Mitsubishi shows off 3D TV technology: no glasses needed

Experiencing 3D on a television sans those horrifically unsightly glasses has been a dream for years, and while we heard that Mitsubishi had a few tricks up its sleeve last year, we're finally seeing the fruits of its labor. In a brief, completely monotonous video, the outfit demonstrates its "scalable system for real-time acquisition, transmission and autostereoscopic display of dynamic scenes," which translates to "3D TV" in layman's terms. We'll restrain from getting all up in the technicalities, but feel free to take a look at what the "future holds" in the video after the break.

[Halfmad @ Jan 4th 2008 1:57PM]

Absolutely minted!

[whowhatme @ Jan 4th 2008 2:13PM]

Totally awesome! Now we just need the technology to fit the cameras into a small, R2-D2 sized container, so we can transmit intergalactic distress messages in vibrant 3D!

[Speddy @ Jan 4th 2008 2:57PM]

"Help me Mitsubishi, you're my only hope!"

Be cool if they had high speed video cameras...then we could make our own Matrix gun sequences...

[ethana2 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:47PM]

If you have 20 'consumer PCs' now, you could render your own in blender with soft body dynamics, ray tracing, and at whatever resolution and frame rate you darn well please.
On phoronix, I saw a Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz processor for like $300 or less. That's ridiculous.

[Ryan @ Jan 4th 2008 2:09PM]

Hahaha....sooooo lame!

[Melenor @ Jan 4th 2008 2:55PM]

Yeah, so let me get this straight: in order to get the 3D effect while watching this, you have to bob left and right constantly? Or can you actually get the effect of the 16 different views in one stationary spot? And perhaps it was the quality of the video, but the "slight blurriness for small features" seemed to apply to absolutely everything.

I'm afraid I have to pass on this technology.

[CraigJ @ Jan 4th 2008 2:56PM]

@Mel. Prototype.

[blarvh @ Jan 4th 2008 3:05PM]

Why would you need to bob your head sideways to see the effect? Unless you are one eyed of course. It's the only way to show that it's truly a 3D image, on your puny 2D display.

This looks so much better in person (I presume).

[Spiderpig @ Jan 4th 2008 3:42PM]

@ do-i-have-to-move-guys:

*No* you do *not* have to move around the room to see the effect. Most humans have two eyes and therefore two points of view while cameras and you computer screen have only one. The camera is moved so that you can see the different views at different places (ie left eye - right eye).

Please, use your brain.

[blackfeather @ Jan 4th 2008 2:10PM]

Somebody get that guy a helmet. He's bound to hurt himself when he falls over.

[Dbob @ Jan 4th 2008 2:11PM]

head tracking, like Johnny Lee's wii tracking, is much much much more efficient.

[blackfeather @ Jan 4th 2008 2:13PM]

unless there's two people watching.. or am I mistaken?

[mike @ Jan 4th 2008 2:35PM]

Unlike head trackers, this setup provides a separate image to each eye when the viewer is motionless, which is required for a "true" 3D experience. I'd agree that the hardware requirements (projectors and PCs) are a bit over the top at this point though.

[mmh @ Jan 4th 2008 2:50PM]

Interestingly, according to Johnny Lee's resume, he actually did some stuff at Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory from 2002-2006. Hmm. :D

[Dbob @ Jan 4th 2008 2:56PM]

i guess id have to see it in real life, it looks crappy on camera.

[JBrown @ Jan 4th 2008 2:20PM]

Well it's just the beginning, but it's a step!

[ethana2 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:52PM]

Absolutely.

Will you believe us /now/, politicians!? We need faster internet and current 'competition' isn't cutting it!

Hopefully wireless 700MHz internet crushes every ISP that thrives on mediocrity by taking their market, so we can see some clawing and biting for the best ToS and raw, unthrottled torrent speeds.

[Spider1981 @ Jan 4th 2008 2:24PM]

I see a whole new line of motorized sliding living room furniture being born from this, because it seems that you can only truly appreciate this while moving from side to side. I dunno, I'd be kind of freaked out if the lazy-boy goes on the fritz and goes wheeling around the house.

[blarvh @ Jan 4th 2008 3:06PM]

If you are one eyed, yes.

