Slammr (imported) wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:16 pm 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.

I have a sharp sixty inch LED/LCD.

Mine is bigger.

Truly,

I see picture quality fade in any of them, I like Sharp for a less reflective screen.

Thanks for your explanations.

Moi

Why not a ridged screen?

Moi

I work in 3D graphics field.

There are ridged screens, just like you mention, that shoot the image in slightly different directions to hit each eye independently so you don't need glasses.

The only issue is that it only works for one person at a time, and only if you know roughly where the person will sit. So it is primarily being developed for mobile phones and smaller netbook/notebooks. See some available currently: http://techsling.com/2011/04/top-3-glas ... artphones/

The better ones will track your position. Here is a movie clip from CES 2011 about Toshiba's progress on this: http://ces.cnet.com/1801-32500_1-50098470.html

It wouldn't work for tv or movie theaters. You can sort of make it work by combining multiple such screens (i.e. ridges going in multiple directions) but that requires a really expensive screen, so probably at least 10 years out. Hitachi is working on this though.

Here is a movie clip from CES 2011 about Toshiba's progress on this: http://ces.cnet.com/1801-32500_1-50098470.html

Thanks. I just felt it had to be possible.

If glasses must be uses, why not let the glasses be the screens. One for each eye. Maybe even a hat or helmet as to supply sound too. Wearing special glasses to watch a stationary screen just seems dumb.

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Mon May 02, 2011 12:55 pm Thanks. I just felt it had to be possible.

If glasses must be uses, why not let the glasses be the screens. One for each eye. Maybe even a hat or helmet as to supply sound too. Wearing special glasses to watch a stationary screen just seems dumb.

Moi

There are such glasses (http://www.digitalversus.com/ifa-2010-c ... 15747.html). 500$ per person is a bit high?

Actually, I've been wondering about going a slightly different direction with things...

If a 120hz TV is capable of displaying separate left and right images to form a 3D picture, what about having it display two completely separate feeds?

Then get two sets of glasses where both lenses are polarized the same way (or are on the same shutter cycle, or whatever tech your TV uses), but each set is polarized differently.

I'm not sure how sound would work, but you would wind up with two people on the same couch, watching two different channels at the same time.

Each with head sets so as not to disturb the other one.

When I was still working for a living and making good money I would buy the NFL football season then use picture in a picture and watch 4 football games and the NASCAR race all at the same time on 2 different TV's.

I don't do that any more, it gave me a headache.

River

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue May 03, 2011 2:20 pm Actually, I've been wondering about going a slightly different direction with things...

If a 120hz TV is capable of displaying separate left and right images to form a 3D picture, what about having it display two completely separate feeds?

Then get two sets of glasses where both lenses are polarized the same way (or are on the same shutter cycle, or whatever tech your TV uses), but each set is polarized differently.

I'm not sure how sound would work, but you would wind up with two people on the same couch, watching two different channels at the same time.

Yes, that would work. The technology to make 120Hz cost-effective is pretty recent. For example, you'd need two tuners running or for video games would need to render both separately. However, for two 2D it is probably possible today. For two 3D pictures you'd need 240Hz, but that wouldn't be far away, and that could support four people watching at 2D, etc.

That is actually a pretty decent idea. I think the sound might be the harder part because the tv technology hasn't been architected for multiple sound streams out.

But then you get to the point that Moi makes: if you're wearing glasses anyway, at some point you might as well have the screen in the glasses. Since people spend about $2k on a big tv anyway, you could pack a lot of technology into the glasses if you didn't need to spend the money on the tv.

In some ways, I think tablets, mobiles and netbooks are sort of filling this space too. Instead of everyone watching one $2k tv, you have each person in the family watching their own $500 personal screen. If you're wearing headsets, the sound is pretty immersive so you don't need a big home theater receiver and speaker set up.

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Tue May 03, 2011 7:36 pm Yes, that would work. The technology to make 120Hz cost-effective is pretty recent. For example, you'd need two tuners running or for video games would need to render both separately. However, for two 2D it is probably possible today. For two 3D pictures you'd need 240Hz, but that wouldn't be far away, and that could support four people watching at 2D, etc.

That is actually a pretty decent idea. I think the sound might be the harder part because the tv technology hasn't been architected for multiple sound streams out.

But then you get to the point that Moi makes: if you're wearing glasses anyway, at some point you might as well have the screen in the glasses. Since people spend about $2k on a big tv anyway, you could pack a lot of technology into the glasses if you didn't need to spend the money on the tv.

In some ways, I think tablets, mobiles and netbooks are sort of filling this space too. Instead of everyone watching one $2k tv, you have each person in the family watching their own $500 personal screen. If you're wearing headsets, the sound is pretty immersive so you don't need a big home theater receiver and speaker set up.

What about those of us that wear pop-bottle-bottom glasses....? I can't see clearly 6 inches away, if that...