New Advance In 3D TV Technology 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."
Netcraft confirms: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Netcraft confirms: (Score:5, Funny)
That is not dead which can eternal lie
Yet with strange eons even death may die.
A bit more cryptic than Netcraft, honestly.
Re: (Score:1)
Obligatory Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Re:Netcraft confirms: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if this is a car analogy or not.
I don't think so ... I'm fairly certain there was something about hot grits, Natalie Portman, and/or GNAA in there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thou canst not kill that which doth not live, but you can blast it into kibble."
Quake user manual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously, they must try harder to die. And they will.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
good explanation.
i always figured people would have no problem, and decoupling focal plane with parallax would be an easy thing for a brain to do - after all, the same happens when doing one of those magic eye things.
then i realised... hardly anyone can do those magic eye things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[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? (Score:5, Informative)
I remember seeing standalone 3D displays at SIGGRAPH over 10 years ago.
Re:Why is this taking so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Wanted 3D, bought 3D (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if that were the case, screens would have been made taller, not shorter.
it pretty much goes like this:
some new technology comes along. it goes into cinemas, because it can be much bigger and more expensive, and wouldn't really fit in a living room.
the cinema types rejoice and finally hail the final defeat of television land.
then some bright spark does the same thing on a scale that fits in television land.
then the cinema guys implement the next big thing, rinse and repeat.
google glass is sitting there, som
Re:Why is this taking so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
lenticular displays are not new. They are annoying though.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
where do 3dtv's cost a few grand? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you have a passive 3D TV, get multiple pairs of glasses for the price of a movie ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Just dial 1-800-POKE-1-EYE and we'll send somebody over.
Wrong 3D (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT7hcWFu7q4 [youtube.com]
"It's got better resolution than the real world."
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Not Possible. (Score:2)
"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)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Now imagine the bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Orrr, maybe we have better light waveguide building tech to put on the front of the panel.
Re:Not Possible. (Score:4, Funny)
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'.
Possible, but not yet. (Score:3)
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 targ
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 fo
Re: (Score:1)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course.
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
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like in real life? If you stay in one place, your eyes are each only getting one angle as well.
With existing 3d films, much of the heedache problem is caused by incorrect eye convergence for what your eye lens is actually focussing on (the distance from you to the screen). This is because they put the left and right images at different points on the screen instead of at
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
am I the only one that actively avoids 3d? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
focus... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Forget 48fps. (Score:2)
Welcome 3072fps! With 64 viewing angles required, that's a pretty large amount of bandwidth.
Holograms (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to see another 3D-related post unless we've got working holograms.
Re: (Score:2)
Working holograms are easy. The problem with them that makes them unsuitable for 3D TV is that they cannot convey color information.
Re: (Score:2)
Times have changed. We can do color holograms now.
Very cool stuff:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/218 [sciencemag.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Personally won't buy 3D as long as I need glasses (Score:2)
Seriously, It's been done (Score:2)
A few weeks back I applied at a company doing exactly that as a demo many years ago.
Dot Hat (Score:4, Informative)
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.
I played 3D games in the 90's (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8e6dbgk26U [youtube.com]
It's Fake (Score:1)
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.
3D is obsolete, Silly Head (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufw2D8oMJ64 [youtube.com]
I'll happily trade 3D for (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that's not something that sells movies.
HP was NOT first, not even close (Score:1)
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
Maybe there's a more user-centric approach to 3D: (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVL3uW9uV4E [youtube.com]
Until the viewer can choose their focus plane... (Score:2)
...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.
Money, It's a Gas. (Score:2)
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
logical flaw (Score:2)