Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint 143

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the do-it-without-the-glasses dept.
Engadget recently had a chance to try out Panasonic's 3D demo rig, and, aside from the goofy glasses, report some impressive results. "Active shutter 3D technology once again did not fail to impress, though large format action content like the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony and action sports footage was far more impressive than the movie trailer. The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it and nothing makes that more apparent than video from a large stadium. Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout, the framerate was smooth and the picture sharp, a marked difference from the jittery motion we witnessed during JVC's 3D demo earlier in the day."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panasonic 3D TV Does Not Disappoint

Comments Filter:
  • 3D (Score:5, Informative)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:28PM (#29393331) Journal

    This all 3D-to-the-eyes is an old trick, but over the past year I've started to think that now theres actually good technology available for it.

    I purchased myself the NVIDIA 3D Vision [nvidia.com] and played with it on various games. My favourite game for the past year has been left4dead and the 3D effect on it is really outstanding - everything looks so much scarier and you actually feel like being there.

    The old cheap tricks are quite obsolote now as tech has improvent. But the future of gaming and movies surely is in this 3D and "be there" experience. Even MS and Sony have admitted that just pushing megapixels and polygony amount isn't the best thing, as they're at their maximum already anyway. We always see these things in movies, but the technology isn't really far from there now.

    Now the only thing is about making it convenient for end users.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      You wouldn't happen to have a Final Fantasy XI account by any chance?

      If you do, have you tried nVidia 3D Vision with it?

    • by WarlockD (623872)
      Whats been holding me back is the 120hz monitor. Do you need one for it?
    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      Whey does everyone call that 3D? It is just stereo scopic images, not real 3D.

      Whenever we get 'real' 3D, how will we call it?

      • by Frnknstn (663642)

        I had to check your account history to see if you are a troll, but strangely, it seems you aren't.

        So, the explanation for the slow: You have = 2 eyes. In order to see 3D, each eye needs to see a different angle of the same object. The brain reassembles these two images in your mind to give you the perception of depth.

        The term for this is indeed 'steroscopic vision', so your assertion that this is somehow not 3D is pretty stupid.

        If you were to complain about anything, complain that this isn't a 3D *TV*. Yes,

      • by Fumus (1258966)

        Whenever we get 'real' 3D, how will we call it?

        Full3D, duh. ~

      • Stereoscopic images accurately depict the complete visual sensation from a fixed view.
        Our eyes are 2D sensors, and stereoscopic vision allows for interpretation of depth, but they are not true 3D sensors.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:30PM (#29393361) Homepage Journal

    Aside from a few glitches from a pair of the glasses being low on battery and flickering annoyingly throughout

    Personally, I don't think the "shuttered glasses" tech will last long. I've seen 3D movies with the polarized glasses tech, and it's amazing. It might be hard to pull off with a TV, but I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

    The benefit of a picture where everything, regardless of distance from the camera, is in focus is one of the biggest benefits 3D has going for it

    Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.

    BTW, I RTFA and there's not really any more than in the summary.

    • by earlymon (1116185) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:35PM (#29393401) Homepage Journal

      I don't see why you couldn't have an LCD screen with every other pixel polarized in the opposite direction.

      Odd idea. An LCD element - subpixel - is light-permissive, meaning a polarizing action takes place to lower the (normally) constant backlight through the aperature.

      How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast?

        I'm not really sure, to be honest. But it seems not to be impossible. Actually what I'd really like is a holographic TV. We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

        • by earlymon (1116185)

          But it seems not to be impossible.

          Expensive though. I think LCD would be the wrong approach. I'm guessing a mask of the alternating polarization pattern laid *precisely* over the pixels of a light-emissive tech (plasma, SED) might work. (Before anyone asks - bad idea to polarize a polarizer.)

          Samsung was advertising some 3D-ready tech for their DLP line on their web - for the few days before they discontinued the line and that part of their website.

