3D Movies, TV

[Slammr (imported)]

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

Thanks. Turns out, those are parallel stereo pairs instead of the crosseyed pairs I intended to post. Some people can see them easily, but I keep trying to cross my eyes, which reverses the effects. Here's a link to crosseyed pairs

: http://www.thedarkspot.com/images/pictures/3d/

crosseyed/

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

Why Not

It has to do with human binocular vision. three dimensional perception comes from your two eyes seeing things from a different angle. Look at two objects which are different distances away and close one eye at a time, the objects will "move" with respect to each other.

The saw tooth plastic is close enough that you can see the difference. But move it across the room and it will look flat.

Some day we may get holographic movies, they won't be as exaggerated as the glasses.

[moi621 (imported)]

I would expect such a TV to have a sweet zone for viewing just as today's flat screens. And when not viewing in the 3D zone they would still give "ok" 2D vision.

Still waiting, why not the ridged screen.

What is the technology behind the no headset units today?

Moi

[transward (imported)]

Thanks. Turns out, those are parallel stereo pairs instead of the crosseyed pairs I intended to post. Some people can see them easily, but I keep trying to cross my eyes, which reverses the effects. Here's a link to crosseyed pairs

: http://www.thedarkspot.com/images/pictures/3d/

crosseyed/

Thank you. I thought I was going crazy. I could fuse the pictures w/ no problem, but the 3D was reversed w/ the background hovering in front of the trees and signs in the foreground. It was weird as my brain alternated between the 3D and the perspective, sort of like one of Escher's optical illusions.

The new ones are fine. Lovely 3D. Out of curiosity where is the park in the pictures. It looks familiar.

Transward

[Slammr (imported)]

I would expect such a TV to have a sweet zone for viewing just as today's flat screens. And when not viewing in the 3D zone they would still give "ok" 2D vision.

Still waiting, why not the ridged screen.

What is the technology behind the no headset units today?

Moi

I think you've had your answer from several different people; but you're not looking for an answer. You're holding onto the concept with your usual bulldog tenacity, and you're not listening to anything anyone is saying.

Your sweet spot would probably be one and only one particular spot in the room. If you strayed from it, you probably wouldn't see 3d, and I can't even imagine what 2d would look like on your ridged screen, but I don't think it would be good.

[Slammr (imported)]

Thank you. I thought I was going crazy. I could fuse the pictures w/ no problem, but the 3D was reversed w/ the background hovering in front of the trees and signs in the foreground. It was weird as my brain alternated between the 3D and the perspective, sort of like one of Escher's optical illusions.

The new ones are fine. Lovely 3D. Out of curiosity where is the park in the pictures. It looks familiar.

Transward

It's Metzger Park located in SW Portland, OR.

[Slammr (imported)]

I would expect such a TV to have a sweet zone for viewing just as today's flat screens. And when not viewing in the 3D zone they would still give "ok" 2D vision.

Still waiting, why not the ridged screen.

What is the technology behind the no headset units today?

Moi

Glasses-free televisions use lenticular lenses to achieve the 3D effect. Multiple images are displayed on the screen at the same time in alternating bands. A layer of of convex lenses arranged in columns is placed over the display so that the image band that is visible to the eye will differ depending on the angle. It's similar to the technology that is used to print plastic holographic images that morph as the viewing angle changes.

It's important to understand that lenticular lenses make it possible to have many separate images at many different angles, not just one for each eye. This characteristic is critically important for delivering glasses-free 3D in a living room environment. The television needs to show a pair of images with different perspectives at several different viewing angles simultaneously so that everybody on the couch gets the 3D effect.

The problem with this approach is that it significantly reduces the resolution of your image, because a lot of horizontal pixels are devoted to showing the two perspectives at alternate angles. This poses a dilemma: the television needs to support the 3D effect at many viewing angles in order to make glasses-free 3D practical, but the resolution will degrade as support for more angles is added.

The viability of lenticular lense technology for glasses-free 3D will obviously be predicated on the ability of television makers to boost the resolution of their displays. Toshiba told us that their glasses-free television can handle "ultra-high definition" rendering, with a 7680x4320 resolution—four times that of a standard high definition television.

They are doing electronically what you wished to do physically with the ridged screen. This quote explains why they can't do it with a ridged screen.

It's important to understand that lenticular lenses make it possible to have many separate images at many different angles, not just one for each eye. This characteristic is critically important for delivering glasses-free 3D in a living room environment. The television needs to show a pair of images with different perspectives at several different viewing angles simultaneously so that everybody on the couch gets the 3D effect.

With a ridged screen there would only be one sweet spot in the room. If you weren't sitting in it, you wouldn't see 3d.

[moi621 (imported)]

I think you've had your answer from several different people; but you're not looking for an answer. You're holding onto the concept with your usual bulldog tenacity, and you're not listening to anything anyone is saying.

Your sweet spot would probably be one and only one particular spot in the room. If you strayed from it, you probably wouldn't see 3d, and I can't even imagine what 2d would look like on your ridged screen, but I don't think it would be good.

Dear Slammr <I don't like you no more>

Slammr Moi

I saw answers that said it could not be done but not the "why" of it. My LED/LCD TV has a sweet zone, exactly perpendicular from the screen. A few degrees this way or that and I see the picture deterioration although it might be considered in the sweet zone by Consumer's Report.

So why would having to view perpendicular for the best 3D effect of my ridged screen be any less popular?

The "why" is still not answered for me. It seems like an easy imitation of nature. And film libraries could be adapted.

Not can't-s, the "why" please.

I could be "blocking", admittedly. Apologies if so. <Except to Slammr>

Moi

Slammr

Forgiveness for next weeks stock picks, even if YOU bought SLV and sent me to SLW.

[transward (imported)]

It's Metzger Park located in SW Portland, OR.

Thought it looked familiar. I lived not far from there a long time ago.

Another point to consider is that between 20 -25 % of population has insufficient binocular fusion to be able to see in 3D, no matter what technology is used. For them 3D is going to be a waste of time and money.

Transward

[Slammr (imported)]

Dear Slammr <I don't like you no more>

Slammr Moi

I saw answers that said it could not be done but not the "why" of it. My LED/LCD TV has a sweet zone, exactly perpendicular from the screen. A few degrees this way or that and I see the picture deterioration although it might be considered in the sweet zone by Consumer's Report.

So why would having to view perpendicular for the best 3D effect of my ridged screen be any less popular?

The "why" is still not answered for me. It seems like an easy imitation of nature. And film libraries could be adapted.

Not can't-s, the "why" please.

I could be "blocking", admittedly. Apologies if so. <Except to Slammr>

Moi

Slammr

Forgiveness for next weeks stock picks, even if YOU bought SLV and sent me to SLW.

I think you need a new TV. My 40" LED TV has no descernible sweet spot, not that I've noticed, anyway. I get a clear picture no matter where I am in the room. As I said before - as usual, you aren't listening - your ridged TV would have one and only one sweet spot in the room. As long as you don't move off the couch and as long as you have your couch positioned the right distance from the TV, it might work for you.

Hang onto the SLW. It will track silver. There's a bit of lagtime, that's all. I've seen it before. Moi: reminds me of a kid; always seeking immediate gratification.