3D Televisions that don't need glasses

[Atan]

I've been reading about some new televisions that are starting to show themselves in exhibits that can display 3D images without anyone needing glasses. I'm hoping in the future, movies like Avatar will be able to be watched on these kinds of TV's in the 3D format. That would be pretty sweet! :)

[Neonium]

Ya, hopefully they decide to use the new 3D Blueray format for Avatar, would create even better replay value at home when Avatar comes out.

[Kayube]

I wonder how far they planned ahead for technology improvements when making Avatar. Hopefully it will be possible to easily convert the movie to new and better media forms as they come.

[Past Present Fortune]

I wonder how far they planned ahead for technology improvements when making Avatar. Hopefully it will be possible to easily convert the movie to new and better media forms as they come.

It always is, take Star Wars for example, first it was updated to contain CG graphics, then it was updated to HD and now they're talking about upgrading it and re-releasing it at cinemas in 3D, it's not as hard as everyone thinks to do these things it just costs money.

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

I've been reading about some new televisions that are starting to show themselves in exhibits that can display 3D images without anyone needing glasses. I'm hoping in the future, movies like Avatar will be able to be watched on these kinds of TV's in the 3D format. That would be pretty sweet! :)

Meh it'll be a fad for a year or two and then disappear as Avatar would really be the only impressive movie in 3D. I wouldnt part my cash with one as not every movie is 3D, in fact there's hardly any.

[Past Present Fortune]

Meh it'll be a fad for a year or two and then disappear as Avatar would really be the only impressive movie in 3D. I wouldnt part my cash with one as not every movie is 3D, in fact there's hardly any.

I personally don't see it as a fad, I'm pretty sure 3D is here to stay and besides we have 2 Avatar sequels coming soon, LOL.

[Hydra Makto]

These 3D tvs without glasses really aren't too impressive...at the moment. The technology is moving forward but for some years to come we'll still be dealing with glasses

[Grif]

The current home 3D is active shutter.

[Neonium]

Meh it'll be a fad for a year or two and then disappear as Avatar would really be the only impressive movie in 3D. I wouldnt part my cash with one as not every movie is 3D, in fact there's hardly any.

This ignores the amazing things that 3D can do for sports and video games, and these are big enough that they'll keep it from being a fad.

[Avatarguy004]

I too have been reading about this. But I have my doubts about how "good" this technology will be in practice in the home setting. It'll be interesting to see if it takes off though.

[Grif]

I've just spent about an hour looking across RealD, XPand, Samsung and other websites trying to figure out which type of glasses I need. A lot of it was trying to find out if my tv has DLP Link or not (it doesn't), but I've finally found out that I need this: XpanD 3D Stereoscopic Kit with 2 X101 Active 3D Glasses (http://www.xpand3dtv.com/xpand-3d-stereoscopic-kit-with-2-x101-active-3d-g321013.html)

Anyway the non-glasses 3D TVs are interesting, but right now the technology is not ready for practical use. Intel showed of one screen that didn't require glasses, but it was sub-720p and there were only 8 places you can stand to get the full effect. I'm looking forward to it, but it's simply not ready yet.

Here is an article about the Intel 3D TV: Intel shows off glasses-free 3D demo -- now this is more like it -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/)

[NachoDuck]

It's going to be a while before this becomes affordable for the domestic market in my opinion. I'm not sure what the rush is to get away from glasses anyway, they've been with us since the birth of 3D cinema and I don't think they are that much of a hassle when viewing 3D content. Sure with the polarised 3D technology that RealD uses at the moment you loose a fair bit of light from the original but I don't really see that as much of a drawback, not compared with the results, atleast when it's done right.

I welcome the forthcoming promises of BSkyB and Sony have made about bring 3D to Sky+ HD and the PS3 but I don't think I'll be shelling out my saving just yet for a 3D TV when there might be next to no content to play with it. I guess we'll see what the Blu-ray 3D version of Avatar comes out like (there's going to be one, let's face it ;)).