          We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

          The holograms or the late '70s physics course? /ducks

          • I have one of the Samsung 3d ready DLPs but didn't buy the hardware necessary to use the 3d tech. With all the 3d stories lately I've been wondering if my set will work with this new stuff or not.
          • by jimshatt (1002452)

            Samsung was advertising some 3D-ready tech for their DLP line on their web - for the few days before they discontinued the line and that part of their website.

            If money is not an issue, you could try building a 3D setup yourself with two projectors and appropriate polarization filters. And the glasses you sneaked back from that movie, of course.
            You'd still have to have some 3D content though, but it should work. You can always take 2 cameras on your holiday trip... :)

            • by Chyeld (713439)

              If you are lucky, you shouldn't need to sneak the glasses. Every 3D movie I've gone to in my area they hand out sturdy 'recyclable' glasses [wikipedia.org] that they never bother to collect back.

        • Why are we so hung up on making a 2D display look 3-dimensional? Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

          • Why are we so hung up on making a 2D display look 3-dimensional? Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

            I've seen it done and seen it in action. I was a bit disappointed when I read TFS and saw that this still relies on the user wearing special glasses.

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Consider 2D: you can get by with, let's say, 1000 pixels for 1m of screen, and a framerate of 60Hz. That gives rise to several density figures that must be met: 1 px/mm^2, 1 Mpx framebuffer, and, most crucially for current tech, 60Mpx/s total throughput.

              Now let's consider a stereoscopic version of that 2D display. The pixel density is the same, while the framerate is doubled (or vice versa, depending on which tech), the framebuffer is doubled, and the total throughput is doubled to 120 Mpx/s.

              So in exchange

          • by russotto (537200)

            Why not just create a 3D display? (I realize "just" was a bit disingenuous.)

            Well, there's the old rotating disc displays, with a disc which sweeps out a volume; the image is projected onto the disc. The disc is still 2D, but the light from the image to your eye is actually coming from a space, not a plane. Apparently similar things are actually used; the generic name is swept-volume volumetric display.

            One could imagine a similar thing with less moving parts; perhaps a transparent substance (solid or a flu

        • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:59PM (#29394161)

          We studied holograms in a general studies physics course I took back in the late '70s, and thats REAL 3D.

          I took that same course - it was in 1978 I think. The hologram said something like "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi - you're my only hope". What was the name of that course again...

      • How would you propose changing a chemical polarizer and what manufacturing process would you suggest to built such a beast? (No ad hominem intended or implied - just throwing a rock at the idea in case you know something I don't.)

        Double the resolution in the LCD and use fixed polarizing filters that alternate 90 degrees every other pixel (or in a pattern that minimizes jitter?) Apply a 50% duty cycle to the LCD?

        (Probably more expensive than DLP or simply moving the LCD shutter movement to the glasses, but

      • by annenk38 (163418)

        The technology already exists, and is already on the market. iZ3D 22" monitor retails on newegg for about $300. There are still a few problems (noticeable cross-talk) that still need to be ironed out, but given how this is the first monitor to actually hit the market I expect later editions to resolve this issue.

      • by chaboud (231590)

        I don't see what the big headache is here. If you orient the sub-pixels 90 degrees apart, you get very little cross-talk with most image patterns. You could use a wave-plate (or some other optical de-polarizer) to de-polarize and then re-polarize if you're looking to use commodity LCD panels.

        Not only does this seem pretty simple, but I think it already exists.

        Sadly, you'd still be wearing glasses.

      • by TexVex (669445)
        LCD panels are linearly polarized. There are already some polarization-based 3D LCD displays on the market. Some of them use one panel, alternating the polarization of each row of pixels. Some of them use semireflective glass to combine images from two separate displays, so the image resolution isn't effectively cut in half.

        The problem with linear polarization is you have to hold your head horizontal with the display. If you tilt your lenses so their polarization doesn't align with the display's, it does
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Red Flayer (890720)

      BTW, I RTFA

      Chump. You have a 5-digit UID, you're supposed to wait for a noob to read it and post a summary in the hope of garnering positive karma, which you could then mod down as you chortle diabolically about redundancy.

