Must admit to being a sceptic, particularly as its introduction follows a period where many people have bought HDTVs…

However, the latest Sony Bravia and Panasonic £D TVs were on display in a local store at the weekend, and I took a peek.

I must admit I was quite impressed!
Not sure that I’d necessarily want to sit in my front room with specs on all the time (well I do that anyway…), but I’m now less unconvinced about the whole concept…

… CoD Black Ops in 3D anyone??

I hardly watch tv and dont even play computer games but there’s part of me that thinks that it must be a truly amazing experience to play a totally immersive FPS game in 3D on a massive TV driven by some of the latest graphics accelerators….

IMO they’re very realistic

Only the other day, I was watching the Liverpool game on a new 3D TV – it must of been a boring game as I dozed off
When I awoke, I discovered my watch & wallet were missing

Incredible ! 🙂

uplink – Member

IMO they’re very realistic

Only the other day, I was watching the Liverpool game on a new 3D TV – it must of been a boring game as I dozed off
When I awoke, I discovered my watch & wallet were missing

Uplink repeats

Aren’t 3D TV’s that don’t require glasses in development? I’m pretty sure that there’s a company that are working on one around these parts, something to do with polarising in the TV itself. If so then I can see the current 3D TV’s falling out of popularity as soon as these other ones come out (which could be a while i guess!)

Still waiting for HD to impress me so doubt 3D will be much cop, 3D at the cinema not great in my opinion

Don’t see how it’d work without glasses. You need a way of sending something different to the left eye and the right eye.

You could do 3d sans glasses by having a twin view LCD, sit to the left of centre you see one image, to the right another, in the middle both.
I’d image you’d have to be quite close or have a huge screen though.

All too hi-tech for me.
Thing’s started going downhill every since they started broadcasting R4 in stereo if you ask me.

You need a way of sending something different to the left eye and the right eye.

I’ll now have to google to find out how holographic images work as you’ve made me wonder.

Don’t see how it’d work without glasses.

Lenticular screen. It’s the same basic idea that you get on some magazine covers and DVDs and suchlike, to give a 3D image (or animated when you move your head about).

Yeah but you’d have to sit in an exact spot to make it work, no?

It’s the same basic idea, I’d expect that it’s somewhat more advanced than that though. In honesty I’ve not done a lot of research into it, because if ever there was a technology I don’t want to be an early adopter of, this is it. Apart from the fact that it’s going to get a lot better very quickly, I’ve just bought a new TV.

Btw, with lenticular printing, it doesn’t just work head-on, the pattern repeats as you move laterally across the image (or I suppose, angle the print if you’re holding it).

Yes, but again yo’d have to be at a series of exact distances and angles wouldn’t you?

Toshiba are the closest I am told, they are saying that they will have a glasses free option out in Spring 2011.

again yo’d have to be at a series of exact distances and angles

Dunno, in honesty. Maybe they’ve got round it, dunno.

Toshiba are the closest I am told,

My money’s on Nintendo beating them to it with a 3D DS.

Years ago I saw some holographic images at the RPS in Bath. They were maybe only 40 to 50 cm across but could be viewed from a wide enough range of angles that a group of people could look at them at the same time. If that could be transferred to a moving image it would be amazing to see.

for research purposes I just popped into Dixons on Strand and had a gander at their demo box.

To me it looks a bit like a pop-up book – like cardboard cutouts standing on a diorama stage. The sample footage was some kind of pop concert – laser beams actually looked like they crossed depths of field, but characters on stage seemed to be at set depths back. There is, of course, no parrallax so it still looks very synthetic.

this is why I think gaming engines with parallax capabillities woul dprovide a more immersive 3D environment regardless of surface rendering shortfalls.

While I was in the shop a few other people tried on the glasses and some of them couldnt see the effect at all which is odd. I imagine theyre astigmatic or something and dont have fully functioning binocular vision?

My money’s on Nintendo beating them to it with a 3D DS.

Coming out early next year. But it has a big advantage being a handheld, which is that people can be relied upon to be in the right place for the screen.

Lenticular display 3DTVs have been around for years as prototypes, they had one at Cambridge University about 12 years ago. They are a nice idea, but you have to half the resolution of the display to go 3d, or worse if it is multi-angle (on some of them, you can walk round to see from slightly round the side – they have 8 or 9 views total, your eyes see two at a time). Whereas with the glasses ones, all you have to do is make the display update quickly, and given screens nowadays can update at silly speeds like 500hz, whereas most content is 50-100hz at most, 3d becomes essentially a free feature.

Not sure how Toshiba are doing glasses free though, it might be something more cunning than a simple lenticular overlay.

