Deny it all you please, but the
3D revolution is
here. LG is just the next brand in the
growing line of consumer companies that are
caving to the three-dee
pressure, and according to Choon Lee, Vice President Director at the Digital TV Research Lab, LG will be launching at least one 3D TV next year. To quote: "3D TVs are the next big step for [LG]; we will try with one or two markets in 2009." Regrettably, that's about all the details he would give up, stopping short of confessing to which markets would first see the devices and when exactly during the course of next year they would launch. It's cool, though -- gives us ample time to get used to wearing those hideous glasses around the house without tripping over foreign objects.
posted Nov 26th 2008 3:30PM
personally i think the idea is garbage until you dont need some kind of glasses, this seems like more of a 'first' moment for the company than developing the technology even more.
Totally agree. Having to wear cheesy glasses is going to kill adoption of this tech before it even gets a chance. Can you imagine having to have boxes of loaner glasses at the store so browsers can compare sets? Nah, it's just not going to work...deader than HD-DVD.
One word
Contacts
I guess I'm the only who doesn't mind wearing the glasses. I just put them on and I don't really notice I'm wearing them.
I second that, 3d tech needs to be polished. I will ONLY embrace it when they ditch those stupid glasses and guarantee me a head-ache-free viewing experience.
I can already see regulations on how much panning, spinning and proximity there can be, that or a lot of law suits.
Yeah, the television "didn't work" at the beginning because people demanded colours straight away.
The same reason why the radio "didn't work" because people demanded video.
It's going to work. And will sell. Ideas like the TV, radio... etc have to be cost effective because they rely primarily on a huge 3rd party adoption to make it work.
Well, it was good fun and nobody got hurt so it's all cool.
What the hell is that? It only has one engine (hence, not a Twin Ion Engine . . . so, not a TIE?).
Anyone know where that screen shot is from?
I can't believe I'm replying to this, but I think the Twin part of the TIE refers to the number of wings/engines. The 'original' TIE fighters also only have one 'exhaust' if I recall correctly.
TIE stands for Twin ion engines. But the Exhaust had no colour to it just a hole with two red dots either side.
It is a TIE Bomber. And before you release a certain series in 3D, please release it in HD!
Its a TIE Fighter X1. A TIE Bomber has two cylindrical sections in the center with a bomb port on the bottom of one of them.
Second of all.. I HATE 3D TV. I watched a 3D IMAX of Superman, and i was getting horrible headaches everytime they went to the 3D scenes and made us put on the glasses. I hope to hell this doesnt take off..
I know the word is overused on the internet, but if you're arguing about this, you fail.
Sienar Fleet Systems product speculation aside, does anyone recognize that SCREEN SHOT? Is it from Clone Wars (which I haven't bothered to watch) or some new LucasArts game? Or did LG just pull some random, (probably)-copyright-infringing shot out of its arse and slap it on that TV?
I was going to ask the exact same question, actually. It looks like a TIE advanced or a TIE Interceptor, but it would have to be a glitchy shot or a fabricated shot, since no TIE fighters have a bright white shining hull.
it aint a tie fighter, ill tell you that. the TIE does stand for twin ion engine.
to me it looks like a photoshopped monstrosity
It is some kind of TIE, not the TIE Fighter, but something else...
It's a Tie Fighter Advanced X1 isn't it? like the one Darth Vader was piloting....
you star wars nerds are idiots, that's just a promotional image made my LG, their logo is part of the image
I doubt its anything from star wars at all, and that death star lookalike in the back doesn't have a big enough scooped out part
also engadget, "one or two markets" doesn't mean one or two 3D TVs
am I the only person who noticed we just reached nerd defcon 5? We just had a star wars debate in a gadget blog comment section! Look out! Only way it could be worse is if we were arguing which was better, Star Wars or Star Trek.... oh crap. Need to defuse.... um... Hey everybody, have you heard about the bird???
wow, ok people, this is sad... i just googled defcon, the numbers go in reverse. Apparently we've hit 1, or at least 2.... God help us...
Is that 1 or 2 TVs, or 1 or 2 markets? Because those are two significantly different things.
Watch out AMiSH PiRATE. The Indian Navy is after your ass.
Sweet. Captain EO on DVD with extra footage....
Seriously...I need me some Captain EO - STAT!
D-land really needs to bring that back. :(
damn, I had assumed this was the no-glasses variety. I've done some work with polarized rear-projection systems, and they're OK, but not great. This might be a little better than rear-projection, but it's size will likely counter any improved image quality it might have.
