are looking at this kind of display from any different position would see something slightly different than you did... going so far as to approximate a course resolution holography (but still easily good enough to pass casual visual observation from distances of more than 3 or 4 feet).

Re:Possible, but not yet. (1)

Zouden (232738) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231851)

But the lenses in your eyes will still be focusing an image from the TV screen. The image is generated by the flat plane of the screen, therefore you need to focus on a flat plane even when the 3D effect makes you think there's a variety of distances in front of you. It's no different to a cinema screen.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232179)

If you have two eyes, you already *HAVE* stereo vision. You experience it because when you are focused on a single point, that point is giving two different images to each eye.

Yes, of course.

This is the way you naturally perceive 3D.

No. That is part of how you perceive 3D. Other inputs include varying parallax, focus depth, and viewing axis priority. The problem with stereo-vision screens is that they don't provide varying parallax; they provide static parallax, and so when you move or even roll your eyes, the cues are wrong. Stereo vision displays don't provide actual depth, so when your eyes are driven by your brain's (entirely correct) notion of distance to refocus, the attempt fails. As to layering, this also works with parallax so that when you move, the layering changes based on depth, which also informs you as to what the depth is, except, again, not with a stereo display. Moving beyond this, when you move your eyes in the real world, you actually do get to see more/different stuff, and again, a stereo display cannot and does not provide this. Not even in the proposed system. It will provide it if you move very coarsely (they're talking about 1/64th of the viewable display, potentially), but do the math -- that's a big move, not an eye roll.

people who are looking at this kind of display from any different position would see something slightly different than you did... going so far as to approximate a course(sic) resolution holography

Right. It moves the bar on one issue; you get multiple angles if you move in a coarse fashion. It doesn't address any of the others. If you stay in one place, what's more, it is no different -- at all -- from a one angle display. That's what you get. One angle. The depth cues are still wrong, your focus distance is still driven by the wrong information because the very parallax you are being fed says "this is the focus distance", but the image tells you that the focus distances are varied. That's the problem; that's the source of the weird feeling in your head when you look at any stereo image that is actually two flat images. There are an almost unlimited set of focus cues there, and your brain can't use them, because all but one are wrong. Whereas if the image was actually 3D, things further away would be further away, allowing your entire visual system to function more normally, completely.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (1)

CityZen (464761) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231397)

With enough viewing angles, you get focal depth. That's what focus is, after all: bending the rays from the desired angles to meet your retinas.
The question, of course, is "what is enough?" It's actually more about the density (how many differently-angled rays are hitting your pupils?) than the absolute number.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231493)

With enough viewing angles, you get focal depth.

No. You don't. Look at any deep scene in front of you. Focus on the guy handing you a copy of Playboy. When you do so, the mountain in the distance is a fuzzy mess. Now focus on the mountain in the distance: The guy with the Playboy is a fuzzy mess. Changing your viewing angle will in no way affect this; it's a function of how small your pupil is (f-stop) and how compressed the lens in your eye is (focal distance.)

You can add display angles until they become a linear function of viewing angle, and you still haven't done anything to solve the problem of what your brain tells your eyes to do when it perceives depth and you change what you're focused on from one apparent depth to another, only the subject isn't at a different depth, it just looks like it is. Wrong message, wrong reaction, eventual problems.

Re:Possible, but not yet. (1)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232201)

Oh but you have to do it vertically as well as horizontally and you'll end up with a light field display [wikipedia.org]. Needs a lot of resolution though, so maybe finally a valid use for 8K video displays in television.

Re:Not Possible. (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230925)

I do not see how this is possible without changing the laws of the universe. Maybe some marketing person just decided they can re-define what 3D means.

It's far, far, far, worse than that: HP did discover how to change the laws of the universe; but the best use that their marketing people could think of was '3d TV'.

Re:Not Possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231023)

You didn't RTFA did you?
You don't have to wear glasses, but you have to get the lens on each eyeball polarized with laser surgery.

Re:Not Possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231889)

The reason a normal display looks "flat" is because if you look at a specific spot on the display, all light coming out from that spot is essentially the same (well, barring some viewing angle problems with LCD, etc.) To make something look "3D" all you need to do is somehow make the light coming out of that spot have different colors and intensities at different angles. Thus, if you look at the display from different directions, it would show you different stuff. What these guys have done is engineer an interesting way to divide up a normal pixel into angular sub-pixels (instead of sub-pixels for color in typical displays). Stand far away and you won't see the gridding pattern while retaining the 3D characteristics, just like how you normally can't see the color subpixels on a standard display but can still see color.

actually no (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230869)

ive never had the least desire to buy a "3d" set as it never comes close to expectations.

am I the only one that actively avoids 3d? (2)

Dan667 (564390) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230875)

If I want to actually watch and enjoy a movie I watch it in 2d so I avoid anything that says 3d. I don't know anyone that actually enjoys 3d except for the initial novelty that has worn off since Jaws 3D.

