Magnetic unveils a clutch of glasses-free 3D displays
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted January 5th 2010 9:16PM
posted January 5th 2010 9:16PM
As you well know, Magnetic 3D is one of many companies that have been dabbling in 3D sans glasses -- and lo and behold! Here we are in Las Vegas where the company is debuting three new auto-stereoscopic product lines including the Allura (commercial grade high-definition 3D LCD monitors up to 55-inches), Emersa (3D displays for close proximity viewing up to 42-inches), and Envolve 3D touch displays for commercial uses -- you know, slot gaming, kiosks, and all sorts of red hot Vegas-y stuff. Will this be the year that 3D displays stop giving us headaches? Time will tell...
Stereoscopic viewing without glasses?
Don't believe it before I see it!
Haven't tried active shutter glasses yet but I like the 3D effect RealD polarized glasses produce, they are comfortable to wear, and also leave me headache-free.
@kingboarder Yeah! After watching Avatar, I was excited to use those instead of shitty paper ones to watch Youtube 3D. I was dissapointed to learn that polarized glasses only work in the cinema..
But those glasses! They were amazing!
@Cheesus Crust
You guys are some of the few that actually like those glasses. I've seen many movies with those 3D glasses and they are uncomfortable and while I didn't get any headaches cus I took off the 3D glasses from time to time cus my eyes started to strain, I know many people that did get headaches.
Also I hate 3D of any kind. It's a stupid gimmick like motion controls. Just give me non 3D movies any day of the week.
@ZeRoCo0L, are you sure it was polarized, they shouldn't be giving people headaches, and yea the glasses are pretty comfortable, even for extended 3D movies (like Avatar).
Also since it's moving and 3D those that suffer from motion sickness in real life will get the same effect, it's just how it works.
@kingboarder
Compared to the RealD glasses, active shutter aren't very good.
I tried a pair at Fry's Electronics (they had the nvidia thing running) and there was quite a noticeable flicker. And if you move your head at all it gets worse.
So I thought maybe the fry's display was maybe just beat up, so went to a friends who had em' and the same flicker was there. He never uses the darn things. I'm not sure if it's an nvidia issue, or if it's just the technology itself.
Don't get me wrong it's a cool effect, but its not perfected yet.
I'm not convince whatsoever about this so called 3D effect sans glasses.
Use your 3D camcorder, to record this TV then post up a video
lol
@kingboarder
There have been glasses-less 3d screens for a while, they're just not very good. They had slots set up so when you put your head in exactly the right spot, one eye sees one picture, and the other eye sees the other. It's like those little cards that have two scenes, that as you change the angle your looking at it you see one scene shift into the other.
Gotta laugh at people who think the Avatar-style 3D glasses are anything new and exciting.
There were video games in the arcades back in the 80's that used exactly the same technology, it's hardly a new idea. It's just one that the cinemas have suddenly jumped on to suck some extra cash out of the gullible public.
so how well does the 3d displays go without the glasses. I wonder if you get anywhere near the same effect.
I would be impressed if I hadn't seen this tech at CeBit 7 years ago.
Higher resolution panels will have certainly improved the image quality, but there simply is not an application beyond niche markets.
@danhawk911
I used several AS3D displays for kiosks projects (namely Philips WOWvx) they do work but you need to do content made specifically for these displays (i.e. it's not just 2 views and you throw it in there like glass-based 3D displays). It's a rather complex workflow.
They work very well but they are not holographic displays, i.e. you need to position youself in specific "sweet spots" to view it properly, which is a source of irritation for a lot of people. Also these are not HD resolution because of how the display has to structure the pixels to create the 3D effect.
There are a lot of manufacturers of these types of displays (and most much better and friendly than Magnetic3D) but the cost is prohibitive as in several times the price of a standard screen of the same size.
The image quality is not acceptable for home usage (but okay for kiosks). Don't believe the claims for HD displays, even if you use it in 2D mode, you lose details due to the lenticular pannel in front of the screen that creates an interference pattern, some displays are worse than other.
You won't get an image floating at meters out of the screen like you see at imax because the size of the display plays a big role in the overall perceived 3D effect, and also the optical system these displays are using makes the content look fuzy in front very fast and you need to adapt your content with that reality (i.e. no small fonts floating out of the screen).
Hope this helps!
define '3D'..
@SaintAndrew
as in three dimensions. since you don't need glasses of any sort, I am assuming skip depth as the third dimension and move on to time. they just play the movie at 2x speed.
This looks a bit similar to FujiFilm's 3D Camera / Frame offering, you do not require 3D glasses to view the 3D pictures on the frame.
Even minimal depth would be amazing (see into the screen)
@10nisman94
Aye and then who needs holograms?
Hi Joseph, any chance you can get "eyes on" with this? Would love to know if this is just snake oil, or a viable product...
Wait, so, how does this work? Is this done by tracking the viewer and providing perspective? But, if it does that, what happens if you have multiple viewers?
@maztec : Oh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy
@maztec Yikes - the eyes are following me, I swear!
Even if it's not as emersive experience as with glasses, I'm excited the market is finally ready for 3d; this is just another step in the the evolution theatre experience, and feeling like your a part of what you're watching.
Long term, if they can perfects sans glasses, that will won out for sure.
Next step - 3D Wii
Very curious to the 3D products this year, please give them as much attention as possible!
@mscofield
PLEASE DONT. God please just break anything 3D related and lets all forget about it like a bad dream
Don't worry, I can give you a headache for free.
With glasses free 3-D, you have to cross your eyes slightly. Sorta like those Magic Eyes puzzles.
see the problem is that there is usually only a sweet spot for viewing with these type of displays. Either close up only gives you the 3d effect or mid range from the display, and even then you have to be directly in front of the display. other wise it looks like a bunch of blur... great i suppose if its just you and your 55 inch tv 5 feet away.. but other then that it sucks. I would imagine though that if they arent manipulating the screen with a special lens, then it would be software rendered, and that would mean you could turn off the 3d when not watching something desiring a 3d effect. lets hope for the last......
Another technology is by using 2 screens, one behind the other, it has been on Engadget before. And with MOST people slamming 3D, I am ASSUMING you havent seen Avatar in 3D. I highlight those 2 words so hopefully everyone doesnt get pissed and start a flame-war.
Glasses-free 3D sounds great... if it works well. Anything that would free us from wearing those stupid 50's glasses (i.e. most recently Avatar, which is a weak example) is worth a shot. It would finally stop the industry from trying to push this "no really, no one minds wearing these glasses" gimmick onto the general public every 10 freakin' years.
Kind of off topic but still wondering: I just saw Avatar today in IMAX 3D. Wow...awesome! Now I have a bit of a stupid question but I curious none the less, is there any difference besides screen size and perhaps audio in seeing the movie in Digital 3D vs IMAX 3D?
@Chaosdivine
Apparently you answered your own question...smart boy ;) After doing research, I found out that the 3D experience itself is slightly better on the smaller screen because of increased FPS - I'm taking the researcher's word for it. IMAX does obviously give you a more immersing experience (sound and scale).
how do they do it w/o glasses?
@haan
@haan
There are multiple layers of screens (“lenticular”) with different image information on each screen, which your brain visually interprets as 3D.
http://www.3dtvreviewer.co.uk/philips-3dtvs-using-wowvx-are-autostereoscopic/2010/01/09/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490.html