The future = affordable no-glasses 3d displays and affordable 3d printers. I can't wait!
If it's THE FUTURE, then your printer is already 3D...it's just that the third dimension is time, not Z.
@Craig
Really? Since when did your printer produce time-varying images? I tried printing a site with a GIF, and nothing noteworthy happened. My printouts never change by themselves.
Oh, and Z (i.e. depth) is the 3rd dimension. It's called convention.
Time is the fourth dimension, last time I checked. 3D = Length x width x height.
Speaking of which, remember that Simpsons Halloween episode where Homer got sucked into the "theoretical THIRD dimension?" And they had a 3D rendering of Homer walking through a live-action street? Classic.
. . . or, if you prefer, 3D = length x width x depth (x, y, z). Whichever.
wow, ok... I take it back, NOW we've reached nerd defcon 1... (see star wars) lol
Choon Lee, Vice President Director at the Digital TV Research Lab...
will be sparring with E.Honda from Marketing after lunch, FIGHT!
Don't forget Ree Yuu in Accounting and Mr. Dull-seem in IT, "yoga flaaaame."
There's a nice big rear-projection 3d screen downstairs from my office :D
http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/WRONVisualisationCentre.html
here's a better link (pdf, with lots of pics)
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pku7.pdf
Pity I don't actually need to do anything in 3d. It makes a nice meeting room though, especially with the interactive whiteboard. I love my job!
Definitely not an X1. That has a flat back and does, in fact, have twin ion engines.
its most likely a fan rendering from desktop starship or something similar. I'd be VERY surprised to see something like that come out of lucasfilm, even for a game.
Looks a lot like Star Wars Galaxies though.
My old TV from '88 is 3 dimensional. Is this supposed to be a new technology? In fact, my old TV probably has more depth than these TV's.
whats the point? if theres no media to support it then nobody will buy it. unless people start making 3D cameras and starts filming things in 3D (or animating). then even if you have a 3D TV its not really going to do much good except increase eye fatigue
Your comment is just plain silly and with a little bit of thought you would realize that.
When color TV first came out most cameras only recorded in black and white.
When HD TV came out most cameras only recorded in standard def.
NFL is recording in 3D over the next season to test it out, the first game being Chargers Vs Raiders, as 3DTV sets are not out in the market yet its being streamed to 3D theatres in Los Angeles, New York and Boston.
This is going to be... next week I believe, and this isn't the first time they tested it, they tested it out in 2004 at the Super Bowl, but that wasn't streamed live, but recorded and played back.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081124-now-were-talking-sports-fans-nfl-to-demo-3-d-technology.html
Hrm... I can't make a decision on wether or not to buy it until Mr. "Proffessional" makes a comment...
Sigh. Why is it when any new 3d product comes out, all the idiots who know nothing about 3d, and have probably never even seen a 3d movie, come out of the woodwork with comments such as 'never take off', 'never gonna wear glasses' blah blah blah.
I dont really see the problem with wearing lightweight sunglasses type 3d glasses... and if you'd ever played a game in stereoscopic 3d, or seen a good 3d movie, you'd understand the potential of this technology. Sure, its not for every movie, but I guarantee when it comes time to watch the latest 3d movie and you have a choice of seeing it with glasses on a 3dtv, or in 2d without glasses, most people would choose seeing it in 3d. If you dont, your missing a large amount of the effects and immersion.
They can generate the same effect without glasses, but then you lose half your horizontal resolution and gain a limited viewing area.
As to those who claim theres hardly any 3d movies etc, many new movies are filmed in 3d, and all animated ones (toy story etc) can be easily converted to 3d.
you wanna know why? It ruins the illusion.
My only comment is why? What is it really going to add to the experience?
Ehhh, another dimension?
You know, I seem to recall a 3d video game back 15 years ago maybe? Forget what it was called. It was in arcades, and didn't require 3d glasses. Wonder what happened with that tech continuing on.
Ok let's flash forward...now the computer tech exists to render in 3d and use light polarization to create a really convincing 3d experience. Polarization is the key. This current tech does not work under any circumstances without glasses. I don't even think contacts would work, because if they rotate in your eyeball, you lose the polarization difference between your right and left eye. The picture also has to be white balanced to account for any tint in the glasses, though I haven't noticed anyone doing a good job of that yet. This is so far from prime time in home sets. It will be listed as an also ran spec to sell a TV. Any attempt to actually use it will be futile. But you will be made fun of for putting on the glasses and trying.
