Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Hardware Technology

Consumer 3D Television Moving Forward 127

Posted by Soulskill
from the don't-tag-this-porn dept.
TheSync writes "Hollywood Reporter claims that SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) will 'establish an industry task force to define the parameters of a mastering standard for 3D content distributed via broadcast, cable, satellite, packaged media and the Internet, and played-out on televisions, computer screens and other tethered displays.' Already, Japanese Nippon BS viewers with Hyundai 3D LCD sets can watch an hour of 3D programming daily. Even your existing DLP TV set might be 3D capable today with the addition of LCD shutter glasses." Reader DaMan1970 makes note of another developing television technology; telescopic pixel displays. "Each pixel consists of 2 opposing mirrors where the primary mirror can change shape under an applied voltage. When the pixel is off, the primary & secondary mirrors are parallel & reflect all of the incoming light back into the light source."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consumer 3D Television Moving Forward

Comments Filter:
  • First Use (Score:3, Funny)

    by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @02:03AM (#24285215)
    Porn.

    Why else would you want a 3D experience?
  • by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @02:05AM (#24285225)
    I wouldn:t buy this until IEEE is on board...
    • by TheSync (5291) *

      I wouldn:t buy this until IEEE is on board...

      Why? The IEEE is not a Standards Developing Organization for video. The key SDOs for video are SMPTE [wikipedia.org], ISO/IEC MPEG [wikipedia.org], ITU [wikipedia.org], ARIB, [arib.or.jp] ASTC [wikipedia.org], SCTE [wikipedia.org], and ETSI/DVB [wikipedia.org] .

      Then there are the consortiums like the Blu-ray Disc Association [wikipedia.org], and trade/business organizations like the Consumer Electronics Association [wikipedia.org] and the EBU [wikipedia.org].

  • Now Robot Monster [imdb.com] can be seen at home the way it always should have been!
  • by Mutio (1204504) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @02:18AM (#24285293)
    When I sit down at my computer i am engaged and am accomplishing something(most of the time), but when i sit down to watch TV i want to be completely relaxed and just watch. If this means i will have to be more aware of my TV then im not for it. Also my TV is often on in the background, which means I'll have to wear the special glasses all the time which isn't gonna happen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by plasmacutter (901737)

      indeed. TV is "noisy wallpaper" to me.

      I grew up in a loud household, and silence is uncomfortable.

      I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is) just so jon stewart pops out at me.

      • by 4D6963 (933028)

        I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is) just so jon stewart pops out at me.

        In Soviet Russia, you pop out at Jon Stewart.

      • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

        by ezzzD55J (697465)

        I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is)

        Nah that's dumb.

        just so jon stewart pops out at me.

        .. omg that would be great ;)

  • by JimboFBX (1097277) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @02:31AM (#24285345)
    I have a pair of e-dimensional 3d glasses (yes, they DO work if you have the right set-up and some patience*), and can say after showing them to a few people, several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:

    Motion sickness
    Astigmatism
    Eye strain
    The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes
    Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
    Looking like a nerd

    There's some serious patience required to adjust to it, its not natural to focus your eyes direction at one depth, and change the actual focus to another. When what your looking at is far away (like a movie screen), its a lot easier. When its a TV or computer screen that is just a few feet away, its harder to adjust to, and for a lot of people if they don't instantly "click" with something then its hard to get them to want it.

    Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures of a static object side by side with the camera pointing towards a certain object (make sure its the same object in each one!). Put them next to each other, then slowly cross your eyes until they merge. It'll form a 3d picture, full color, no special equipment required, no red/blue glasses to give people headaches. The further apart the pictures are taken, the more pronounced the 3-d effect. You'll want to use the cross-eyed effect as opposed to the "looking into the picture" effect because it allows for a larger picture.
    • by JoeRW (1227144) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:36AM (#24285709)

