Look, we've seen an awful lot of HDTVs in our day -- one lap around the average CEDIA show floor makes your local Best Buy look awfully small -- and to this day we've yet to put our peepers on a more stunning set than Mitsubishi's LaserVue HDTV. Sure, it's fat, ugly and expensive, but the image is otherworldly. Before Mitsu can even take the logical next step, a California startup has arisen to introduce what it calls the world's first laser-based 3D HDTV. We're talking 1080p 3D like you've never seen before, with CTO Edmund Sandberg noting that this production is smoother than RealD, Dolby, film and pretty much every other 3D solution. The secret here is in the speed; this set is so fast that the image "no longer needs to flash from one eye to the other," and no flashing should equate to no headaches. Too bad there's no planned release date, but we're still cautiously optimistic for a sneak peek (in addition to the video past the break) at CES 2010.
The difference is that this system appears to allow passive glasses, meaning their is a polarization filter integrated into the display. Older sets that can do 3d have a normal display that can handle high refresh rates and a timing chip that (indirectly) communicates with active eyewear. As far as I know, they are the first ones to make a 3D display that needs no more than a set of cheap polarized glasses to view.
I'm sorry, I still perfer SDTV. I have a 36 inch and its image is flawless. Color depth is perfect. Games on 360 look perfect on it wherein they look washed out on HDTV.
You get a good Samsung 6 or 7 series, let me adjust the contrast, then tell me the colors are washed out. I often find that with games and HDTV's, it takes some manual adjustments to your picture settings for it to look spectacular. Movies and TV are fine stock.
I always find that when I buy a TV it comes with stupidly overblown colors (the problem with HDTVs is more that the image is over-sharpened).
But big fat CRT, which you generally can't buy in HD, does have the best color gamut, but the others have caught up, just make sure you can get some time with the television on normal settings with your own material, because all HDTVs are not made equal, and they are certainly not all washed out.
First of all, a slight (yes, by now I would say CRT has a *slight* advantage over a nice LCD/LED screen) bump in picture superiority is not worth the eyesore that is a big fat fu*%&#g CRT screen in your living room. And second of all, all I mentioned was holographic board games. Stop responding to my post just to get your comment higher, motherbitch!
@mag42987: I have a series 7 TV. Any tips you might have? Not joking, seriously. I kinda suck at adjusting.
Also, sorry if I seem dumb (perhaps I really am :D ) but what's the point of 3D? I don't think it's THAT hot, but then again, last time I saw something with it was a in a movie quite a few years ago, so maybe that's why I can't really recall anything amazing about 3D. Oh well...
They can make these, but the problem is that it necessarily has to have a very narrow viewing angle. Since they have to target a single image to each eye, there is a specific field for each eye, and when you leave that field, you lose the 3d effect. They actually make pc monitors with this tech right now, since they ordinarily only have 1 viewer.
With glasses, the viewing angle is greatly increased. I imagine we may get to the point where you can get a pair of prescription 3d glasses for use with polarized sets. It would be nice if they had them now for use in RealD cinemas.
Really, unless games make a good use of 3D, I can't really see myself needing or really wanting a "3D" set. Give me crisp & clear image with great color depth & I am happy.
I demoed a LaserVue set at a local Magnolia and I was deeply disappointed. There was an intense speckly noise throughout the picture, and static elements (like text) wiggled perceptibly. Unwatchable.
Screw that 3D stuff (awesome as it could possibly be...), it's RICHARD freakin' HART! I haven't seen him on tv in years! He did Next Step, I think it was, on Discovery, which was one of the defining shows of my childhood (and of my life, apparently, considering I'm posting on a gadgets website instead of looking for a job...)
You can have a very specific "sweet spot" where you see the image the creator intended, since most movies are based on a particular point of view. If multiple layers are used in the image, being outside the sweet spot will have you see things at a different angle than intended. If multiple simultaneous images are used and "aimed" at different eyes, like a lenticular display, you have to have your head exactly where they expect it - within about two inches. Other arrangements could allow for a "lifelike" 3D, as if you are seeing objects floating inside your TV, but that's not how movies are intended.