      Seriously, what is the world coming to? A 5-digit UID who actually RTFAs (heretic!) and then passes along some useful information to the rest of us?

      We have entered *the twilight zone*. (Do do do do, do do do do, etc)

      • by ArhcAngel (247594)

        actually I think it's (ne NE ne NE, ne NE ne NE, etc.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by spun (1352)

        Your argument is invalid because I lost my left eye in a game of lawn darts. QED. What the hell is this about, anyway? Could someone summarize it for me? You see, due to my injury, I can only read in 2D. I promise not to mod you down, or to chortle diabolically.

      • by Shark (78448)

        I *didn't* RTFA, twice. Some of us have to stay true to tradition and make up for such heretics as that blasphemous mcgrew.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Well, I read fast and somebody bought me a subscription, so when there are no more stories or comments left to read I RTFA for the next story, the one you can only get with a subscription.

        As to karma, mine's excellent anyway so I really don't need to worry about it.

    • by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:45PM (#29393509)
      I've seen both polarized films and shutter glasses, and they are not the same. You might as well be watching Creature from the Black Lagoon [wikipedia.org] even with modern films. Additionally, without expensive projection equipment, the polarized technique is virtually impossible. It is no where near home ready, whereas the shutter glasses most definitely are.
      • by rabtech (223758) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:53PM (#29394113) Homepage

        Actually with DLP it isn't that hard to do the wavelength filtering that some modern cinema 3D systems are using, where the RGB components are projected twice, each with a slightly different wavelength of red, green, and blue light. Filters on either side of the glasses only let the "correct" wavelengths through. Supposedly it is a very natural-looking process, since you don't get the flickering or odd polarization effects. Oddly enough this would be easier to do with a single-chip DLP system than a three-chip system because you can split the color wheel up using the correct filters.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          It sounds like you're talking about the old (almost ancient) tech where the glasses' lenses are each a different color. The way the polaroid tech works, one of the lenses is polarized horizontally and the other vertically. Two separate images are projected to the screen, also polarized with one vertical and one horizontal. There is no difference in color with the polaroid tech. It is incredibly natural looking.

          The color glasses will work on an old fashioned 525 scan line tube TV and VCR; I taped the Stones

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by chenjeru (916013)

        Not true. I've just been to the IBC in Amsterdam and the place is chock-full of 3D tech, including screens using autostereoscopic (no glasses needed), polarized and shutter glasses. They are all coming off some flavor of LCD/plasma. Many of the polarized screens were made by Hyundai.

        The main reason that we will see shutter glasses in the home (unfortunately, IMHO) is that you can easily use the same screen for both 3D and non-3D viewing - it's just alternating full-resolution frames. The polarized and autos

        • by takev (214836)

          I was on ibc yesterday too. I think you can use the polarized screens as normal screens as well, with full resolution. The polarized screen only halves in resolution when viewing stereoscopic images.

          In case anyone wonders the polarization changes with each line, combing the left and right images, which almost looks (if you view the stereo image without glasses) like a continues interlacing artifact. Both lines look the same brightness and color (and the display look just as bright and colorful as normal dis

    • I stand corrected - evidently, the display tech is not an issue:

      http://hdguru.com/ces-2009-3d-hdtv-flat-panels-are-coming/345/ [hdguru.com]

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      Incorrect; you can as easily have a 2D photo where the depth of field is infinite. Fiolm makers and photographers use use depth of field to their artistic advantage. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. The more light, the smaller an aperture you can use.
      Not only that, but I maintain that the focus being completely weird is exactly what's wrong with 3D. Your eyes try to focus on something hovering in front of the TV, and rapidly discover that that doesn't work. The result is a splitti

      • by takev (214836)

        headache is mostly caused by the quality of production. Check the U23D movie before passing judgement. Here the film makers have done their best to make sure your depth focus does not change rapidly during cuts and cross fades. Also shallow depth of field is no problem in 3D as long as the primary subject(s) are in focus.