      Well if you use a compatible DLP projector (such as those listed here: "http://www.stereo3d.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?3177/3347") instead of a pc screen with the shutter glasses, and make the screen very large, the 3d effect is just as if you are looking just as you would normally. Space faring games such as Eve or X3 look the most impressive since it appears that you are floating in infinite space and very massive objects are in your neighbourhood. The cave exploration scenes from Half Life 2 episode 2 were also quite gobsmackingly fantastic; if you put the room light on it appears as though there is a cave system adjunct to the room! And the imposing obsidian combine walls do cause claustrophobia. Stalker had the most detailed 3d models I've seen however, I stood walking around the busted old bus shelter for hours in amazement at it's realism. So did my friends and even my mother, so I think it does help to have a very large screen.

      • by zobier (585066)
        I don't like shutter glasses or colour-wheel DLPs because the flickering is irritating.

        Show me two 3-chip DLPs with circular polarised filters of opposite handedness and we'll talk business.

    • Fake 3D (Score:2, Informative)

      by Sethumme (1313479)

      I agree that stereoscopic vision is not going to hit the mainstream big time. It's more of a gimmick than anything else, for all the reasons you name. Television programming isn't nearly as accessible when you have to plunk on some headgear every time you want to see what's on the channel.

      True 3D means holographic video, which is existing technology (albeit not in the "help me obiwan kenobi, you're my only hope" sense). What's annoying is that any standard based on stereoscopic vision will be incompatibl

    • slowly cross your eyes

      No matter how technologically advanced porn gets it's still bad for your eyesight.

    • by Nullav (1053766)

      Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures.

      Whenever I feel stupid, I'll make sure to picture myself staring at a monitor with my eyes crossed and my hand down my pants.

      What about stereoscopic games and movies? I mean, I don't have shutter glasses, but I have several widescreen LCDs that could easily fit two images.

    • Current trends... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DrYak (748999)

      several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:
      {...}
      The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes

      Colour blindness hasn't stopped the introduction of colour TV. (BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

      Astigmatism

      This is a problem of using correct prescription glasses/contact lenses. In short, nothing to do with a stereo screen.

      Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
      Looking like a nerd

      Well, if you have followed the trend on /. recently, it seems that most hardware maker are working toward cheap auto-stereo display (things that look 3D without glasses, just like the lenticular holograms on some DVD boxes). Which just look like plain s

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        (BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

        Yes. Are there places where it is impossible for someone lacking stereo vision to get a license?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JimboFBX (1097277)

        Astigmatism

        This is a problem of using correct prescription glasses/contact lenses. In short, nothing to do with a stereo screen.

        No no no, the glasses can GIVE you astigmatism. I've very much noticed this phenomena after using the shutter glasses for extended periods of time. Its temporary but noticeable. It makes me worry if there are any long term effects that may occur if I used this significantly more often than I did.

        • Word meaning (Score:3, Informative)

          by DrYak (748999)

          No no no, the glasses can GIVE you astigmatism.

          Ok, then I don't think you know what the word mean.

          The word "astigmatism" is used to represent a very specific type of vision problem, where the eyes doesn't need the same correction between two axis. In other words, you aren't exactly the same short sighted between the vertical and horizontal axis of the eye (or any other 2 perpendicular axis : could also be two diagonals 90Â appart). If one looks a cross-section of you eye from the bottom, one observes one degree of short-sightedness requiring one ty

          • by JimboFBX (1097277)
            Well, its whatever the problem is where one eye can focus on an object and you see it fine, and then you close it and look through the other eye, and things are blurry without refocusing.
      • Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA

        Yes. Further, people with stereo vision don't have much of an advantage when driving, anyway. You actually get most of your depth information from other visual cues at the distances of highway travel, and those cues are still present at closer distances.

        Stereo vision doesn't help you drive. It *might* help you park, but only if you know where your bumper is in relation to the bits you can actually see.

    • by dkf (304284)

      I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures of a static object side by side with the camera pointing towards a certain object (make sure its the same object in each one!). Put them next to each other, then slowly cross your eyes until they merge.