Joe

Am I missing something, but if you have to wear wired up specs to watch it, why not send the whole pictures to LCDs in the specs, then you can dispense with the big screen altogether?

theyre not wired up, theyre polarised.

You see two different chiral images – one in each eye. The lenses are aligned at 90degs so that of the two images presented the eye sees one through one lens and the other through the other.

Am I missing something, but if you have to wear wired up specs to watch it, why not send the whole pictures to LCDs in the specs, then you can dispense with the big screen altogether?

The weight, size and cost of such specs might be a bit restrictive I imagine, although I think this idea has been around for years.

his is why I think gaming engines with parallax capabillities woul dprovide a more immersive 3D environment regardless of surface rendering shortfalls.

Like this –

joe – Ill catch that later as Im behind a firewall.

theyre not wired up, theyre polarised

If they’re just polarised glasses, why are Sony charging £100 a pop?

EDIT – they use something called active shutter, so I think they block each eye in turn to restrict what each eye sees what. It’s not the same as the cinema glasses.

theyre not wired up, theyre polarised.

You see two different chiral images – one in each eye. The lenses are aligned at 90degs so that of the two images presented the eye sees one through one lens and the other through the other.

Ah, just thought the thing in the shop was carrying a signal rather than just stopping the specs being nicked. Must pay more attention, my CRT telly won’t last forever.

EDIT: ta jon, thought the glasses looked to be doing something clever.

some are polarised, some use shutters. The ones I used this lunchtime were passive.

Active v Passive 3D explained

Active v Passive 3D refers to the type of glasses you have to wear to watch 3D.

Active glasses contain LCD lenses that alternately ‘block out’ each eye depending on whether the left or right image is being displayed on the screen. They are referred to as active because they require a battery to operate the LCD lenses. The shuttering occurs so rapidly that you don’t see the shutters just the amazing 3D picture.

Passive glasses use polarisation to separate out the left and right image. They are referred to as passive because the glasses to do require any power to operate them. These work with polarised TVs that use circular polarisation to deliver the two images to the viewer. The TVs have a polarised filter integrated into the screen, and when switched into 3D mode, the filer orientates the light emitting from the screen differently for the left and right image.

One important point to consider is the cost of replacing broken or lost 3D glasses. Active glasses will cost more than passive glasses due to the additional technology they use. Active glasses will also need a new lithium battery (similar to a watch battery) when it runs out.

some are polarised, some use shutters.

So does this mean that what is being broadcast will determine which kind of TV / Specs can be used to view it? Does it have to be broadcast using one method or the other? as one menthod (polar) involves displaying both ‘eyes’ images simultaneously and the other (shutter) synchronises with the specs and shows one at a time.

no the TV will determine the technology needed to channel seperate images to each eye. Passive polarised go with one kind of TV, active shutters with another.

here’s one working without glasses, bit different though as its creating an image of a 3d object so has a limited 3rd dimension
http://blog.discover.sonystyle.com/raymodeler-3d-prototype-will-be-showcased-at-siggraph

So does this mean that what is being broadcast will determine which kind of TV / Specs can be used to view it?

No, it means the type of TV you have will determine the type of specs you need.

Has anyone seen the holograms at the Camera Obscura in Edinburgh? One of them is a microscope mounted on the wall, sticking out into the room. You can go up and look down the microscope and see the stuff on the slide – that’s amazing.

I hardly watch tv and dont even play computer games but there’s part of me that thinks that it must be a truly amazing experience to play a totally immersive FPS game in 3D on a massive TV driven by some of the latest graphics accelerators….

I remember playing Alines V Predator, in the dark, with the sound on quite loud. Literally almost shit meself when a monster popped out unexpectedly (farted, very nearly followed through. Narrowly avoided a ‘pant-stainer’).

I fear 3D computer games would require me to wear a nappy. 😳

Tomb Raider, now there’s a film that needs to be re-made for 3D TV

if you have to wear glasses to watch 3d tv why not just get some tv glasses you can get them with freeview decoders now

I just think the whole idea is a waste of time. I’ve seen a load of 3d films at the cinema with the kids, and although some of the films have been good (up, toy story 3, Coraline), not one of them has been enhanced by the fact that the film is in 3d. If the film is any good by the end you have forgotten about the 3d. I found it detracted from avatar, because I wanted to look at what was going on on the whole screen, but the 3d effect is forcing you to focus on a specific point on the screen.

I think the movie studios will find less and less people caring if a film is 3 d or not now the novelty has worn off, and this will filter down to the tv hardware manufacturers who will quietly drop the whole idea.

And I agree with the pop-up book thing. It doesn’t Even look like true 3 d

Up used 3d well – gave it a nice depth, almost like a stage, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole looks mighty impressive 3d from the trailer.