If you've kept even a loose eye on our CES coverage this year, you'd know that 3D is firmly "in." But our main gripe is that the glasses requirement makes it largely impractical for in-home use. Intel had a comparison demo setup in its massive booth, and it had a top display arranged to showcase glasses-free 3D and the bottom to demonstrate the more traditional glasses-required 3D. A technician at the booth explained that the footage was all specifically shot to fit the format, and a special overlay was applied to the 3D HDTV in order to complete the magic. He confessed that the resolution was "sub-720p," and there were only eight specific places that you could stand at in order to actually get the full experience. We stood around 10 feet back, dead center, and were downright wowed by the results. You could honestly see loads of depth, and everything appeared buttery smooth. Stepping closer resulted in less-than-awesome visuals, but we're definitely stoked by the possibilities here. Take note, TV / content makers -- glasses free > glasses-required.
Gaming love - Indeed! All the above comments (& previous comments on similar 3D articles) give a good account of all the pros & cons of the different systems.... but what about (laptop) gaming? SURELY this is where the revolution will start and stem outwardly from? It is just SO obvious! The user is at a pretty fixed distance, the screen is relatively small (& cheep) the graphics card can EASILY cope and a FPS will never be the same again!
If Battlefield 3 came out as Battlefield 3D then I would never get any work (or anything else) done ever again!!!!
Why isn't the 3D-PC reality now?!
[PS: regarding specs or not. I saw the NASA 3D vid whilst at CK which uses polarised glasses, an interesting (but not compelling) effect.. but after 30 min my brain was mashed!]
I don't see the issue - I wear glasses to watch TV all the time. Another pair on top might be ok.
Whatever technology comes out that can be turned on and off at will, should be the one that wins out - I may not want headache-inducing 3D all the time, or I might want to watch TV while lying on the couch at the wrong angle etc etc
What is the issue with modern 3D glasses? It's not that much more effort reaching over to put them on at the same time you reach over to your remote to put on the 3D channel or movie. For gaming, pick up the controller and the glasses in one swoop. No biggie.
You're probably not going to be watching some 3D epic while you're doing the hoovering or something.
But of course, if they can make a fully effective glasses free set-up then count me in. So I guess this is promising.
Until its glasses free I feel it has no place in consumers homes. Who honestly wants to have to put on some stupid glasses to watch a couple minutes of Tv, say the news highlights. At for those who need to wear glasses, who wants to have to stick stupid 3d glasses over your existing glasses.
Glasses free 3D will make it a desiable product with a future in consumers homes. Until then it will remain a gimmick because it to much of a pain in the ass for everyday use with glasses.
Sadly it's a very different filming technique used to achieve these glasses-free results. You could technically use standard stereo-3D movies, but then you'd only be able to watch from a single angle. In that sense, it is even less practical than wearing glasses. Which is why glasses are still the favoured method of viewing 3D.
Technically games could be made full 3D, without glasses, on standard televisions though. Face detection has come a long way, and so there's no reason Microsoft can't implement this into Project Natal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
The reason I mention Natal, is because it would take the headset out of the equation; if it's as good as they say it is, it would be able to track your head to the degree required for this effect to work.
Lenticular filters for displays have been around for a long time. This is what Alioscopy and friends use. As stated above it does use 8 different camera angles. Also when you put one of these filters on, your display resolution is immediately cut in half, AND you limit the display to only ever being able to display 3D content, no 2D whatsoever (image is too blurry). The future of autostereoscopic displays is in parallax-barrier technology, which you can see on Japan's Hitachi h001 (from au/kddi) 3d-enabled cellphone. The problem with this technology is that it hasn't caught up to large screen sizes yet... the largest parallax display I've seen is maybe 10 inches. But it enables for both 2D and 3D content display (not simultaneously, but the display is capable of switching between them on the fly).
It's amazing that all the people calling for glasses-free 3D seem not to understand how the human brain sees 3D by merging two slight different viewpoints, which simply can't be done with a single screen.