      That never ever worked for me. Different coloured glasses are what it takes for me to see reliable 3D from 2D printed material. (3D cinemas can use polarization, or could except I tend to watch films with my head at a slant...)

      However, I have seen a 3D display which worked by projecting different images at different angles, so that you could see things without any glasses or other special stuff. It worked really well. This was with display technology that was hot stuff back in 1993 or '94, so I'm sure we ca

    • Looking like a nerd

      Thankfully none of us have to worry about THAT!

    • by MrSteveSD (801820)

      I have a pair of e-dimensional 3d glasses (yes, they DO work if you have the right set-up and some patience*), and can say after showing them to a few people, several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:

      I've tried shutter glasses for games in the past and it wasn't a great experience. I think you really need to use a proper HMD with built-in screens. Although the field of view of HMDs is still far too pathetic to convince you that you are in a 3D game world, the FOV of some of them is perfect for watching movies. The Indicube [indicube.com] portable movie player is coming out soon and it has glasses that are equivalent to a 17 inch desk monitor. It's not geared up for 3D but once that sort of thing becomes widespread, 3

    • by IronChef (164482)

      In addition to all of those problems, there is this issue which is commonly heard when discussing HDTV:

      "I can see the difference but I don't care. Standard def is good enough for me."

      While I do not understand this viewpoint, it seems reasonably common and I can imagine that it will be at least as common in the 2d/3d discussion. Hell, I might be right there with them, I don't know yet.

  • I will finally be able to watch the Simpsons in all its HD 3D glory.
  • The big news in the movie theater business is that Regal, AMC and Cinemark are closing a deal with Hollywood to pay for digital 3D projectors going into many of their theaters so the big summer movies of 2009 can look better than anything an HDTV can do. But if HDTVs will do stereoscopic 3D in a few years, then Hollywood and the theater chains have just blown a huge amount of money on tech that'll only get customers out of their homes for a few years.

    This is why theaters need to stop pushing performance and start pushing features. With digital projection, movie theaters can theoretically show everything that's popular on TV: live sports, live news, talk shows, religious shows, long running scripted dramas and comedies. It's even technically possible for theaters to connect video game hardware to the projector and run controllers down to the audience so people can play a video game on the big screen. Of course, it'll be hairy for theaters to get the rights to show any of these things, but the relentless progression of home market tech, especially when it comes to screen size and picture quality, means it's just too expensive for theaters to stay ahead. Theater digital projectors are big and not mass produced, so even if they only perform a little better than home market projectors, they're vastly more expensive and won't come down in price. The last thing theaters need is to blow a huge wad of cash on a new projector, then have to buy another one in a few years.

    What's much smarter for theaters to do is buy the least expensive Hollywood-approved projector they can (Christie's CP2000-M is 2.2 megapixels and is bright enough for screens up to 35 feet wide), then feed it with every conceivable kind of content. News reels died in the 1960s not because people don't want to drive to theaters to watch the news (the communal setting actually improves news just as much as it improves movies), but because only TV could show news live. Now theaters have most of the tech they need to show live news, but it hasn't occurred to them to ask the TV networks for content. Theaters still think Hollywood is the only sugar daddy they have.

    It's great news that HDTVs will soon get stereoscopic 3D. I just hope Hollywood and movie theaters don't use it as an excuse to replace their projectors yet again. They need to compete against the home market creatively, not by throwing more dollars at the projection booth.

    • Have you been to a gas station recently?
    • by muzip (1220080)
      I will never ever go to a movie theater to watch news or a talk show... I can watch them at home freely, and the joy of watching them (if there is any!) would never increase on the big screen, putting aside all the effort to go to a theater.

      However, if they can invent a game which would let 100 people play simultaneously on a single screen and can keep everybody playing for about 90 minutes, I might consider that.

      If the technology goes to 3-D, and it looks it does, I believe they are on the right trac
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      I think theaters will just die.