Of course I guess I still don't understand what the hardware requirement is anyway. I thought the tech break through was all in encoding the media and polarizing it. Better faster computers/algorithms type of thing...that's now apparently fast enough for a real time encode of a football game. Which is some how faster than an LCD response time many still complain about. They have a good ad campaign...gotta hand it to 'em.
The 3d game you are talking about is probably Time Traveller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_(video_game)
I believe it was mainly limited by the size of the mirror display system and thus could only display small images.
Polarization is just one way to attain 3d, and I doubt is is the method that will be used by these sets. Most modern 3dtv systems use a high frequency dlp chip and lcd shutter glasses running at 120hz. This gives a 60hz actual rate. As to the difficulty of using 3d in modern tvs, I think you overstate the problem. Most people would happily accept a slightly darker picture for greater immersion once they have experienced it, and I dont see any technical reason why it cannot eventually be made as easy to use as putting on the glasses and pressing a button. However, this technology is in its infancy and will probably have many competing standards so I doubt it will be trouble free at present.
As to encoding 2d media and 'polarizing it' (converting to stereoscopic pairs) this is simply not practical yet. To realtime encode a football game, you need 2 cameras (or more I guess) as you'd need to capture 3d information that simply is not going to be there in the 2d version. An example of why its not possible yet is this:
Stand facing the right edge of a square cube (building, monitor, etc). Close your right eye, and move your head slowly until you can not see any detail of the retreating part of the cube. If your using a monitor as reference, it will be you can no longer see any fins or side part of the monitor.
Now, open your right eye. See how you can now see some of the fins and the side of your monitor? Thats whats missing from the non 3d movies. If (eg) a film has been filmed with only one camera (the 'left eye') then the information that should have been seen by the right eye has to be fully recreated. It doesn't exist anywhere on the film. You cant just 'shift' it to get a right eye view as the information contained in the picture is exactly the same.
The 3D effect could be achieved WITHOUT GLASSES by simply quickly alternating between two images from slightly different points of view. One commenter mentioned the subsequent lack of horizontal resolution. However, I believe the solution lies with working with a 2x framerate and then alternating the images creating 1x framerate for each perspective and no need to interlace the frames. Interlacing would undoubtedly introduce some new and interesting visual artifacts with this 3d effect implemented.
So, in short, no need for glasses, or polarization when simple fast framerates with alternating perspectives will do. see http://flickr.com/photos/85444734@N00/2400480487/ and scroll down to the second image for an example. This particular one uses more than two images, but the same effect can be achieved.
Errrm... Your all a little deluded. LG's TV is a special one. You don't need glasses!! Thats the point!!! I went to see it in harrods yesterday, besides the resolution it's amazing!
http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2006/10/30/LG-Announces-42in-3D-LCD-TV/p1
nobody seems to notice that this 3d-tv doesn't require glasses! It uses the same tech as the Philips 3d tv's, and they work great.
I hope that LG is really not going to launch a glasses variety of a 3D television screen. There are too many glasses free varieties with the technology that is available today: Phillips, allioscopy, newsight, JVC. Add the up and coming screens with four times the density along with the glasses free 3D technology and you have some real 3D solutions for the home.
I dont see anywhere in the article that says this TV doesn't need glasses. Autostereoscopic (no glasses) displays do exit, but typically you lose half the horizontal resolution and they have limited viewing angles. However, with 1080 displays, you could probably display autosteroscopically and still have a picture as clear as standard tv...
As for using the 'alternating image' pseudo 3d, are you joking? Thats nothing like real 3d. Its a good way to show a bit more depth to still photos etc, but I seriously doubt it will ever be used for mainstream productions. To achieve real 3d, you need to have separate viewpoints going to each eye. The pseudo method just gives 2 viewpoints to the same eye...
LG 3D TV caught on video...http://www.mr-gizmo.com/2008/11/29/lg-3d-tv-available-in-2009-video/
The TV actually doesn't require any glasses. You stand in front of it and it displays 3d. If you stand to the side there is some fuzziness. If you close one eye, it displays fine, the other eye displays it fuzzy, so they have some things to work out. It would be great for 1 or 2 people trying to watch a show in one spot, but you wouldn't want to watch much of anything from an angle.
I saw the TV on display at AU08 in Las Vegas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-TPxytihwI
the TIE does stand for twin ion engine.
to me it looks like a photoshopped monstrosity
http://www.buycheaphdtvs.com