@chabig It's a lost cause, don't even bother trying. You're talking about people who will argue that if R2-D2 could project Obi-Wan into thin air in the late 80s, obviously it's possible and thus only a matter of a few more years and of "perfecting the technology." They don't get that with three people sitting next to each other on a living room couch looking at one of these sets, only the middle one will get the full effect and that that will never ever change with parallax blocking tech. I guess ignorance is bliss.
I'm probably going to get a negative into Oblivion, but I would like for your guys to tell me about the anti-glasses sentiment.
I just don't get it. As someone that has already worn glasses for the past 15 years I dont' think its a big deal. The ones handed to you in a movie theater are pretty crappy, but do you really think those are the ones you'll be wearing at home?
I have a feeling that they will eventually look Oakleys, or other stylish sunglasses. Perhaps they can even make perscription versions for people like myself if this craze takes off enough.
Before the Wii was released a lot of people were complaining about how dumb you would look waving the wiimotes around. These same tech blogs would poo poo it, and wonder who would want to do that. I guess time will tell if this is the Wii or some other crappy tech.
@rchapoteau You want to know what people are resisting, including me?
We don't want the razor/razor blade business model for out TV set. If you spend $2000 on a high end TV, you shouldn't have to pay $50-100 a piece for 3D glasses. And I'm sure they'll be 'just' fragile enough to have you replacing them over and over again. It's a system designed to rape your wallet.
Second, watching TV on a daily basis, is not like watching a 3D movie in a theater. When you watch TV, you multi task. Lots of luck playing with your kid, typing on your computer, juggling a phone call from your parents or hosting a party, while you're wearing 3D goggles. It's impractical. I'm frankly surprised that TV manufacturers haven't researched this enough to know that.
@(Unverified) So if you wait for a polarized model, the glasses will be dirt cheap, and more comfortable to wear around. Also, most content won't be in 3D until you turn it on. Although I would imagine the News will be broadcast in 3D, very few people are going to feel compelled to flip the 3D switch on, and put on the glasses to watch.
I too don't see what the big deal with a pair of glasses is. Maybe it's because I used to wear glasses and contacts for so long, but even now that I've had LASIK it's not going to bother me to have to pick up a pair of shades to watch a movie in 3D. Then again, having just bought a new Panasonic plasma display, I probably won't be in the market for a new TV for another 4-5 years!
Re: an above comment... Yes, I multitask sometimes with the TV on, but I doubt any of that programming would be the type of stuff I'd bother watching in 3D. If I'm going to be sitting down to watch a 3D movie or sports, or something, I'll probably be giving most of my attention to whats on the screen.
And I've already seen companies offering 3D glasses that look like a stylish pair of sunglasses, so the argument about 3D glasses looking stupid is getting pretty old.
about 3 years ago I was interning at Epson and they had glasses free 3d lcd panels in development as well. The guy that sat beside me was working on a opengl wrapper that would work with any opengl applications (including games) and render the image in such a way that when viewed through the special LCD, you'd get 3d. The problem with these technology is that it's based on using slits if you will that shows different pixel based on angle. Problem with this is that depending on how many viewing spots you want to have, you have less and less resolution. For example, having only the center viewing spot, you have to divide the resolution horizontally by 2 (left and right image). in the case of having 8 viewing spots, you have to divide by 16. unless we start to have 30720 x 1080 resolution lcd panels, we wont see 1080P with glasses free 3d lcds. Another problem is that a small shift to the left or right will interrupt the 3d effect, since your no longer in the optimal spot where left eye will only see the left image and vise versa.
Meh not impressed. It doesnt seem like 3D movies/tv has changed in the last 20yrs. Saw Avatar and hated how everything was out of focus except the 3D stuff. Made for a very annoying experience. 3D is shit and always has been.