      They will work for a while until prices of large screens go down. It's not a big deal, the money will go to a different business model, the space will be used for live performances of whatever else. And the world will go on.

      It has a long tradition and has had a great impact but, let's face it, putting hundreds of people in a single room just to see recorded media only makes sense until people can see that same media in a quality similar enough, at home.

      The key is in the "simil

      • by Apotsy (84148) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:57AM (#24285799)
        People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

        Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Thanshin (1188877)

          People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

          I think it's a matter of amount of difference. People said that before because the ability to actually see the movie seemed to be the main function. Then we discovered that quality was important enough to grant going to the theater for the best products (movies) and leaving the rest for the home systems.

          To dodge the new menace of equal quality we would have to discover the other thing about theaters that make it worth to keep going. And here we reach your other point:

          Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

          Let's see if theaters could reach the ti

        • I watch over 100 movies a year -- less than 1% at a theatre, if that. It's just not worth paying 10X what it costs to get it on netflix to NOT be able to piss, pause, smoke, drink, adjust the lighting, sound, or viewing time. My 52-inch HDTV (which is my only computer monitor as well) which I sit about 5 feet away from is quite sufficient. I've seen about 6 theatre movies in 3 years, and mostly regretted them. Many feel the same. It's been covered here before. Movie theatres are struggling. That's why the m
        • People were also saying that in the 1950s, when TV started to make headway into the home.

          And, surprisingly enough, theaters did nearly die. Despite massive technical improvements, from the introduction of widescreen to experiments with 3D, cinema audiences started to trail off, until George Lucas and Steven Spielberg turned the tide in the 1970s with Star Wars and Jaws. Until High Concept came on the scene, theaters started to find the only way to survive was to cater to niches, showing cheap imported mo

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by strelitsa (724743) *

        I think theaters will just die.

        What, you don't like sticky floors, being locked in with hypercaffeinated brats who yap on their cell phones all the way through the picture, and the chance of acquiring whatever airborne maladies the sickest of your fellow theatergoers might be suffering from? Man up - what kind of consumer are you? (j/k)

        The idea of using a central location to display entertainment content won't die out entirely until one or more of the following happens:

        1. The viewing experience can

        • 1. The viewing experience can be convincingly replicated at home (minus the negatives I outlined above of course). As home monitors get larger and more technologically advanced, this day is coming.

          Done. A number of years ago actually, though not for me personally until recently. And it's the theaters' own fault for not upgrading to the latest digital projection systems on more screens, and focusing on watts in their sound systems over fidelity (and still screwing it up.)

          It's possible for theaters to excee

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Of course, it'll be hairy for theaters to get the rights to show any of these things,

      Honestly, if there's money to be made, I expect this problem will solve itself.
    • Have you ever been to a theater with a digital projector? I'm not sure about all theaters, but the Famous Players Theater near me has them and the ghosting is atrocious! My laptop has a better refresh rate than those pieces of crap.
    • This is why theaters need to stop pushing performance and start pushing features.

      No, they need to start pushing sanitation.

      Ok, my geek jones told me I had to go see Batman opening weekend. Well, the theater was jam-packed. The idiots beside me decided to bring their entire extended clan of rugrats who proceeded to talk through the entire movie. The bathroom floors were running with urine, the toilets brimming with feces. (I guess props should be made that number two's made it in, even if number one's did not.) And this is in a nice theater in a nice part of town. The general public cons

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        Maybe it's just the people you live around.

        I just went to see Hancock, and the theater was at full capacity, and it was also the opening night for batman... and I had none of those issues you are talking about. Clean restrooms with no smell. Courteous people. No talking kids.

      • by dwye (1127395)

        > Ok, my geek jones told me I had to go see Batman opening weekend.

        Idiot. Did you think that it wouldn't stay around if you waited a weekend or two? Instead, you got the worst possible experience because of the slavering hordes who only attend the first weekend (are they a variant of gnurr, I wonder, coming from the release out?). Wait a weekend, and you should still be able to see it three times (or how ever many times that you normally see the ones that you really enjoy rewatching), and without the

        • Wow. Someone piss in your cheerios much today, guy?

