3D Movies, TV

[moi621 (imported)]

Being bound to a head set to watch a program in 3D seems like a looser.

Why hasn't someone re-invented the old ridged 3D post card for video with a similarly ridged screen.

Each eye, without headset would see more of the image of the angled ridge facing that eye and likewise the other. Besides filming with a stereo optical system it seems computers could angle, right eye and left eye views, older moves as to create a 3D view on the ridged system.

Just asking. Why not?

Moi

[Slammr (imported)]

Being bound to a head set to watch a program in 3D seems like a looser.

Why hasn't someone re-invented the old ridged 3D post card for video with a similarly ridged screen.

Each eye, without headset would see more of the image of the angled ridge facing that eye and likewise the other. Besides filming with a stereo optical system it seems computers could angle, right eye and left eye views, older moves as to create a 3D view on the ridged system.

Just asking. Why not?

Moi

It looks like they're on the way: link (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/201 ... at-ces.ars)

Hands-on: 3D without the glasses comes into focus at CES

By Ryan Paul (http://arstechnica.com/author/ryan-paul/) | Last updated 3 months ago

Consumer electronics heavyweights are betting big on 3D technology to help drive sales of new televisions and other hardware. Aside from the considerable cost of the hardware, one of the most significant impediments to broader 3D adoption at home is the glasses.

Active shutter glasses, the dominant glasses technology for consumer-oriented 3D-enabled televisions, come with a number of serious drawbacks. They are still relatively expensive and they use batteries that have to be replaced or recharged. There are also still a number of troubling interoperability issues that prevent some active shutter glasses from being fully compatible with products from different vendors.

None of the alternatives to active shutter technology are fully competitive for the living room 3D market yet, but the industry is exploring a number of options. One approach is to move the shutter technology into the television itself, allowing consumers to use cheaper passive glasses like the kind found in theaters. RealD and Samsung, which have teamed up to pursue this approach, are calling it RDZ. A more appealing long-term strategy is to eliminate the glasses altogether—a possibility that is attracting considerable interest among hardware vendors.

RealD glasses at CES

At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this month in Las Vegas, we got our first look at some of the experimental glasses-free 3D prototypes developed by Sony and Toshiba. The products we tested ranged from portable players to full-sized televisions. We found that glasses-free technology works very well on small-sized displays, but scaling it up to big screen televisions is proving difficult for the industry leaders.

[moi621 (imported)]

I don't see the ridged screen.

Just head set free.

? ?

did I miss something?

[Dave (imported)]

When the best example of how to create a movie for 3D and have it be considered spectacular and the definitive presentation of the new technology turns out to be JACKASS 3D ...

Even the best salesmen is going to have trouble with that fact.

[Slammr (imported)]

I don't see the ridged screen.

Just head set free.

? ?

did I miss something?

I wasn't giving an example of a ridged screen. I don't think it would be practical for a large screen TV. I want to see the Toshiba 3d laptop. That might have potential, but I don't expect too much from large screen glasses-free TV yet. I think you could only view it from certain angles, and that's not how I watch TV at home.

I like 3d, and I take 3d pictures. Here's some I took, posted as crossed-eye stereo pairs. If you know how to view them, it's pretty easy to see them in 3d. Here's a link to some of them: http://www.thedarkspot.com/images/pictures/3d/

[moi621 (imported)]

Why not a ridged screen?

Moi

[Slammr (imported)]

Why not a ridged screen?

Moi

Probably for the same reason you don't see the old ridged 3d postcards - old, outdated, technology. The new holographic techniques look so much better. I don't think the resolution would be very good, and if you weren't looking at it just right, you'd probably get no 3d or distortion. Besides, even on a 3d TV, you aren't always going to be watching it in 3d. What would 2d look like on a ridged screen?

[moi621 (imported)]

Outdated as having two eyes that see from slightly different points of view?

A 2D would probably look the same on a ridged screen but I imagine computers might split an old movie like Casablanca or Gone With The Wind into a right and left eye view as to broadcast them in 3D on a ridged screen.

Moi

[fhunter]

Why not a ridged screen?

Moihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier - this is essentially the same. And -

A disadvantage of the technology is that the viewer must be positioned in a well defined spot to experience the 3D effect.In modern displays it is more like spots, but still.

On 2d display, you will lose half horizontal resolution. And that is IMO really undesirable.

[Paolo]

Very nice, Slammr. I can free-view those with no problems.