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 January 10th 2010 2:08AM
@JJ
Gaming love - Indeed! All the above comments (& previous comments on similar 3D articles) give a good account of all the pros & cons of the different systems.... but what about (laptop) gaming? SURELY this is where the revolution will start and stem outwardly from? It is just SO obvious! The user is at a pretty fixed distance, the screen is relatively small (& cheep) the graphics card can EASILY cope and a FPS will never be the same again!
If Battlefield 3 came out as Battlefield 3D then I would never get any work (or anything else) done ever again!!!!
Why isn't the 3D-PC reality now?!
[PS: regarding specs or not. I saw the NASA 3D vid whilst at CK which uses polarised glasses, an interesting (but not compelling) effect.. but after 30 min my brain was mashed!]
IT'S LIKE I CAN TOUCH YOU!
( and way to go, Intel; glasses-required tech can't die soon enough! )
I don't see the issue - I wear glasses to watch TV all the time. Another pair on top might be ok.
Whatever technology comes out that can be turned on and off at will, should be the one that wins out - I may not want headache-inducing 3D all the time, or I might want to watch TV while lying on the couch at the wrong angle etc etc
@baobab68 True.
What is the issue with modern 3D glasses? It's not that much more effort reaching over to put them on at the same time you reach over to your remote to put on the 3D channel or movie. For gaming, pick up the controller and the glasses in one swoop. No biggie.
You're probably not going to be watching some 3D epic while you're doing the hoovering or something.
But of course, if they can make a fully effective glasses free set-up then count me in. So I guess this is promising.
Until its glasses free I feel it has no place in consumers homes. Who honestly wants to have to put on some stupid glasses to watch a couple minutes of Tv, say the news highlights. At for those who need to wear glasses, who wants to have to stick stupid 3d glasses over your existing glasses.
Glasses free 3D will make it a desiable product with a future in consumers homes. Until then it will remain a gimmick because it to much of a pain in the ass for everyday use with glasses.
Sadly it's a very different filming technique used to achieve these glasses-free results. You could technically use standard stereo-3D movies, but then you'd only be able to watch from a single angle. In that sense, it is even less practical than wearing glasses. Which is why glasses are still the favoured method of viewing 3D.
Technically games could be made full 3D, without glasses, on standard televisions though. Face detection has come a long way, and so there's no reason Microsoft can't implement this into Project Natal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
The reason I mention Natal, is because it would take the headset out of the equation; if it's as good as they say it is, it would be able to track your head to the degree required for this effect to work.
Does this mean if you have crooked eyes, you can see the video normal?
...
...
finally a 2001 product i've seen from SHARP on both a ;aptop and a cellphone display comes to light.
What happened during those 9 years?
Lenticular filters for displays have been around for a long time. This is what Alioscopy and friends use. As stated above it does use 8 different camera angles. Also when you put one of these filters on, your display resolution is immediately cut in half, AND you limit the display to only ever being able to display 3D content, no 2D whatsoever (image is too blurry). The future of autostereoscopic displays is in parallax-barrier technology, which you can see on Japan's Hitachi h001 (from au/kddi) 3d-enabled cellphone. The problem with this technology is that it hasn't caught up to large screen sizes yet... the largest parallax display I've seen is maybe 10 inches. But it enables for both 2D and 3D content display (not simultaneously, but the display is capable of switching between them on the fly).
It's amazing that all the people calling for glasses-free 3D seem not to understand how the human brain sees 3D by merging two slight different viewpoints, which simply can't be done with a single screen.
@chabig It's a lost cause, don't even bother trying. You're talking about people who will argue that if R2-D2 could project Obi-Wan into thin air in the late 80s, obviously it's possible and thus only a matter of a few more years and of "perfecting the technology." They don't get that with three people sitting next to each other on a living room couch looking at one of these sets, only the middle one will get the full effect and that that will never ever change with parallax blocking tech. I guess ignorance is bliss.
I'm probably going to get a negative into Oblivion, but I would like for your guys to tell me about the anti-glasses sentiment.