The other option is that you have to wear something to give you with the intended image. Older systems used red/blue images, so only the intended eye would see the correct image; a blue image seen through a red lens will look dark and solid, while the blue image seen though a blue lens will be (almost) invisible. Some systems use shutter lenses to control which eye sees what picture; this, like the red/blue system, works regardless of the type of image projector, but it requires a precise controller to sync which images are sent when, and which images are seen when. The more popular format for large groups is to use a special projector that can send some light horizontally-polarized and some vertically-polarized; this is combined with polarized lenses, one polarized each way, which will then filter out any light that is not oriented correctly. Other, more exotic options could be tried, like say, a unit that can track the viewersand beam the correct images directly into each eye; the problem is that the unit will be limited on how many users it can track and beam images to, and you probably still have to wear something, like a small IR transmitter for targeting.
Or you could have a cerebral implant that just sends the image directly to your brain...
For what it's worth, holographics would be in the first category. It would work fine for "observation" situations, like where the viewer is simply an observer on the situation, but most movies try to put the viewer into a very specific point of view.
For example: if the point-of-view is supposed to be from the driver's seat of a car, but the holographic system has the off-center viewer see from the perspective of the passenger seat or dashboard, the result could be quite suspenseful, but it's not what the creator intended. In a horror movie, the intended image could be that the murderer is about to stab you, but due to off-center targeting, you see the murderer aiming beside you or several feet in front of you.
Blurry action is probably largely caused by 12fps per eye - 24fps total, then divided in half.
This would be greatly improved just by going to 60fps, as in true 1080p. I know I don't care for theaters even in 2D and HD, because it's only 24fps and that has visible jerkiness for me.
This TV is supposedly 1000hz, that is, 500fps per eye. There will be (relatively) no jerkiness there. But the guy said that they don't alternate eyes. Their custom programming may push out each line twice, once for each eye, before going on to the next line, effectively sending both images at the same time. This is as compared to displaying each line in order for a single image, then drawing the next image. Though it would seem that most of the visible image would be the image for the second eye, since that will stay up while all the other lines are being drawn. But when the whole thing is being redrawn 500x a second, that may not be a problem, as long as they do some adjustment so that eye doesn't seem brighter or anything.
Or he could just be talking about the 20 images for each eye that gets sent in the time of a single normal frame; while technically still alternating eyes, they are being sent "simultaneously" compared to the slower refresh rate.
This TV is the most generous display device ever conceived. Their 1080p is created without upscaling or wobulation. The 1080 Hz refresh rate is really 2x1080 Hz, where the video for each eye is processed and displayed in a completely parallel, simultaneous fashion. There is no alternation whatsoever. This is the advantage of laser scanning projection. The large viewing area immerses the viewer into the experience, which is important for 3D.
Since both images are constantly available (just like real life), pausing the video results in a static 3D image. This is pretty mind-blowing. You can walk around the room and the image is still there, following you around. You can verify for yourself that each viewer gets the same experience. When something moves in close, each viewer feels he can reach out and touch it.
Glasses are only needed to see in 3D, just as listening to stereo audio requires headphones or a suitable position between two speakers. The problem is that our eyes are both in the front of our head, not at the sides. So we need a way of presenting a slightly different view to each eye. I don't "see" a way around that. It's also a fantastic display for watching anything in 2D, though probably bigger than you need.
It is lucky to be the most environmentally friendly technology available as well. The power per inch of viewing area is 1/5th of competing technologies, and an LCD factory is not necessary to build and ship heavy screens around the world.
“Getting too close completely blurred what we saw to the point of incomprehension, but again, this shows a whole heap of potential that's fascinating to us.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted Sep 17th 2009 8:48AM
This is incorrect the Mitsu Laserview is 3D as well and has been for over a year... uses nvidia 3d glasses
The difference is that this system appears to allow passive glasses, meaning their is a polarization filter integrated into the display. Older sets that can do 3d have a normal display that can handle high refresh rates and a timing chip that (indirectly) communicates with active eyewear. As far as I know, they are the first ones to make a 3D display that needs no more than a set of cheap polarized glasses to view.
I just want to be able to play that awesome looking board game Chewy and C-3PO are rocking in A New Hope before I am dead.
