Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays HP Television Science Technology

New Advance In 3D TV Technology 143

Posted by samzenpus
from the more-real-than-real dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Advance In 3D TV Technology

Comments Filter:
  • by joebagodonuts (561066) <.cmkrnl. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:09PM (#43230699) Homepage Journal
    hp isn't dead?
    • But what does HP Lovecraft have to say?
    • by fishybell (516991)
      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.
    • 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...

      • by peragrin (659227) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @06:52AM (#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.

    • by havana9 (101033)
      Yes, you should use kilowatts, but because the numbers are bigger, car makers still prefer to use horse power on the advertising.
      • by GNious (953874)

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

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:13PM (#43230719) Journal

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

    • by alen (225700) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:17PM (#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

      • by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:42PM (#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.
        • by mdielmann (514750)

          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.

          This is one of the reasons why I haven't bought a 3D TV. I'm okay with passive (half my family already wears glasses), and I find it good enough at the theaters. Damned if I'm going to buy some active system, even if it is superior for 3D. Those proprietary glasses (why are they always proprietary?!) are going to suck the money out of your pocket and either need to be constantly charged or just sit on a shelf collecting dust. The other reason is I have no intention of paying a premium for a TV with a di

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            I don't disagree. I'd not have paid more for 3D, but for whatever reasons, this last-year model 3D TV with no glasses with it (why don't they all come with 4 glasses?) and no glasses available to buy, for any price (at that store, they are $300 on Amazon), was cheaper than the nearly identical 2D TV next to it. 3D you can't use was apparently a liability. I'm OK paying less for useless 3D.
        • by cthulhu11 (842924)
          When I bought my LCD/LED to replace the DLP that broke (Fuck you very much, Samsung!) I saved hundreds by forgoing 3D and hundreds more by forgoing the yellow-pixel foo. YMMV.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        My anecdotal evidence is no more powerful than yours, and you don't know me (so I'm not refuting your "only people I know" statement), but I do care about 3D. We just got a 3D TV earlier this year. Before that I got the 120Hz Asus 3D-capable monitor and Nvidia 3D setup for my 2nd monitor on my home computer, and a laptop that also runs Nvidia 3D. And I just got the Fujifilm 3D camera for stills and videos. The camera can be set to record every picture you take in both JPG (2D) and MPO (3D) formats. When vie

        • It's fine that you like 3D, but from my point of view, the whole argument for it fails at "When it's done well."

          I've never seen 3D anything that was "done well". It's just distracting, period. When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.

          • by The Rizz (1319)

            When 3D technology gets to the point where the screen is essentially like looking out a window, then I would find it worth getting, and I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for many years.

            I saw it over 20 years ago at an IMAX somewhere on the US west coast. Polarized light + polarized lenses is all it takes, and looks as realistic as looking out a window.

            The problem with all the "modern" attempts at it are they (a) are trying to be more complicated so they can patent it, and (b) are using special effects like throwing crap at the screen, which is distracting. (a) will hopefully go away as companies just say "fuck it" and make cheap patent-free 3D implementations, and (b) will hopefully go aw

            • I've seen a polarized light 3D IMAX movie at least once, at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga a few years ago. It was pretty cool, but it doesn't work _that_ well as far as I'm concerned. And it definitely wasn't a gimmicky production, but a nice documentary about sea life.

              I suspect the "modern" attempts are doing more than just trying to create a patentable implementation and are really trying to improve the experience. I can't imagine that if it were possible to make a cheap, patent-free 3D impleme

            • by mug funky (910186)

              poppycock. it's nothing to do with patents.

              IMAX 3D is the exact same thing as twin-lens DCI. single lens DCI is it's more problematic cousin that's seen more in budget conscious cinemas that can't afford the twin-lens setup.

              the reason it was restricted to IMAX for so long was twofold:
              - expensive - you need twice as much film and twice as much projector, and the precision engineering to keep them as perfectly in sync as possible to keep people from throwing up.
              - technically difficult. the IMAX format is a

          • by mug funky (910186)

            "when it's done well" is the opposite of the anthropic principle, and can be used to cynically defeat any proposition without even trying.

            ever see 2D pictures not done well? go to facebook for a few seconds and realise that in the right hands, even the easiest enabling art form can be done in a terrible way that makes your eyes bleed and brain melt (and then the brain will leak slowly out of the bleeding eyes).

