Toshiba unveils a 3D TV that doesn't require glasses

[SickBeast]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/05/toshiba.3dtv.no.glasses.cnet/index.html?iref=NS1

It looks promising to me. It's expensive, but give it a few years and we'll hopefully see this feature in all mainstream television sets.

I would never purchase one of the current 3D TVs that require glasses.

 

[Smartazz]

"The 12-inch 3D TV goes on sale in Japan at the end of this year for $1,500"

That is pretty expensive, but as you said it should become more reasonable as time goes on. I wonder how long it'll take before you don't have to sit perfectly in front of the TV to get the effect.

 

[crisium]

3DS anyone? It was inevitable it would end up in TV's.

 

[Idontcare]

Nice, bring on the holodeck! Progress is progress.

 

[Aristotelian]

Nice, bring on the holodeck! Progress is progress.

Interesting. I both welcome and fear such an eventuality. WoW is as addictive as it is (so was Everquest, so were various MUDs) prior to total immersion. Imagine how many people would play if you could actually *be*, in some sense, the hero or villain. Our wildest dreams could come to life in a holodeck, but then wouldn't this render our daily existence rather...mundane? Imagine every day sex as opposed to the...limitless boundaries of fantasy. Hopefully in our lifetimes, eh?

 

[TheDrake]

Yeah, you knew they were going this way eventually, but it will take years and years before it becomes anything reasonable and may never take off at all. I have a 3d monitor and nvidia kit and only got it because it was so cheap (used). But I can tell you its going up on ebay soon here, just not worth it, even for 120hz alone.

the holodeck idea is interesting but when you know something isnt real it takes away a Great deal from the experience. People will value real experience much more than fake, plain and simple.

 

[CurseTheSky]

12" TV for $1,500 isn't that bad considering the feature set. I think when OLEDs first came out, they were advertising a 12-15" TV for something like $30,000. I don't remember the exact numbers.

Here's to hoping we see this technology in 32-52" TVs for under two grand in a few years.

 

[fffblackmage]

Huzzah! It's about time we get glasses-less 3DTV.

12" TV for $1,500 isn't that bad considering the feature set. I think when OLEDs first came out, they were advertising a 12-15" TV for something like $30,000. I don't remember the exact numbers.

Since you mentioned it... where are those OLED TVs?

 

[Keysplayr]

Nice, bring on the holodeck! Progress is progress.

It isn't really progress. This was around in 2005 as I had tested a "3D" imaging screen for a medical device. In order for this to work, you need to move your head into a position indicated proper by an LED light at the top of the screen. Then you'll be able to see a 3D image on screen. If you move your head an inch, the effect is broken and you have to re-adjust to get it right again.

I believe they acheived this effect with "pixel tubes" designed to be directed or pinpointed at one eye area or another. That is why a persons head has to be exactly in one spot.

And for the life of me, I can't see how anyone would prefer their head in a fixed position and feel that is preferable to glasses.
The technology may have improved over what I saw in 2005, but back then it never took off. Maybe they are just trying again to push the dated tech back onto the market and showcase it as new.

 

[HurleyBird]

It isn't really progress. This was around in 2005 as I had tested a "3D" imaging screen for a medical device. In order for this to work, you need to move your head into a position indicated proper by an LED light at the top of the screen. Then you'll be able to see a 3D image on screen. If you move your head an inch, the effect is broken and you have to re-adjust to get it right again.

I believe they acheived this effect with "pixel tubes" designed to be directed or pinpointed at one eye area or another. That is why a persons head has to be exactly in one spot.

And for the life of me, I can't see how anyone would prefer their head in a fixed position and feel that is preferable to glasses.
The technology may have improved over what I saw in 2005, but back then it never took off. Maybe they are just trying again to push the dated tech back onto the market and showcase it as new.

From what I've read, field of view for the 3d-effect is still narrow, but not within an inch. For example, multiple people were viewing the 56 inch at once. However, what is most disconcerting is that the 3d-effect only works at a certain distance away from the display. Obviously, glassesless is the future, but it doesen't seem that the technology is ready yet.

 

[WelshBloke]

It isn't really progress. This was around in 2005 as I had tested a "3D" imaging screen for a medical device. In order for this to work, you need to move your head into a position indicated proper by an LED light at the top of the screen. Then you'll be able to see a 3D image on screen. If you move your head an inch, the effect is broken and you have to re-adjust to get it right again.

I believe they acheived this effect with "pixel tubes" designed to be directed or pinpointed at one eye area or another. That is why a persons head has to be exactly in one spot.

And for the life of me, I can't see how anyone would prefer their head in a fixed position and feel that is preferable to glasses.
The technology may have improved over what I saw in 2005, but back then it never took off. Maybe they are just trying again to push the dated tech back onto the market and showcase it as new.

I'd agree with most of that.
As said above the viewing angles are better now so it could be ok for a computer monitor though, as long as the picture quality is good.


As for the bolded, you could say that for all forms of 3D display out at the moment. :whiste:

 

[Dribble]

There are things much closer to the holo deck then a glassesless inch screen.

Cave's - where you effectively sit in a cube which has back projected stereo images on each side have been around for years (late 90's). Needs glasses but works fine - it's used to do things like mock up the insides of cars as you feel like you are inside the car.

