While we were
fretting about what
special tech Nintendo's
3DS would use to generate autostereoscopic imagery on its comparatively puny screen, Toshiba Mobile Display (
and others) have been working on bringing that same headgear-free 3D to TV-sized panels. Employing a "multi-parallax" technique, the latest from the Toshiba spinoff firm promises "significant reduction in eye fatigue" as well as approximately a 30 degree horizontal viewing angle. The latter might be peanuts compared to a
quality 2D display, but let's not begrudge being offered at least some positional flexibility. Other specs include a 1280 x 800 effective resolution and 480 nits of brightness, which are notable achievements when you consider that the 9-parallax implementation requires the generation of 9 separate images and therefore could be achieved with only an "ultra-high definition LCD module." We've sadly no info about this panel's potential for retail availability, but judging by the bezel-free picture we've been given, that might be a good way off from now.
posted April 27th 2010 4:54AM
Wow this sounds like it is actual 3D (well 9 different viewpoints at least) rather than stereoscopic fake 3D.
Still, what happens when the eyes are exactly between two viewpoints? Presumably you get a blurred mix of both which doesn't sound optimal...
Still, without head-tracking true 3D is the only way to get glasses-free 3D on a large screen (or fixing your head in place with clamps...)
@Timmmmmm i guess it will have similar artefacts to those hologram 3d pictures that you get f.e. in a lot of dvd covers nowadays.
When this hits 1080p (or ideally 1920x1200) I'll be all over this. My guess is that that'll happen right around the time I might be able to afford it. ;)
@Old fogie late bloomer
That's exactly my attitude. I'm willing to use 3D glasses on my PC, but not my TV (because I watch that with other people).
Bye 3D glasses, hello prescription glasses.
@elibi
I personally think the 3d glasses will give you want for a perscription brain.
Heh, I already have prescription glasses and I recently tried the shutter glasses and was decidedly unimpressed... I'm waiting for glasses-free.
I like that industrial design with thin bezel, more please
@3rdsun
It is a mobile display, meaning it's meant to be integrated into something like an aviation display or perhaps within a regular vehicle (although at 21", it probably isn't going to be on the dash).
I wonder how weird it is watching one of these things.
Please stop with such stupid inventions.
Who will generate 7 unseen pictures while only 2 are actually viewed ?
Even the easiest/simplest 3D sources (3D graphic cards) can't afford this.
Who wants to freeze in front of a screen ?
And if you go on with head tracking (that dispenses you to calculate 7 out of 9 pictures), you'll do it better with stereoscopic active glasses (that are easy to track with a webcam because of the flickering glasses).
What happens if you lay down on you sofa while watching 3D TV ? (your two eyes not looking horizontal).
If your system is tracking the active glasses you're wearing (position, orientation), it can still generate good 3D.
We all know that, at the end, 3D technology is going to a point where the glasses will be two transparent oled screens in front of your eye (with more than 2000 dpi, but only 2 milion pixels will lit at a given time, the rest will stay transparent) and where the TV will be reduced to three marks on a wall that your glasses will track in order to give you a taste of "static wall TV".
@fiduce There's nothing stupid about the invention. It's good for when you want to display to many people at once, especially when the people are passers-by who are not going to stop and put on special glasses. I can see this being used in store-front displays.
@fiduce
Your a fool.
I can't be bothered to correct every single one of your points, but for those reading the above post, know that he is mostly wrong and 3D is no longer a gimmick.
The only thing I partly agree with is the OLED glasses. But not your transparent, wall mark static impression part.
You can already get LCD glasses with two panels (Showing the same image, their not 3D) for traveling, or just to give you the impression of a large TV. I think they need to add in 240Hz splitting circuitry, to receive sequential 3D sources, and put one image on each eye's screen.
Home/portable 3D will be the bell bottoms of the 20-teens. It won't make you and your bf/gf feel any cozier while watching movies together. In the long run, it will only be embraced by lonely geeks, and only then for in-your-face porn.
2012: the year that 3D gear overwhelms Craigslist Curb Alerts.
Please let it be true... 3D without everyone watching having to wear a pair of $100 glasses.
Well, not really. If the viewing angle is only 30 degrees, everyone in the room isn't going to be able to see the screen correctly. It's more like one person in the room, or two if someone sits in the other person's lap.
@hunterholder Stadium seating in the living room FTW! XD
@hunterholder
You either don't understand the concept of angles, or you sit far to close to the TV.
@hunterholder
Even if someone was sitting way off-angle, wouldn't they just get one image? They'd still see the picture, but in 2D. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
I just saw Alice in 3D this weekend and it confirmed my distaste for the technology. Watching a movie in 2D is much easier on the eyes, allowing the viewer to watch the scene as they want to, rather than having the focal point fixed by the movie to generate the 3D effect. 3D is distracting, and does little to improve a movie. I will stick with my 2D movies and TV until they go the way of the CRT.
@weatherman I didn't like Alice too much either. I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D and it was the only thing I really enjoyed about the movie. So, something has to be done near perfect, I'll probably wait until Toy Story 3 for my next attempt at catch 3D.
@weatherman yeah alice isn't the best showcase for 3D. Avatar, Christmas Carol, How to Train Your Dragon - these were all pretty good in 3D. Definitely DO NOT see Clash of the Titans in 3D - worst implementation I've seen so far.
Why does Engadget give me a 3D Picture to view on my 2d monitor? It's kinda like giving me bicycle wheels for my car.
This actually is approaching the pinnacle of 3D... holograms. This video version of a recent holographic technology is pretty damn cool. For those who haven't seen it, check this video out of the holographic technology in 2D form.
http://vimeo.com/8078523
Now produce that in a video format and we almost have Princess Leia asking Obi Wan for help. In the architectural world, this is significant just with the 2D format. Imagine this technology implemented as a true source of video... gathering around a table-like big screen monitor to watch a ball game broadcast in a holographic like format. There's a call on a play, rewind, shift to the other side of the table for a completely different angle of the play. Phenomenal.
"30 degree horizontal "
And there is why glassless screens are going to be all kinds of fail for the foreseeable future.
"30 degree horizontal "
And there is why glassless screens are going to be all kinds of fail for the foreseeable future.
any 3D TV is going to be all kinds of fail unless it can pull off glasses free nicely. If they require glasses they won't appeal the to the average consumer. But glasses-free will and I suspect that even with the 30 deg. horizontal thing, it will start making consumers interested. One it's in the game, all they have to do is keep improving the tech and you will have a winner.