Re:am I the only one that actively avoids 3d? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231221)

Jaws 3D sucked in any number of dimensions.

And it was hardly 'novel' in its day. Wikipedia lists the 'golden era' of 3D movies as 1952-1954, 30 years earlier.

Re:am I the only one that actively avoids 3d? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231279)

I don't know anyone that actually enjoys 3d except for the initial novelty that has worn off since Jaws 3D.


focus... (1)

HeyBob! (111243) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230905)

I don't think "3d" will work until you can actually change your focus to different depths, just like in the real world.

3D is a good party trick... (1)

multiben (1916126) | 1 year,27 days | (#43230923)

... and not much more. Once the novelty has worn off (say once I watched Jaws 3), the additional hassle of everyone having to wear ridiculously expensive glasses and cram together in front of the TV to get as perpendicular to the screen as possible pretty much destroys the whole movie watching experience for me. Coupled with the fact that every damn movie now is full of contrived scenes so we can experience the wonders of this "new" technology. I'll stick with the good 'ol 2 visual dimensions thanks.

Re:3D is a good party trick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230951)

...and during that rant, you completely ignore TFS stating that a potential solution has been found to those drawbacks. Or did you just see "3D TV" and stop reading there?

Holograms (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43230995)

I don't want to see another 3D-related post unless we've got working holograms.

Re:Holograms (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231617)

Working holograms are easy. The problem with them that makes them unsuitable for 3D TV is that they cannot convey color information.

Re:Holograms (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231721)

?!? Maybe you've never had the privilege to see one, but full-color, motion holograms do exist.
There are several approaches. White-light illumination, multiple channels (like RGB displays), etc.

There is even a company that claims to have this working today using display resolutions roughly on par with a "retina display" (i.e. only 4x a standard monitor). Unfortunately, the hologram only constructs in a small viewing area; so they need eye tracking to position the effect for the viewer (singular, IIRC).

Other approaches to decreasing the required resolution involve tricks like partially flattening the image, giving an effect similar to lenticular displays.

Slightly OT. The following site appears to let you print holograms on a decent laser printer. I haven't hunted down a good printer yet. A simple diffraction grating showed horrible corner-cutting on the handy office machine. http://corticalcafe.com/prog_CGHmaker.htm

Re:Holograms (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231881)

Well, fortunately for you, this method uses what are effectively static holograms; each "pixel" has a bunch of subpixels now, each effectively a hologram of a bundle of light going in a specific direction. You can switch on and off individual subpixels to customize your four-dimensional light distribution.

Personally won't buy 3D as long as I need glasses (2)

hermitdev (2792385) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231021)

I spent close to $10K last year to obliviate my need for glasses, I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a TV that requires me to wear them again. 3D w/o glasses, I might entertain, I'm going to wait a long while for the technology to be flushed out. Will not be an early adopter. That said, I've 3D capable computer monitors and graphics cards, and have not turned on either, yet, despite having all the hardware required.

I Thought all televisions were three dimensional (0)

Artea (2527062) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231167)

Have flat panel screens become so thin that they lost a dimension? Can I paint a TV on my wall and plug it in?

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231197)

"One of our researchers bought a Nintendo 3DS when they came out, and we've spent the last two years figuring out how to scale up the screen."

Dot Hat (3, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231413)

What about a special hat or hair ribbon with a reflector that tells the TV where your head is? Then it can create two images for each eye in the direction of the hat. You wouldn't need 64 different angles like the one in the article and could use existing 3D movie stock (2 images/angles per frame).

There may be a limit to the number of viewers, though, depending on how fancy the TV is, because each "beam" is custom-aimed per viewer.

Another approach is to repeat the "parallax zone" similar to the corduroy-like plastic 3D image stickers used on the cover of some children books. You'd only need two source images, not 64 with that also.

With those, you have to put your eyes into the right zone to see the 3D affect, but the zones are roughly 5 degrees apart. One might have to shift in their chair to be in the right zone.

For an over-simplification, the left image is seen at every odd number degree (35,37,39,41,...) and the right image is seen at every even degree number (36,38,40,42,...). If shift your head until the left eye is in an odd degree (say 41) and your right eye is in an even degree (say 42), then you can see the 3D image. If you move your head to 43/44 (left/right) you will be able to see it again. (At 42/43 would be seen reversed depth because the eye matches are swapped and noses would look like dimples.)

I imagine one's back would get tired of being in one spot for long, but if the zones are say 2 degrees or less apart, then one can alternate leaning to the left and then the right every 10 minutes or so in their chair to avoid getting stiff.