            that said, i have an instinctive mistrust of small cameras. a small camera means a small sensor

            • But we're talking about televisions, and the media made for televisions is made with TV/movie cameras. The big ones. Of course I'm not comparing 3D photos taken with a Nintendo 3DS (which is a pretty cool implementation for such an inexpensive piece of hardware), with IMAX 3D movies. I've seen an IMAX 3D movie in an IMAX theater, and I wasn't impressed with it above any other 3D format I've seen. It wasn't horrible, but for me the 3D effect distracted from at least as much as it enhanced the experience

      • I always had those ASUS nVidia video cards that would come with those 3D LCD glasses, and enjoyed playing games in 3D since the original Unreal. It was extremely cool and kept wishing this was available on a bigger screen. Now it's trivial to set up a PC with a 3D TV, and also the PlayStation 3 has many full 3D games, and there's the 3DS. I always liked the experience and I'm really happy that it's widely available. Movies look great in 3D as well, and some fun can be had with the 2D > 3D software co
    • lenticular displays are not new. They are annoying though.

    • by jrumney (197329)

      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.

      • by jrumney (197329) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @01:35AM (#43231597) Homepage

        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.

  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:14PM (#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

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:25PM (#43230793) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.
        • Or, if you have a passive 3D TV, get multiple pairs of glasses for the price of a movie ticket.

          • That would also mean buying an LCD TV instead of a plasma. The difference in price for an LCD that has the image quality of a plasma is far greater than the savings from the free glasses.
            • by mug funky (910186)

              * for a given value of picture quality.

              LCDs have been on par or exceeded plasma since 2008 at least. but you may be thinking of a different thing than me. for me it was always about colour rendition, and plasmas just lacked dynamic range where it counts. contrast ratio numbers that are printed on the bezel of the set are not the same as dynamic range when you've gone in and turned off all the stupid bells and whistles so you can just look at the pictures the TV is being fed with.

        • 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.

          • I like the monoprice and panasonic glasses more myself for the exact same reason, but when the kid has a sleepover, I'd much rather hand out the Samsungs. :-)
    • by log0n (18224)

      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 i

    • by n30na (1525807)
      I got a 47" one for more like 600, it's not super fancy, but it's not terrible either.
    • 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

  • by CoolGopher (142933) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:25PM (#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

  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.
    • 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...

  • 3D is a Gimmick (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfish (1653411) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:33PM (#43230843)
    I never seen 3D look any good at any time ever (except real life of course). What will be different about this?
    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT7hcWFu7q4 [youtube.com]
      "It's got better resolution than the real world."

    • by mark-t (151149)

      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, regar

      • 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,
  • 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. (Score:4, Informative)

      by EmperorArthur (1113223) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:39PM (#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.

      • by clickety6 (141178)

        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!".

      • by hippo (107522)

        Now imagine the bandwidth.

      • by EdZ (755139)

        When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

        And if there are enough views (i.e. they change with a small enough angle, that angle being the angle subtended by the distance between your eyes at normal viewing distance) you have a passive multiview autostereo display. Which have been around for quite some time, so I can only imaging this HP thing is merely a semi-new implementation.

    • by Khyber (864651)

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

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:45PM (#43230925) Journal

      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'.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @10:38PM (#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.
    • 3D has jumped the shark...
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

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

      ITYM "M" 3-D, HTH HAND

    • I like noodling around with some of the tech for computer visualization, but don't really care about it for media consumption.

      The thing that sucked is that I wanted to watch The Hobbit in 48fps, but that was only available with the 3d version with the other goofy theater features. The 2d version was only 24fps at the theater I went to, and was showing at a more convenient time. Still, even wanting to watch it in higher framerate, I was completely fine with foregoing the 3d.

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

  • ... 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.
  • Welcome 3072fps! With 64 viewing angles required, that's a pretty large amount of bandwidth.

  • Holograms (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @11:05PM (#43230995)

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

  • 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.
  • A few weeks back I applied at a company doing exactly that as a demo many years ago.

  • Dot Hat (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @12:51AM (#43231413) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @01:13AM (#43231507) Homepage Journal

    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.

    Cheers,
    Dave

  • 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 p

  • ...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.

  • 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

  • I already don't want it since it's an HP product and thus garbage so the entire rest of the logic in that summary falls apart.

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...