I'm sorry, I still perfer SDTV. I have a 36 inch and its image is flawless. Color depth is perfect. Games on 360 look perfect on it wherein they look washed out on HDTV.
@Quantumphysics
You get a good Samsung 6 or 7 series, let me adjust the contrast, then tell me the colors are washed out. I often find that with games and HDTV's, it takes some manual adjustments to your picture settings for it to look spectacular. Movies and TV are fine stock.
I always find that when I buy a TV it comes with stupidly overblown colors (the problem with HDTVs is more that the image is over-sharpened).
But big fat CRT, which you generally can't buy in HD, does have the best color gamut, but the others have caught up, just make sure you can get some time with the television on normal settings with your own material, because all HDTVs are not made equal, and they are certainly not all washed out.
First of all, a slight (yes, by now I would say CRT has a *slight* advantage over a nice LCD/LED screen) bump in picture superiority is not worth the eyesore that is a big fat fu*%&#g CRT screen in your living room. And second of all, all I mentioned was holographic board games. Stop responding to my post just to get your comment higher, motherbitch!
@mag42987: I have a series 7 TV. Any tips you might have? Not joking, seriously. I kinda suck at adjusting.
Also, sorry if I seem dumb (perhaps I really am :D ) but what's the point of 3D? I don't think it's THAT hot, but then again, last time I saw something with it was a in a movie quite a few years ago, so maybe that's why I can't really recall anything amazing about 3D. Oh well...
And what about the blur of fast moving images?
And what about the saturation of color Black?
@Quantumphysics
Try an HDTV that costs more than $99 and also one that isn't from 1998.
"It will do over a thousand frames a second. That allows you to integrate all the color and everything into one device."
Must be the lasers.
They go through the tubes, you know...
3d porn...mmm...porn..haa.....
Nothing like crisp, clear 1080ppp (pew pew pew).
Heh heh. Nice :P
My old samsung CRT has a startup chime. I can only hope these laser tvs give you a 'pew pew pew' upon boot.
The image translators work FOR the construct program.
Does it use 3D glasses? Cuz I've already got some glasses, and 3D glasses don't fit well over them.
I'll be impressed once I see 3D TVs that don't need glasses.
They can make these, but the problem is that it necessarily has to have a very narrow viewing angle. Since they have to target a single image to each eye, there is a specific field for each eye, and when you leave that field, you lose the 3d effect. They actually make pc monitors with this tech right now, since they ordinarily only have 1 viewer.
With glasses, the viewing angle is greatly increased. I imagine we may get to the point where you can get a pair of prescription 3d glasses for use with polarized sets. It would be nice if they had them now for use in RealD cinemas.
Solution: Holographic Television
IMA' WATCHIN' MA LAZARS!
"I still want sharks with laser beams attached to there head"
I still wish some folks could spell properly...
It's not a spelling issue, it's a usage issue.
ONO, PEDANT FIGHT!!!
After watching the TV reporter, I had a flashback to my favorite show Beyond 2000...
DUDE!! I remember when that show premiered, loved it. Ah, those were the days
I knew, I had seen that reporter somewhere before... Thanks for reminding me where...
Really, unless games make a good use of 3D, I can't really see myself needing or really wanting a "3D" set. Give me crisp & clear image with great color depth & I am happy.
Did they say 1000Hz?!
I demoed a LaserVue set at a local Magnolia and I was deeply disappointed. There was an intense speckly noise throughout the picture, and static elements (like text) wiggled perceptibly. Unwatchable.
sounds like that comment should have qualified for CEO oh no he didn't
If they don't need to push dual images why are folks still wearing glasses loking at the thing?
So hopefully the speedy set will help the problem of blurry action in 3D films.
Screw that 3D stuff (awesome as it could possibly be...), it's RICHARD freakin' HART! I haven't seen him on tv in years! He did Next Step, I think it was, on Discovery, which was one of the defining shows of my childhood (and of my life, apparently, considering I'm posting on a gadgets website instead of looking for a job...)
If you have to wear glasses, it will fail.