As for this screen - it was a bit hard to tell from the article, but as I understand it's just the same tech as in all the other glassesless screens where a second LCD layer bends light left/right like window blinds so each eye sees the correct image. So effectively it works like the glasses with the alternating images however the screen does the shuttering.

However the sweet spot is tiny - you have to sit exactly in the centre and not move your head around - or you're eyes will start to see the wrong images.

The stuff about the cell cpu seemed to be about auto creating 3d content from 2d - something most 3d video players can already do, they just claimed their screen did it better, but tbh for 3D to work well you need real 3d footage - all this generated fake 3d is always gonna look rubbish in comparison and it's gonna take more then a cell cpu to change that. For example they are talking about spending several years with the best people and the fastest hardware money can by to convert the star wars films from 2d to 3d.

 

[Keysplayr]

From what I've read, field of view for the 3d-effect is still narrow, but not within an inch. For example, multiple people were viewing the 56 inch at once. However, what is most disconcerting is that the 3d-effect only works at a certain distance away from the display. Obviously, glassesless is the future, but it doesen't seem that the technology is ready yet.

Multiple people may have been looking at the screen, but only one of them had an optimal view. The dude closest and to the center. The article itself claimed that if you moved a "few" inches left or right, the effect is lost.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'd agree with most of that.
As said above the viewing angles are better now so it could be ok for a computer monitor though, as long as the picture quality is good.


As for the bolded, you could say that for all forms of 3D display out at the moment. :whiste:

I assume you're referring to 3DVision. I've been to 3DVision demos where there were at least 20 of us wearing glasses and viewing a 3DVision Surround setup. All at the same time. 20 glasses operating on one emitter. Everyone saw the same thing no matter where you stood.

 

[HurleyBird]

Multiple people may have been looking at the screen, but only one of them had an optimal view. The dude closest and to the center. The article itself claimed that if you moved a "few" inches left or right, the effect is lost.

I believe the "few inches" was in relation to the small 12 inch screen. The bigger screens have larger viewing areas, but it's still not optimal, and again the worst part about this tech is that there is a certain distance that you need to be from the display to get the 3d-effect.

So far, I'll I've seen from 3D is a big 'meh'. The few high end, shutter based 3DTV's I've demoed look like cheap TN displays through the glasses (my guess is the decrease in luminance and the fact that each shutter is 'flickering' at a not-fast-enough-for-CRTs-and-not-fast-enough-now 60hz takes its toll), and objects look like billboards placed at different depths where there is no depth to the individual objects themselves. I haven't tried 3DVision, but if the shutter glasses make ultra high end TVs seem to have the IQ of a cheap TN display, I wouldn't want to see what they make cheap TN display's look like.

 

[WelshBloke]

I assume you're referring to 3DVision. I've been to 3DVision demos where there were at least 20 of us wearing glasses and viewing a 3DVision Surround setup. All at the same time. 20 glasses operating on one emitter. Everyone saw the same thing no matter where you stood.

The bolded was

The technology may have improved over what I saw in 2005, but back then it never took off. Maybe they are just trying again to push the dated tech back onto the market and showcase it as new.

I'd say that was a fair thing to say about all forms of 3D at the mo?

 

[Idontcare]

It isn't really progress. This was around in 2005 as I had tested a "3D" imaging screen for a medical device. In order for this to work, you need to move your head into a position indicated proper by an LED light at the top of the screen. Then you'll be able to see a 3D image on screen. If you move your head an inch, the effect is broken and you have to re-adjust to get it right again.

I believe they acheived this effect with "pixel tubes" designed to be directed or pinpointed at one eye area or another. That is why a persons head has to be exactly in one spot.

And for the life of me, I can't see how anyone would prefer their head in a fixed position and feel that is preferable to glasses.
The technology may have improved over what I saw in 2005, but back then it never took off. Maybe they are just trying again to push the dated tech back onto the market and showcase it as new.

At TI I spent more time than I care to recollect or document worrying about the pure and simple optical physics and technological barriers involved with making "glasses-free" 3D.

The conclusions we held at the time was that 3D visualization effects such as a holodeck would simply not occur within the realm optical physics as we knew them at the time.

To see these guys doing it to a non-zero degree, albeit in limited scale and scope and yes of course at something less than perfect implementation is still awe-inspiring nonetheless. Not as an enthusiast but as an engineer who worked on the very same problem.

The progress they are demonstrating today is different than in 2005 in that we are seeing a commercially viable mass-production amenable approach.

IMO it's the difference between Nasa building the shuttle to ferry a select few into low-earth orbit at any cost versus Virgin Galatic finding a way to bring the experience to the masses at a fraction of the cost. (still spendy, but within the financial means of probably a hundred-thousand to one million people I'd speculate)

So it's a limited field of vision effect at this stage, its progress because its affordable. Wait 5yrs and everyone's cellphone, laptop, ipad, in-vehicle DVD player, etc screens are able to do 3D without glasses.

To me this smells of pure game changer in the sub-20" screen markets.

 

[Ben90]

Interesting. A huge problem I see with it is that even if the 3d field "range" was increased, laying down on the couch would completely negate it as your eyes would be viewing from the wrong angle.

A possible fix would be to have facial recognition and a dynamic 3d-effect-maker. For multiple people the 3d-effect-maker could shoot a frame at each person while having the other people blinded temporarily. Obviously the face recognition and 3d-effect-maker are going to have to run extremely fast, and this setup will probably be pretty expensive. Years away if this technology actually takes hold in the consumer marketplace.