        I've seen parts of U23D at the ibc theater a few years ago, it never strained my eyes or give me a headache. Even if Bono was uncomfortably close to me sometimes (you know what happens when

    • This exists and I saw it demoed about 5 years ago at SID in boston. It was amazing, aside from there being a few sweet spots and if you weren't there, then you loose the effect.
    • I agree that that 'the "shuttered glasses" tech' won't last - I'm old enough to remember the enchantment of getting the first issue of a 3D comic for free with Sugar Puffs back in the 70's (albeit you had to save up some tokens). You got the cardboard glasses with colored perspex and a magazine full of red and blue offset adventures of the Honey Monster - great stuff to experience and show your mates, but a one time experience then the novelty wore off very quickly. I lost the glasses under a pile of other
    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      3D will fail because:

      a) People don't want to wear special glasses just to watch TV, especially if they already have to ware prescription ones

      b) Even if you managed to get rid of the glasses, 3D only works if you are sat square on to the TV, not off to the side. I.e. only one or two people can watch at a time, and you can't just lie down on the sofa if you feel like it.

    • Polarized solutions are far more technically challenging. While it works well for theaters who have money for an expensive silver screen and projectors, there are no practical ways of reproducing the effect with typical bright-room TV sets.
      Also, polarization filters, even circular ones, always let some of the other light bleed through, which could impede contrast and sharpness.

  • by rotide (1015173) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:37PM (#29393429)
    Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

    It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

    I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

    • Yes, exactly, thats why these silly "console" gaming systems will never catch on. Charging those PS3 controllers is such a hassle.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      I do if the Movie makers are using 3d in a clever way.

      I mean, you would want a remote for your tv? do you really want to have to find your remote and batteries just to watch TV?

      • do you really want to have to find your remote and batteries just to watch TV?

        Apples and oranges. You're asking if I'll take a small hassle (remote and batteries) over a big hassle (getting off my ass and walking over to the TV to change channels), and you're comparing it to a question about whether I'll take a small hassle (glasses and batteries) over absolutely no hassle (just watching the damn thing).

    • Whatever became of those autostereoscopy displays? They eliminate glasses entirely - the struck me as being the future of 3D displays. It basically has the effect that an additional back-light modulating high-frequency LCD panel controls the incidence at which light is transmitted through subsequent colour pixel layers - thus giving you a an appropriate view of a 3D image, depending on the viewing angle.

      Where has this technology gone?

      • by TheSync (5291) on Friday September 11, 2009 @10:00PM (#29395289) Journal

        Whatever became of those autostereoscopy displays?

        The most mature non-glassed 3D technology is lenticular lenses (same as the post cards), but unfortunately you get a resolution reduction for every additional "view" you provide, and you need to provide about 45 views before it starts to look really good and not have very large "un-sweet spots" where you get an image with the wrong parallax in your eyes.

        I saw a nice autostereo display based on a Quad-HD 2D LCD screen with a lenticular lens array, but these are not really commercially viable yet.

        Acousto-optical wave computer-generated holography is advancing as well, but still needs a few years.

    • by Facegarden (967477) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:11PM (#29393771)

      Having to wear special glasses, especially ones that need batteries or cords is just a deal breaker for me.

      It's a novelty item and maybe an impressive one at that. But if you're going to sit down and watch a few tv shows or a movie or two, do you really want to have to find your 3D glasses and some batteries first?

      I'm thinking not having to deal with the hassle will trump the initial "fun" factor of having "3D" television.

      I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

      Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
      -Taylor

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Princeofcups (150855)

        Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room.
        -Taylor

        Girls in glasses are hot. I don't know where the idea that glasses make you ugly comes from. Maybe the contact lens manufacturers.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          I don't know where the idea that glasses make you ugly comes from. Maybe the contact lens manufacturers.