[AlexL @ Jan 4th 2008 2:26PM]

Using 16 cameras and 16 projectors and 16 computers to simultaneously project 16 images seem...well...someone's garage project rather an a corporate research project. But on the other hand the display surface that can reflect 16 different images depending on the viewer's positing is kind of neat. I wonder if that kind of technology is available separately somewhere, or whether this project is the first one to pioneer that display surface?

[insertAlias @ Jan 4th 2008 2:38PM]

Thats one hell of a well-funded garage project.

[Michael @ Jan 4th 2008 5:28PM]

The tech has been around for a year or so now. It's being intro'd in cars...

Imagine the driver looking at a nav screen while the passenger surfs the internet and someone in the back-center seat watches a movie.

Also, directed sound has been out for *at least* a year. Several people could be sitting around in the living room watching, playing, and listening to different things all at once.

[hatekillpuke @ Jan 5th 2008 2:51AM]

In fact there are LCD displays that are lenticular, we've got a demo unit on loan for a project at my work. check out www.wowvx.com

We just had a 20" or so, I believe the 42" costs around $14,000.

[Tachikomatic @ Jan 4th 2008 2:29PM]

I think I may just get seasick if I watch any more of these demos. Still, pretty cool.

[Frank @ Jan 4th 2008 2:33PM]

Some of you people have no vision. This is amazing! Imagine murder shows where evidence is hidden from normal view. Items hidden in video games where you have to change your gaze to see them.

Even better, director's hiding easter eggs in scenes for fans to find. This opens up so many cool ideas if you think about it.

[Frank @ Jan 4th 2008 2:34PM]

Or what about movies where they don't have to change the view every 5 seconds during a scene because you can clearly see both characters talking and move get a better view if you like.

[Ed @ Jan 5th 2008 4:34AM]

Uhhhhhh, just WHICH people are you talking about?

Last time I checked it takes an enormous amount of motivation to get a fat American ass off the couch for a minute :)

Needing to perform cardio to watch a movie is not going to sit well for most lazy adults.....

P.S - Yes I am American. Yes I am Fat. AND YES it does take a good reason to get me off the couch when I finally get to make it there after the end of the day. I'm only recognizing that the behavior exists in others :)

[Darryl @ Jan 4th 2008 2:39PM]

It's quite simple to achieve 3d without those pesky glasses. As you sit in front of the screen, 2 different images are projected, one for each eye. Sound like conventional 3d with glasses? This is where the microchips implanted in your brain lovingly take control of your eyelid function. Now isn't that much more convenient?

[jason @ Jan 4th 2008 3:17PM]

I've been hearing about "new breaktrough(s) in 3d television since the 70's. I'll believe it' when they air it.

[MaGiXX @ Jan 4th 2008 2:43PM]

Doesn't really look 3D as in it pops out of the screen, it more like what the matrix did with a bunch of cameras for their famous scenes and and the spun you around the object, the only difference here seems to be that you have to be the one moving. So if you were in a theater/standing in one place, it would look no different then a regular TV.

[GenericWhiteGuy @ Jan 4th 2008 4:33PM]

Unless, of course, like most people you have two eyes separated by a small horizontal distance on your face. In that case, each eye would receive a different view of the scene and your brain would interpret it as a 3d image.

This would look almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular 2-d tv image... In other words, it would be 3d.

[cortes.john @ Jan 4th 2008 2:56PM]

this looks like a home video

[sage @ Jan 4th 2008 3:05PM]

They should have made this demonstrational video using the technology of which they speak - this was the most boring thing I have watched all day. I mean its just TV...

[insertAlias @ Jan 4th 2008 3:28PM]

The projectors are required parts of the technology. If they showed the recorded output, it would just look like a composite video from 16 cameras at different locations.

[Paul @ Jan 4th 2008 3:25PM]

It is not 3D as in "coming out at you". It is 3D as in the image will change based on the location of perception.

While this technology is really cool, I don't see practical use for it in television as most people prefer to sit in one spot and never move while watching TV.

This is more like the first step toward star wars style holographic video.