[mkmaster]

Ok so I found this picture and what is in the picture is odd but the simple technology that is used could be used to make movies 3D without glasses, which would seemingly easy to do for a movie. Any thoughts?

http://i.imgur.com/Vs7No.gif

[Dusso Janladde]

Meh it'll be a fad for a year or two and then disappear as Avatar would really be the only impressive movie in 3D. I wouldnt part my cash with one as not every movie is 3D, in fact there's hardly any.

On the contrary, before too long we'll be looking at 2D movies the same way we currently look at silent films and, to a lesser extent, black and white films.

[WiseHacker]

Ok so I found this picture and what is in the picture is odd but the simple technology that is used could be used to make movies 3D without glasses, which would seemingly easy to do for a movie. Any thoughts?

http://i.imgur.com/Vs7No.gif

The image works, but if you look closely, its only 2 or 3 frames long and is only working becasue it is alternating between those frames. It would have been great if they got this working with a 30 second animation or so.

Still, it would be nice to read further into this. Do you have a link to any other Web sites the explain how this picture was made?

[mkmaster]

The image works, but if you look closely, its only 2 or 3 frames long and is only working becasue it is alternating between those frames. It would have been great if they got this working with a 30 second animation or so.

Still, it would be nice to read further into this. Do you have a link to any other Web sites the explain how this picture was made?

The specific picture didnt have any descriptions or anything but I think the way it works is that there are 2 pictures taken right next to each other at the same time like and inch apart or so. I think this would work if they would take 2 frames from a movie at a different angle and displayed them one right after another. The biggest problem that I can think of with this is that idk if most projectors could shoot at that fast of a frame rate which would need to be around 60(?) and most now display at 30(?) frames per second.

[Anathema]

I've been reading about some new televisions that are starting to show themselves in exhibits that can display 3D images without anyone needing glasses. I'm hoping in the future, movies like Avatar will be able to be watched on these kinds of TV's in the 3D format. That would be pretty sweet! :)

I ve heared something like thats coming out in summer by Panasonic. But i dont know if you need glasses or not.

[WiseHacker]

The specific picture didnt have any descriptions or anything but I think the way it works is that there are 2 pictures taken right next to each other at the same time like and inch apart or so.

That I had already figured out. It's a pity there is no other description, might have made good reading.


I think this would work if they would take 2 frames from a movie at a different angle and displayed them one right after another. The biggest problem that I can think of with this is that idk if most projectors could shoot at that fast of a frame rate which would need to be around 60(?) and most now display at 30(?) frames per second.

I'm no expert so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. When it comes to frames you have two modes: progressive and interlaced. Interlaced means that only half of the lines are draw in each screen refresh. Hence interlace often works at 60Hz (or 50 if you go by PAL).

In progressive, no lines are skipped. It gives a clearer picture but it takes longer hence the slower framerate (25 in PAL).

But with the recent advances in TVs, I do not think this comments hold anymore. I know you can get TVs these days that run at 100+ Hz but I haven't had the chance to do the hard research yet. I personally hope they run progressive at that speed.

[Arthur]

> AFAIK, as long as you have the separated images of each "eye" of the camera, you can adapt it to any 3D system.

[mkmaster]

That I had already figured out. It's a pity there is no other description, might have made good reading.



I'm no expert so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. When it comes to frames you have two modes: progressive and interlaced. Interlaced means that only half of the lines are draw in each screen refresh. Hence interlace often works at 60Hz (or 50 if you go by PAL).

In progressive, no lines are skipped. It gives a clearer picture but it takes longer hence the slower framerate (25 in PAL).

But with the recent advances in TVs, I do not think this comments hold anymore. I know you can get TVs these days that run at 100+ Hz but I haven't had the chance to do the hard research yet. I personally hope they run progressive at that speed.

Yea the new tvs are up 240hz i think, but I was talking about the projectors, idk if most can project that fast, except for the digital ones.

[Friend of Pandora]

> AFAIK, as long as you have the separated images of each "eye" of the camera, you can adapt it to any 3D system.

That's my understanding, but I don't have any significant knowledge of the systems or the technology.

I would love to see 3D TV without glasses - and I think the first places to do so will be sports bars/pubs and the like - glasses will be highly impractical in public settings like that. They're the ones with a business reason to invest in the technology even when it's in a more infantile and more expensive state.

