Coming soon: 3D TVs that don't need 3D glasses

[ian1]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T100824003774.htm

In what is likely to be a world first, Toshiba Corp. is planning to release before the end of 2010 a TV set that will enable viewers to enjoy 3-D images with the naked eye, company sources have said...

... Toshiba has developed an integral imaging system that emits rays of light at different angles, allowing viewers' brains to recreate 3-D images without special glasses. The new technology also will enable viewers to enjoy 3-D content from numerous viewing positions, and the images will not strain the eyes, the sources said.

I thought the previous 3D TVs were somewhat of a gimmick, but this has really piqued my interest. I had no idea they had the technology to do this. I'm getting one as soon as I am able. That's for sure.

 

[Vegeta897]

This is old news.

And this is the same technology that's gonna be in the 3DS.

(which is also old news )

 

[Viperidae]

This is also the same technology that no one needs, no one really wants, and people only buy because they're told to.

 

[Vegeta897]

In before 63.

Oh wait he's banned lol.

 

[Maria Flores]

So what does this shit look like again?

 

[Naph]

I really wanted, real 3D. Not the illusion of 3D. That would be something I'd buy.

 

[Vegeta897]

That's not very ladylike.

 

[Stigmata]

I really wanted, real 3D. Not the illusion of 3D. That would be something I'd buy.

But at what point does it stop being an illusion? A virtual illusion is the next best thing to real-time substrate modelling of a game environment.

[edit] in terms of visual accuracy, assuming that this 3D technology scales up pretty linearly.

 

[Naph]

But at what point does it stop being an illusion? A virtual illusion is the next best thing to real-time substrate modelling of a game environment.

[edit] in terms of visual accuracy, assuming that this 3D technology scales up pretty linearly.

Turn your screen to an angle, and see what I mean.

 

[JUL3]

This is the same technology that's gonna be in the 3DS.

This.

 

[T-6000]

In before 63.

Oh wait he's banned lol.

I've been wondering, why was he banned?

Oh, and in regards to 3D TVs not requiring 3D Glasses, that does sound really cool. But I wonder how they'll be able to pull that off? Either way, when they come out it'll be more expensive than I can afford. Hell, I still don't have an HDTV.

 

[YROC]

vomit

vomit everywhere

(it just seems like something that would make you dizzier than hell)

 

[Druckles]

If you need to stick your head in a vice to see the illusion, then it's not really autostereoscopic.

 

[giant384]

If its a movie that is made completely in 3d(mostly animated movies) then its worth it, but if its one of those shitty movies where they add the 3d effects on top of a movie(almost every movie that is coming out right now which is pathetic)....then you just wasted yourself thousands on a piece of crap.

 

[ríomhaire]

Wait, if it projects the two images out at different angles to create 3D then won't you have to at a very specific angle to the TV to see it? What if you have a bunch of people? This can work on a handheld because you can just hold it at the right angle, but for a living room TV this sounds useless.

 

[VirusType2]

This is not the same thing as the Nintendo 3DS. I think the 3DS has two halves of the screen firing off at 2 different angles, meaning the perfect viewing angle is very small.

Look at the picture of Toshiba's implementation on the website

 

[Warbie]

Guess what, technology improves

As soon as a decent 3D projector comes out it shall be mine!

 

[ríomhaire]

This is not the same thing as the Nintendo 3DS. I think the 3DS has two halves of the screen firing off at 2 different angles, meaning the perfect viewing angle is very small.

I believe the 3DS has each vertical row of pixels alternating between the left image and right image, which project at different angles. If this actually works while looking at it from angle that would be fantastic. I think it's still too early to buy a 3D TV though. Wait until it becomes more standard. I honestly don't think it's just a fad this time, I think 3D TVs are going to be here to stay. It all depends on the the next year or two though.

 

[ian1]

What would be really interesting would be a 3D monitor which is just like staring through a window (that is, if you look at it at a different angle, you can see different parts of the "world" simulated on the other side of the screen).

That wouldn't really be practical for movies, but it would make for some amazing VR amusement park rides. It would also have some interesting applications in gaming, I'm sure.

Probably a long way off, though.

 

[ríomhaire]

What would be really interesting would be a 3D monitor which is just like staring through a window (that is, if you look at it at a different angle, you can see different parts of the "world" simulated on the other side of the screen).

That wouldn't really be practical for movies, but it would make for some amazing VR amusement park rides. It would also have some interesting applications in gaming, I'm sure.

Probably a long way off, though.

There's video on Youtube of a guy who did this with a wii remote set up on a stand and a sensor bar built into a pair of glasses he made. There was also a Japan-only DSi game that tracked the movement of your face with the camera.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I wonder what type of gaming can really become of this (as useful, not gimmicky). Besides kiddy games.

 

[Druckles]

There's video on Youtube of a guy who did this with a wii remote set up on a stand and a sensor bar built into a pair of glasses he made.

Yeah, but it wasn't stereoscopic, or auto.

 

[ríomhaire]

Yeah, but it wasn't stereoscopic, or auto.

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Dynasty]

''Coming soon! Overpriced technology that will see prices halved in a year due to ***k-all people actually wanting it in the first place!''

Seriously, 3D, go away.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I don't understand what you mean.

He had to wear a thingy on his head for it to work.