There are two options:
You can have a very specific "sweet spot" where you see the image the creator intended, since most movies are based on a particular point of view. If multiple layers are used in the image, being outside the sweet spot will have you see things at a different angle than intended. If multiple simultaneous images are used and "aimed" at different eyes, like a lenticular display, you have to have your head exactly where they expect it - within about two inches. Other arrangements could allow for a "lifelike" 3D, as if you are seeing objects floating inside your TV, but that's not how movies are intended.
The other option is that you have to wear something to give you with the intended image. Older systems used red/blue images, so only the intended eye would see the correct image; a blue image seen through a red lens will look dark and solid, while the blue image seen though a blue lens will be (almost) invisible. Some systems use shutter lenses to control which eye sees what picture; this, like the red/blue system, works regardless of the type of image projector, but it requires a precise controller to sync which images are sent when, and which images are seen when. The more popular format for large groups is to use a special projector that can send some light horizontally-polarized and some vertically-polarized; this is combined with polarized lenses, one polarized each way, which will then filter out any light that is not oriented correctly. Other, more exotic options could be tried, like say, a unit that can track the viewersand beam the correct images directly into each eye; the problem is that the unit will be limited on how many users it can track and beam images to, and you probably still have to wear something, like a small IR transmitter for targeting.
Or you could have a cerebral implant that just sends the image directly to your brain...
For what it's worth, holographics would be in the first category. It would work fine for "observation" situations, like where the viewer is simply an observer on the situation, but most movies try to put the viewer into a very specific point of view.
For example: if the point-of-view is supposed to be from the driver's seat of a car, but the holographic system has the off-center viewer see from the perspective of the passenger seat or dashboard, the result could be quite suspenseful, but it's not what the creator intended. In a horror movie, the intended image could be that the murderer is about to stab you, but due to off-center targeting, you see the murderer aiming beside you or several feet in front of you.
I'm not an expert, but here's my thoughts:
Blurry action is probably largely caused by 12fps per eye - 24fps total, then divided in half.
This would be greatly improved just by going to 60fps, as in true 1080p. I know I don't care for theaters even in 2D and HD, because it's only 24fps and that has visible jerkiness for me.
This TV is supposedly 1000hz, that is, 500fps per eye. There will be (relatively) no jerkiness there. But the guy said that they don't alternate eyes. Their custom programming may push out each line twice, once for each eye, before going on to the next line, effectively sending both images at the same time. This is as compared to displaying each line in order for a single image, then drawing the next image. Though it would seem that most of the visible image would be the image for the second eye, since that will stay up while all the other lines are being drawn. But when the whole thing is being redrawn 500x a second, that may not be a problem, as long as they do some adjustment so that eye doesn't seem brighter or anything.
Or he could just be talking about the 20 images for each eye that gets sent in the time of a single normal frame; while technically still alternating eyes, they are being sent "simultaneously" compared to the slower refresh rate.
This TV is the most generous display device ever conceived. Their 1080p is created without upscaling or wobulation. The 1080 Hz refresh rate is really 2x1080 Hz, where the video for each eye is processed and displayed in a completely parallel, simultaneous fashion. There is no alternation whatsoever. This is the advantage of laser scanning projection. The large viewing area immerses the viewer into the experience, which is important for 3D.
Since both images are constantly available (just like real life), pausing the video results in a static 3D image. This is pretty mind-blowing. You can walk around the room and the image is still there, following you around. You can verify for yourself that each viewer gets the same experience. When something moves in close, each viewer feels he can reach out and touch it.
Glasses are only needed to see in 3D, just as listening to stereo audio requires headphones or a suitable position between two speakers. The problem is that our eyes are both in the front of our head, not at the sides. So we need a way of presenting a slightly different view to each eye. I don't "see" a way around that. It's also a fantastic display for watching anything in 2D, though probably bigger than you need.
It is lucky to be the most environmentally friendly technology available as well. The power per inch of viewing area is 1/5th of competing technologies, and an LCD factory is not necessary to build and ship heavy screens around the world.
Steve Wozniak, 41 seconds in.
I like how they demonstrated the technology to old folks who probably shat themselves the first time they saw a lightbulb.
You win 1 and a half internets.
Television innovation, creating better ways for you to enjoy sitting on your fat ass even longer.
I hate 3D glasses.It's will work if it can product 3D effect without glassed.
You can find review of Sony and Samsung at http://32kdl.com if you interest.