          • by dwye (1127395)

            > Wow. Someone piss in your cheerios much today, guy?

            I thought that they had in yours, actually. I probably should have put a smiley after "Idiot" to lower the Perceived Invective Rating, as I look at it, again.

  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:11AM (#24285573) Homepage

    After decades of annoying flicker, strobing, and bad pans at 24FPS, we finally got LCD panels that don't flicker at all. Some monitors even time-interpolate to get the frame rate up, and framefree compression [framefree.com] is just starting to work. Now people want to crud it up with alternating-frame stereo. Bleah.

    Stereo vision doesn't really do much beyond about 4m or so, and it scales badly for anything that isn't its real size.

    There are some very cute 3D systems that are sensitive to head position, so you can move your head and have the scene adjust accordingly. But that doesn't work in theaters.

  • why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by speedtux (1307149) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:23AM (#24285641)

    I don't get why people want this. Most real-world 3D perception (the kind of scenes you see in movies) derives from motion parallax, not binocular stereo. Trying to use stereo for those scenes is completely unrealistic and visually disturbing.

    Also, flat images are kind of scale free, but 3D scenes are not. If you watch Jurassic Park in 3D on your television, you really do see a bunch of 8 inch toy dinosaurs fighting in a little box. Ooh, scary.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Prune (557140)
      That's why you need retinal projection, since with a fast response focusing control you can invoke the additional 3D perception sense the eye generates through accommodation.
    • A science-fiction author pointed that out in the late 'Sixties, I can't remember the author (the story involved aliens who eat "animals" that look exactly like us, but which/whom they claim aren't sentient).

      "Realistic" is largely a function of your brain, and often having _less_ information gets you more involved. [INSERT CANONICAL COMMENT ABOUT RADIO EMPLOYING THE WORDS 'THEATRE OF THE MIND' _HERE_]

      The original run of "Star Trek" looked _much_ more realistic to me in black-and-white and with bad sound, be

  • Never thought HD was a big step. Just a concession to the cable companies.

    Need to perfect TV before you move onto 3d. Need 'photographic tv with higher resolutions and better colors'. Needs to be magazine quality.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by makapuf (412290)

      nope, features (portability, simplicity, stereo, 3D, ...) always (often) beat Quality.

      Think Tapes vs cassette, Cinemascope vs VHS, DVD Audio (and HiFi even) vs MP3, LCDs vs. CRT (much better image vs flat screens )...

      Maybe SHD is better for you : there will be Audiophiles for 2D (maybe they will be called Pictophiles), but if (and there are many good reasons it might not) 3D catches on, Super ultra 2D high def will be a niche.

  • by krkhan (1071096) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:28AM (#24285661) Homepage
    ... they'd start supporting AIGLX/Xgl, we may have real-time Compiz-Fusion effects! I mean, consider this: Me: *Checking my email* Brother: *Walks into the room* Me: *Shouts* GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!! You have stepped in my message box! NO, NOT THERE YOU DUMBASS, that's my 2nd workspace, here *rotates cube* OH DAMN, now you're in the goddamned file manager *Ctrl+Alt+Backspace* Phew, that's better.
  • Is holographic TV. Time and time again we have seen them try to sell 3D that needs some stupid glasses,and time and time again it has failed. there are simply too many problems inherent with the glasses,especially with battery operated ones like this. And can you imagine trying to keep your kids from messing these stupid glasses up? Not going to happen. With a holographic TV I don't have to worry about glasses,my family trying to get these things on around their eyeglasses, worrying about someone losing or

    • by oodaloop (1229816) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @03:53AM (#24285779)
      Holographic TV, that's just what we need. So millions of geeks can watch Star Wars - and chuckle amusingly to themselves when they see a holograph of a holograph. Someone just shoot me now.
      • They'll be too busy trying to grope the female characters for that.