I just don't get it. As someone that has already worn glasses for the past 15 years I dont' think its a big deal. The ones handed to you in a movie theater are pretty crappy, but do you really think those are the ones you'll be wearing at home?
I have a feeling that they will eventually look Oakleys, or other stylish sunglasses. Perhaps they can even make perscription versions for people like myself if this craze takes off enough.
Before the Wii was released a lot of people were complaining about how dumb you would look waving the wiimotes around. These same tech blogs would poo poo it, and wonder who would want to do that. I guess time will tell if this is the Wii or some other crappy tech.
@rchapoteau
You want to know what people are resisting, including me?
We don't want the razor/razor blade business model for out TV set. If you spend $2000 on a high end TV, you shouldn't have to pay $50-100 a piece for 3D glasses. And I'm sure they'll be 'just' fragile enough to have you replacing them over and over again. It's a system designed to rape your wallet.
Second, watching TV on a daily basis, is not like watching a 3D movie in a theater. When you watch TV, you multi task. Lots of luck playing with your kid, typing on your computer, juggling a phone call from your parents or hosting a party, while you're wearing 3D goggles.
It's impractical. I'm frankly surprised that TV manufacturers haven't researched this enough to know that.
@(Unverified) So if you wait for a polarized model, the glasses will be dirt cheap, and more comfortable to wear around. Also, most content won't be in 3D until you turn it on. Although I would imagine the News will be broadcast in 3D, very few people are going to feel compelled to flip the 3D switch on, and put on the glasses to watch.
I too don't see what the big deal with a pair of glasses is. Maybe it's because I used to wear glasses and contacts for so long, but even now that I've had LASIK it's not going to bother me to have to pick up a pair of shades to watch a movie in 3D. Then again, having just bought a new Panasonic plasma display, I probably won't be in the market for a new TV for another 4-5 years!
Re: an above comment... Yes, I multitask sometimes with the TV on, but I doubt any of that programming would be the type of stuff I'd bother watching in 3D. If I'm going to be sitting down to watch a 3D movie or sports, or something, I'll probably be giving most of my attention to whats on the screen.
And I've already seen companies offering 3D glasses that look like a stylish pair of sunglasses, so the argument about 3D glasses looking stupid is getting pretty old.
im confused, how the hell does this tech work?
@Jjjjames
How does it work? It doesn't. As long as you can only get the effect standing in a few sweet spots it is DOA.
Having to place your theater seating with fucking survey tools sucks more than glasses free 3D rocks.
Seriously. Untill it has the field of view I get with my plasma it's nothing mroe than a parlor trick.
As to glasses: $1bn+ haul for Avatar says all the naysayers are just screaming the 21st century equivalent of "you damn kids, get off my lawn!"
about 3 years ago I was interning at Epson and they had glasses free 3d lcd panels in development as well. The guy that sat beside me was working on a opengl wrapper that would work with any opengl applications (including games) and render the image in such a way that when viewed through the special LCD, you'd get 3d. The problem with these technology is that it's based on using slits if you will that shows different pixel based on angle. Problem with this is that depending on how many viewing spots you want to have, you have less and less resolution. For example, having only the center viewing spot, you have to divide the resolution horizontally by 2 (left and right image). in the case of having 8 viewing spots, you have to divide by 16. unless we start to have 30720 x 1080 resolution lcd panels, we wont see 1080P with glasses free 3d lcds. Another problem is that a small shift to the left or right will interrupt the 3d effect, since your no longer in the optimal spot where left eye will only see the left image and vise versa.
I have an asus G51J 3D laptop. The 3d effect is amazing when I play resident evil 5!! It's definitely a reality now!
Meh not impressed. It doesnt seem like 3D movies/tv has changed in the last 20yrs. Saw Avatar and hated how everything was out of focus except the 3D stuff. Made for a very annoying experience. 3D is shit and always has been.