It's Fake (1)

JeffElkins (977243) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231479)

Call me when we have non-flickering 3D holograms ("Help us Obi Wan"). 10% of the population can't see these fake 3D videos, me among them. It's a fake and a sham.

I'll happily trade 3D for (2)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231507)

Content, plot, depth, character development, realistic dialogue, original material, meaningful stories, a story that stands on its own instead of relying on gimmicky special effects (especially 3D). And I don't care if it's in black and white at NTSC resolution.


TV today, monitor tomorrow (1)

Nov8tr (2007392) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231645)

OK the TV would definetly be better than the current version. If the price was close to std TV prices they may well do OK. BUT now if they take that technology to computer monitors (and I see no reason why they couldn't/wouldn/t) and were about the same price of even a a little more, I'd buy one for sure. Playing games on them would be a blast. Especially since I'd would not have to wear glasses to use the 3-D part. Crysis in 3D? Oh yeah.

HP was NOT first, not even close (1)

7bit (1031746) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231677)

It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".

Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.

Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117303/article.html [pcworld.com]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/ [wired.com]

Other than that, it's all good news. I think we'll all be glad to be free of the glasses.

oyunlar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43231777)

La decoración de uñas en temporada de verano es una moda que se impone en todas las mujeres y hoy en día se pueden mostrar muchas decoraciones de uñas de distintos colores y diversos diseños ya que se han empleado varios negocios sobre la cosmetología y todo lo que tiene que ver con el maquillaje.

Until the viewer can choose their focus plane... (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | 1 year,27 days | (#43231841)

...3D is nothing but a headache waiting to happen.

Call me when they've got glasses that can determine my focal point in real time and adjust the image accordingly.

Total dribble (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232011)

File glasses free 3D with flying cars and holographic storage.

Here's a clue for you. The very best 3D TV's at the moment are those that support passive glasses by using alternate strips of polarized filter material on the display. Even this trivial technology has massive problems with viewing angles.

It gets worse. Recently, analogue TV broadcasts were replaced with digital. All digital TV boxes use frame-buffers, and can do things like image zoom. However, the clods behind the move to digital FORGOT that backward compatibility is essential. For 3D broadcast TV to take off, 3D channels MUST be backward compatible with older 2D kit. This could have been achieved at ZERO cost by accepting that 3D would be broadcast as so called side-by-side stereo images, and having ALL digital TV boxes having a preset zoom that filled the entire TV picture with one half of the broadcast frame. Unfortunately, no-one thought to include this default setting in any of the digital TV boxes.

The vast majority (99%+) of all the recently rolled out digital TV reception equipment lacks an ability to zoom on only one half of the broadcast image, which would have converted the 3D image to a perfect (if slightly lower resolution) 2D one. The consequence of this is that no American network wants to produce essential content in 3D. Sitcoms and soaps and quiz shows and other studio productions would have been no-brainers for 3D shooting. Imagine if the same screw up had occurred when colour transmissions began. Colour show transmissions ONLY receivable on colour TV sets.

This screw up has damned 3D TV. The ONLY content worth anything to the consumer is 3D feature films from Hollywood, and these are very limited in number. If a TV station does choose to shoot some 3D content. it must broadcast the content on a special 3D only channel, and then broadcast the 2D version on a separate 2D channel.

3D is a gimmick, and a pretty bad one at that. It makes little difference in most of the films that use it (the mega expensive 3D in 'The Hobbit Part 1' was just terrible). When 3D is used well, it tends to be in the same familiar ways that never really link to the dramatic content of the drama. 3D would probably be most effective in simple fixed set studio shows (including the news and chat formats), but like I said, the incentive for shooting these in 3D is killed by the backward compatibility issue.

Trying to flog new display tech solutions (which are always snake-oil) is moronic when the market needs to perfect the passive glasses systems that are both practical and cheap. If 3D stands any chance of success, it needs to get very real very quickly.

Money, It's a Gas. (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | 1 year,27 days | (#43232535)

You guys should know, components are cheap now, If TV makers built basic sets without all the WiFi and fancy flash; they would actually lose money. Which brings us to 3D, the whole point of 3D is to keep the TV profitable for the manufacturer.

It's the same reason cars look like electric shavers and the steering wheel attached to a Computer instead of a gear box, to keep the Item profitable for the company. We simply wouldn't have any of these products anymore if they only made basic items, all the companies would be out of business.

I'm not defending them though, I still like my Steering Wheel attached to the actual wheels and non-3D TV's. Just saying why it's happening, the root of the problem seems to be Money. And until we have a Star-Trek kind of 'Work not for money, but for the betterment of Humanity' kind of world, then I don't see it changing anytime soon; you can expect more useless features coming soon.

3D? Pffft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#43232689)

Let me know when someone does 4D images - then you could have a movie containing 3D objects.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account