      • Aaarrgh... you just made me remember the episode with Barkley and the Holo-Troy... :-)
      • Holographic TV, that's just what we need. So millions of geeks can watch Star Wars - and chuckle amusingly to themselves when they see a holograph of a holograph. Someone just shoot me now.

        No, what I like is when they have commercials for TV's on your TV and say "Look at how much superior the picture on this new unit is compared to your old one." It's like "Hey, wait a second..."

  • Ok, maybe it's just me but i've seen 3D technology on TV screens and in film and the effect of the whole stereostopic way they do it comes off just too damn crude and is somewhat annoying. For that simple reason alone, it's just a little "oh that's interesting" ... and people just move back to regular TV over and over again.

    Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we will eventually come to a TRUE 3D design for image rendering, something that doesn't require silly glasses and that you can walk around and
  • by viking80 (697716) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @04:27AM (#24285925) Journal

    You need:
    1. A PC with support for two monitors (most)
    2. Two projectors
    3. Polarizing filters for the projectors (standard from photography store)
    4. Polaroid sunglasses (lightweight and cheap)

    I suggest circular right and left polarizes. Now set the two projectors next to each other, and superimpose the two images, put on glasses, and voila, you have a great 3D movie theater.

    It it great that video standards are emerging, but it you can also DIY.

    Still:You could use two cameras, but one camera in "rapid shoot" from a moving vehicle works beautifully; just take two sequential pictures on the two monitors.
    Video: More of a hassle, but basically shoot the scenes with two cameras separated like your eyes, and play them. You will have to use special effect to merge the two videos together to get one that spans both monitors, or use video editing tools to synchronize two separate video signals.

    Have fun

    The new video 3D video standards will help making this easier.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Now all I have to do is glue two video cameras together and sell it as a "budget 3-D video camera"...

      • by TheSync (5291) *

        Now all I have to do is glue two video cameras together and sell it as a "budget 3-D video camera"...

        You mean like this [flickr.com]?

        You can synchronize the cameras using over LANC using this device [dsc.ijs.si].

    • You'd also need to rotate one of the lenses in the glasses by 90 degrees, which could be tricky if they're not completely round.

      I've wanted a gaming set-up like this for years. Maybe one day someone will start to produce projectors with two polarised DLP chips built in.

      • by Aladrin (926209)

        If there were video drivers that supported it (nVidia's could, if they did a little work on them) then I'd be very, very tempted to do this for gaming.

        In fact, I'm not 100% sure nVidia's don't already support it... After a little research, I'm left confused about it. It would be really awesome.

      • You should use circular polarizes. One with left and one with right polarization. This way they will work independently of angle. If you use linear polarizes you will also get a funny effect when you twist your head while you watch.

      • by zmollusc (763634)

        The GP is talking about circularly polarised lenses. In which axis do you propose rotating the circularly polarised lenses 90 degrees?

    • by TheSync (5291) *

      You need:
      1. A PC with support for two monitors (most)
      2. Two projectors
      3. Polarizing filters for the projectors (standard from photography store)
      4. Polaroid sunglasses (lightweight and cheap)

      Like this [flickr.com]?

  • by LM741N (258038) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @06:00AM (#24286455)

    great strides are being made in the use of 3-D DRM. Says Chester Smith of the MPAA, we are now faced with 2 more dimensions to the problem, but I am certain we will prevail.

    • by LM741N (258038)

      I think I meant one more dimension. x, y, and t are already covered. Now we need z.

      Of course if you make a cylindrical or spherical LCD TV, you may have a different set of dimensions. Just don't start talking about String Theory TV. There has been a constant "string" of lousy TV shows going on for years and we don't need physicists to make it even worse.

  • Wow! All that we need is another fistfull of Ds, and then we will be able to visualize String Theory!

  • 3D ads!

    Can you just imagine this [youtube.com] in 3D? *cringe*

    Seriously there are so many ads on TV these days[0] that by and large I just don't bother[1]. A gimmick like 3D TV is highly unlikely to change that. Television just isn't a viable use of my time anymore (if it ever was).