 

[AtomicSpark]

3D Displays May Be Hazardous To Young Children

http://slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May-Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children

 

[Vegeta897]

I don't understand what you mean.

Just because the view in the game changed corresponding to his head movement doesn't mean it's 3D. It still appeared as a flat image on the screen.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I endorse any and all technology that hijacks your brain's processing of the discrepancies between the images gathered by both eyes.

 

[Druckles]

Is that a sentry?

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Yes, Druckles, a sentry that shoots your eyes at point blank with red pixelated laser beams.

 

[Druckles]

As long as it's in 3D, I don't care.

 

[ríomhaire]

Just because the view in the game changed corresponding to his head movement doesn't mean it's 3D. It still appeared as a flat image on the screen.

Well yeah, but no reason that technology couldn't be combined with the 3D screens. The head tracking thing seem like it would be much more natural and less headache inducing than the normal 3D displays IMO.

 

[Escaep]

Aren't 3D TV's now not really true "3D" but more like 3D picture frames? At least thats what I've heard.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Aren't 3D TV's now not really true "3D" but more like 3D picture frames? At least thats what I've heard.

I don't understand this jibba-jabba. How does a "3D picture frame" behave in comparison to "true 3D"? What is "true 3D?" How do you define "true 3D?" If you mean what we can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then "true 3D" is simply electrical signals processed by your brain,etc.fnargharble

 

[Escaep]

I don't understand this jibba-jabba. How does a "3D picture frame" behave in comparison to "true 3D"? How do you define "3D?" If you mean what we can taste, smell, hear and feel then what's "3D" is nothing more than electrical signals processed by your brain. etc.

3D like at the movies where stuff seems to come at you and you can reach out and almost touch the characters. A 3D picture frame being well, just that, where it doesn't seem to extend beyond the borders of the frame. Kind of like those scenes you made in elementary school where you built stuff in a shoebox.

 

[Druckles]

Well yeah, but no reason that technology couldn't be combined with the 3D screens. The head tracking thing seem like it would be much more natural and less headache inducing than the normal 3D displays IMO.

The problem is being able to move the two images with the viewer. Then you have to show two views to each person watching. I heard of some emerging technology that could do this using some head tracking software and some awesome-sounding technology, but haven't heard anything since. I heard it was incredibly impressive from a first-hand viewer.

3D like at the movies where stuff seems to come at you and you can reach out and almost touch the characters. A 3D picture frame being well, just that, where it doesn't seem to extend beyond the borders of the frame. Kind of like those scenes you made in elementary school where you built stuff in a shoebox.

That's just the amount of difference between the two pictures. Read stuff here about the basic principle.

 

[ríomhaire]

The problem is being able to move the two images with the viewer. Then you have to show two views to each person watching. I heard of some emerging technology that could do this using some head tracking software and some awesome-sounding technology, but haven't heard anything since. I heard it was incredibly impressive from a first-hand viewer.

Fair enough. Sending out multiple different images for different people watching from different angle would probably be hard as **** to do but for one person playing a game on his own, the technology is already there.

 

[Druckles]

Fair enough. Sending out multiple different images for different people watching from different angle would probably be hard as **** to do

Technology's there for that, too, apparently. Just haven't heard anything about it in two years.

 

[Dan]

The problem is bandwidth. If they are just broadcasting two video streams, one for each eye, then you get crappy 3d because you have to move your head around so that your right eye is in the right place and your left eye is in the right place. If someone was sitting to perfectly see a 3d movie and then moved 2 inches to the right, then their left eye would be were their right eye was previously and they would get the depth of field inverted.

Now if you have true 3d, you would have an infinite number of views being broadcast across the spectrum of viewable angles. Then it works just like real life. As you move your head around you see different angles of the same thing. This would require fibre optic TV cables to get even 10 or so angles. Or alternatively, streams of video+depth of field information for a few key angles (say 9) and and some high power graphics processors in the tv that can recombine the data it into a 3d image and broadcast across thousands of viewing angles. Some reflection and fancier light artifacts would get screwed up but maybe people wouldn't notice. Or just a single 3d data stream that the tv accesses directly, but for that to work we would need really high power tv that can render thousands of frames per second in a realistic manner.

 

[Dr.Demento]

The problem is bandwidth. If they are just broadcasting two video streams, one for each eye, then you get crappy 3d because you have to move your head around so that your right eye is in the right place and your left eye is in the right place. If someone was sitting to perfectly see a 3d movie and then moved 2 inches to the right, then their left eye would be were their right eye was previously and they would get the depth of field inverted.

Now if you have true 3d, you would have an infinite number of views being broadcast across the spectrum of viewable angles. Then it works just like real life. As you move your head around you see different angles of the same thing. This would require fibre optic TV cables to get even 10 or so angles. Or alternatively, streams of video+depth of field information for a few key angles (say 9) and and some high power graphics processors in the tv that can recombine the data it into a 3d image and broadcast across thousands of viewing angles. Some reflection and fancier light artifacts would get screwed up but maybe people wouldn't notice. Or just a single 3d data stream that the tv accesses directly, but for that to work we would need really high power tv that can render thousands of frames per second in a realistic manner.

^Dan

HL2.net's leading authority on science, mathematics, and technology!

Seriously though, sounds like a pretty good explanation. Dan's either a really bright fellow, or a politician.