[blarvh @ Jan 4th 2008 3:38PM]

As they say in they use both binocular parallax and motion parallax. You DON'T have to move to see the 3D in the image. Kind of like how you don't have to bob your head from side to side to see if there is depth behind your monitor, or it it's in the wall. Feel the amazing difference by covering up one eye.

It may not be as cool when sitting still but I would still pay extra to have it in my TV. The first days would be spent walking in front of it in awe.

[NXTwoThou @ Jan 4th 2008 4:15PM]

Its a starter step for them to start experimenting with it. Eventually they could produce a LCD monitor that had its pixels on a lenticular surface and software that updated the strips accordingly. I wish they would have bopped up and down, I get the impression that its only depth left and right.

[MichaelP @ Jan 4th 2008 6:04PM]

The video showed a horizontal row of cameras, hence the video will only reflect horizontal motion.

But the idea is that you can sit still and see depth of field. Since your eyes are (normally) horizontally spaced, this is what you need anyway.

[JRodCA @ Jan 4th 2008 5:43PM]

It is only in the left to right because the cameras were lined up in a line. So the left to right gets 16 different angles but they all still see the same angle in regards to up and down capture. It would need a wall of cameras covering all axis to get a full up down left right 3d effect.

I agree with some of the other comments on people having a lack of vision. Imagine how different the world would be today if everyone just shot down the first prototype cause it wasn't perfect. Wright brothers anyone?

[Iridium @ Jan 4th 2008 4:41PM]

Wow its an adaptation of lenticular photographs with video instead of multiple photos. Glad they found another use for something created in the 1600's. Or course lenticular photos didn't get started until the 1940's.

Unless they can find a way to make the lenticular slices extremely small with many more angles you will have a very blurry and low resolution picture. Glasses or holographic displays are still the best bet for 3D TV.

[bw @ Jan 4th 2008 4:46PM]

nice!

[Sam @ Jan 4th 2008 4:50PM]

Yep my next door neighbor is an investor and he has a prototype at his house. I watched the Rose Bowl on it. He said that they should be in production before 2010. HAH! I"M IN THE LOOP!

[JRodCA @ Jan 4th 2008 5:47PM]

Your neighbor may have something different because unless he was getting the feed from every camera in the stadium fed into his house and then processed for his prototype display it would still be a "flat" image and not the same as the 3d shown here.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jan 5th 2008 2:49AM]

whats your neighbours name?

[Randomness @ Jan 4th 2008 4:54PM]

I can already see what happens to the first guy that buys one of these:

"Yeah man, I had 16 projector bulbs go out on me last month, the 2nd mortgage went through though!"

:p

[whatsdamattau @ Jan 4th 2008 6:48PM]

Beowolf in 3D will be kids stuff. This is awesome, but he said that small details are lost. Well, why not use better cameras, use a higher resolution, and most of all get high definition projectors.

[Tim @ Jan 4th 2008 7:44PM]

Theme park thing me thinks.

[GMack @ Jan 4th 2008 8:51PM]

I echo many posters comments about the lack of vision around here!

This is a proto-type - which is basically a corporate version of "proof-of-concept". Basically taking off-the-shelf components to see if it works.

And as you can see, it works.

Now imagin a camera with a 50X50 array of tiny, HD lens (actually, I believe they have cameras like this already.) And look up a few posts and see the tiny projector for handheld devices. Now imagine a single projector that is made of of a 50X50 array of tiny HD projectors.

Now you have a high-resolution, single component capture, single component transmission system. They shoot the movies/shows with the cameras, you show them on your projector. Now you have 3D, HDTV.

Remember (or for those of you not old enough, Google) the first "camcorders"? I'm sure you guess would be saying those were worthless too.

[PineappleClock @ Jan 4th 2008 11:30PM]

Why do they need 16 different cameras? wouldn't two be a better compromise, and just order the lenticular projectors 1212121212...12? Sure you'd have to have a specific viewing angle so that your eyes match up to a binocular slice, and you couldn't do the head-wagging thing but it would be easier to film

[Ed @ Jan 5th 2008 5:15AM]

Wake me up when they finally have that 3 dimensional projection of a hot woman sitting on top of you in the recliner.

You know the one I'm talking about it. It was in some movie with Arnold. The one where he was a clone.