With various broadcasters signing on to film sports and other features in 3D within the next 12-14 months, the next 3-4 years will be very exciting in terms of 3D technology I hope.

As for glasses - well I don't mind them at all, but I wear glasses in real life. I wonder if there's a correlation between dislike for 3D glasses and not wearing corrective glasses?

[WiseHacker]

As for glasses - well I don't mind them at all, but I wear glasses in real life. I wonder if there's a correlation between dislike for 3D glasses and not wearing corrective glasses?

You and me both, mate. I can tell you one thing, if the 3D without glasses technology fails, I think business contact lense manufactures will sky rocket, :-P.

[Neonium]

As for glasses - well I don't mind them at all, but I wear glasses in real life. I wonder if there's a correlation between dislike for 3D glasses and not wearing corrective glasses?

The people I know actually showed the opposite, but thats because they had trouble getting their glasses under the RealD glasses. Cant be too long till some third party comes up with prescription 3D glasses to fix this though.

[Friend of Pandora]

The people I know actually showed the opposite, but thats because they had trouble getting their glasses under the RealD glasses. Cant be too long till some third party comes up with prescription 3D glasses to fix this though.

Weird - I had no trouble at all with the RealD glasses over my own, and in fact found them better (more comfortable, less slippage) than any other 3D glasses I've tried (IMAX, MasterImage).

[superpidrooo]

I've been reading about some new televisions that are starting to show themselves in exhibits that can display 3D images without anyone needing glasses. I'm hoping in the future, movies like Avatar will be able to be watched on these kinds of TV's in the 3D format. That would be pretty sweet! :)

yeah right :) but we will have to wait a lot and it will cost so much...

[Anathema]

yeah right :) but we will have to wait a lot and it will cost so much...

Right xP
They ll probably cost a huge amount of money at the beginning, just like everything thats new.

[mkmaster]

I just want like Star Wars style holograms :/ lol. That would be cooler than ANY tv.

[Gavran]

hmm how would a 3d tv not need glasses? The only possible way is like the star wars holograms. If that technology is around and made and sold before i die whoo hoo

[WiseHacker]

If that technology is around and made and sold before i die whoo hoo

How would you enjoy it then? :-P.

[Gavran]

cause i said before i die:) so i would be able to enjoy it

[Olo'eyctan]

Ok so I found this picture and what is in the picture is odd but the simple technology that is used could be used to make movies 3D without glasses, which would seemingly easy to do for a movie. Any thoughts?

http://i.imgur.com/Vs7No.gif

It's not the 3D effect it pretends to be. It's just moving different areas of the picture back and forth at different rates to make it seem like it is 3d. If you look at the houses on the left, for instance, the roofs move separately from the walls. Plus, you can tell: the image remains the same if you close one eye or the other.

[BlueDreams]

Yes, I have read quite a lot of news about that. One method is that the image rapidly - so rapidly that the human eye cannot perceive it - in a way that makes it appear 3D.
Although, this technology will probably be very expensive.
In addition, people have rated the good old red-blue glasses the best. Why? They say that the red-blue glasses create the illusion of things moving toward you. However, in the no-glasses method, they say that the illusion of depth is created - space inside the TV, rather than things coming out.
There are disadvantages to the normal 3D glasses, of course. Like color distortion.

[feystorm]

Yes, I have read quite a lot of news about that. One method is that the image rapidly - so rapidly that the human eye cannot perceive it - in a way that makes it appear 3D.
Although, this technology will probably be very expensive.
In addition, people have rated the good old red-blue glasses the best. Why? They say that the red-blue glasses create the illusion of things moving toward you. However, in the no-glasses method, they say that the illusion of depth is created - space inside the TV, rather than things coming out.
There are disadvantages to the normal 3D glasses, of course. Like color distortion.

Imax 3d is like that (pops out instead of in). It all depends on the technology used.

[BlueDreams]

Imax 3d is like that (pops out instead of in). It all depends on the technology used.
Yup. And that is usually called the best 3D. :)
Well, I didn't see any other form of 3D other than with the red and blue glasses, so... I wouldn't really know for myself if it was the best. But I trust the reviews. :D

[Ni'Awve Mokri]

that's pretty cool. hopefully it won't take too long for the price to reach us regular people. lol