    Using 3D for movies would work, but I don't buy any these days and these special discs would probably be priced up as double the regular discs or something anyway.

    That's a shame because I could see the potential otherwise.

    [0] Just yesterday we

  • by sapphire wyvern (1153271) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @08:00AM (#24287393)

    Of course consumer 3D television is moving forward. Up/down and left/right are already well taken care of by existing 2D television.

  • by elrous0 (869638) *
    I just bought a HDTV a year and a half ago, and already it's been made obsolete by 1080p. And now a fucking 3D set is on the horizon?!?! It's hard to be cutting edge these days.
  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Tuesday July 22, 2008 @09:37AM (#24288377)

    How's this for an idea?

    How about all you entertainment and media companies just assume that after a hard day's work, all I really want to do is just sit there and BE ENTERTAINED. Yes, you can have a wedge of my cash for the privelige of doing so and if you make it appealing enough to me then I might just drag my fat lazy ass into the car so I can drive to the local cinema to go see what you have on offer.

    But please stop with all this "interactive" and gimmicky shit, okay? I can quite happily sit here in front of my computer for the occasionally half-hour and be thoroughly entertained by a 20-year-old 48kb game called "Jet Set Willy" and then be equally entertained by pounding alien heads in Half-Life 2. I don't ALWAYS need whizzy graphics & 8GB of installed game to be immersed, sometimes simple shit does fine.

    Likewise, I don't need to "Pick N Mix" my own songs for my own CD compilation because I'm more than happy to accept that an army of musicians, producers & media types are a whole heap better at that shit than I am - most of the time, I just want to give you some money, take a shiny disk in exchange, throw it into my hifi and let it play, okay?

    So please don't think I am sat here waiting for 3D TV because somehow I need to be "more immersed" in your shit, okay? Believe it or not, most of the time a 2D TV, a pizza and a few beers is enough to keep me happy.

    How about we make it simple? You keep offering good quality shit at a reasonable price and I will just BUY it so I can watch/read/listen to it.

    Just DANCE FOR ME MONKEY BOY! Okay?

  • For reasons others and I have stated above, I don't think this will actually fly that well for home-use, not even for porn---"3D" != "More realistic"

    I think a standard would be a great, though, because it would lower the price of 3-D displays used in research and development.

    Also, with rising energy prices, I can see this feeding into the video conferencing industry---"Fahrenheit 451"*-style rooms for feeling like you're facing your associates far away as they whine and pointlessly argue just like they were

  • No special glasses necessary. Their resolution isnt too great. See SIGGRAPH in L.A. next month.
  • When the pixel is off, the primary & secondary mirrors are parallel & reflect all of the incoming light back into the light source.

    Just remember to make sure your optics are clean.

  • LCD is already polarized. Hold a linear polarizing filter in front of an LCD screen and turn it and you can see. So it's just a matter of subdividing each pixel (that is already divided into 3 color subpixels) yet again, and designing the polarizing filter so half of each pixel has one polarization angle, and half at 90 degrees to that. I recommend 2 diagonal polarizations at 90 degrees. The new difficulty is that you can't just use a single flat polarization filter like you can with a plain LCD. But o

  • If SMPTE develops the 3D standard, won't it end up being 2.997-drop-frame-D instead?

    • by TheSync (5291) *

      Oh no man, 59.94 was the NTSC [wikipedia.org]'s fault! (back in 1953 to avoid chroma/audio interference in color television)

      If you don't like SMPTE 12M drop frame timecode [wikipedia.org] would you prefer seeing timecode like this: 11:22:33:12.987013 ?

  • Sharp 3D LCD monitor, no glasses [slashdot.org] (Sharp pioneered the no-glasses, viewable from all angles, 3D display), see slashdot story, October 2002

    Phillips 3D LCD monitor, no glasses [philips.com], viewable from all angles.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...