          If you're forced to wear glasses, you hate them. They fog up, scratch, fall off, cost real money to break and take up plenty real estate on your face that you never asked for. Not to mention that it's like walking around with a neon sign saying my eyes aren't that great, it's not like people want to show off their flaws. And many people never get comfortable with contacts, so they have to use glasses.

          Glasses for sight correction are usually not nearly as pretty as fun novelty/fashion/whatever glasses, becau

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jayme0227 (1558821)

        I'm just waiting for the 3d glasses that work well with my current glasses. That's what sucks about the current technology. If you have glasses, you're forced to awkwardly place a second pair of glasses in front of your current pair. So instead of *just* the typical headaches and other complaints, you also have to deal with a smaller field of vision to look through and constant rubbing on your lower nose. On top of that, the "coolness" of the 3d effect is lost after about 8 seconds into the movie or show, e

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tgzuke (737692)

        I dunno, I wear sunglasses when driving, safety glasses at work, goggles when swimming, and plenty of people wear glasses when reading, if not all the time. I don't see how wearing glasses when watching TV is really any less convenient than all the other things I wear them for, if it means I get a 3D TV sooner, rather than later.

        Plus, I already wear a silly headset when playing Xbox. You could pretty much put my head in a fishbowl if that made anything cooler, I'm not trying to impress anyone in my living room. -Taylor

        Yeah, but I'm not usually trying to multitask while wearing swimming goggles, and eyeglasses don't get in the way of doing other things. Like most people, if I'm watching TV, I'm also doing other activities: cooking, browsing the Internet on my laptop, etc. So long as these 3D glasses interfere with my normal vision, they won't be a part of my entertainment system.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          Yeah, but I'm not usually trying to multitask while wearing swimming goggles, and eyeglasses don't get in the way of doing other things. Like most people, if I'm watching TV, I'm also doing other activities: cooking, browsing the Internet on my laptop, etc. So long as these 3D glasses interfere with my normal vision, they won't be a part of my entertainment system.

          Here's a tip. It's possible to follow this incredibly complex procedure: Take glasses, put on forehead. To restore 3D vision, return glasses to cover your eyes. If you're doing this too often, you're not actually paying any attention to the TV anyway, so why bother with quality at all? Anyway we'll see but 3D has been rather underwhelming in my experience, yes it's been at park rides and whatever and it's a nice trick but not much mroe than that so far. It's pretty far from virtual reality...

    • by amiga500 (935789)
      The 'free' pair of red and blue lensed glasses made any 3D movie worth going to when I was a kid. I would continue to get enjoyment from the glasses long after the movie was over. Do these LCD glasses make you look cool and give you X-Ray vision as well?
    • by MrCrassic (994046)

      I think most people already get the idea that viewing things in 3D requires special glasse, so I hardly doubt that it would be a significant problem. Plus, people would probably use it to view only 3D-capable movies; I'm skeptical that this would be the enabler for popular sitcoms going 3D any time soon...

      Except porn, but only because porn knows no bounds.

    • If the 3D effect was good, it wouldn't bother me. I'm up at night quite a lot and I've grown used to putting on headphones to watch a movie or play a game.
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:38PM (#29393431) Homepage Journal

    A) I have no ears and can't use them! Sucks to be yyou, there not selling to your demographic

    B) I only have one Eye. Clearly they should stop developing product for people with two eyes.

    C) I have problem[X]. we don't care.

    D) It's not real 3d. STFU. It has Height, width and depth. 3.D. It is only 1 angle, but still 3d.

    E) I don't like it! So? why do you bother posting

    well, that should address 80+% of the incoming posts.

  • Couldn't they couple this with the up and coming "long(er) distance" wireless electric induction technology to set up some sort of power transmitter under your couch/bed/recliner/movie style seating so that you wouldn't ever have to keep it charged or worry about batteries?
  • Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by longfalcon (202977) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:47PM (#29393517) Homepage

    TV with added splitting headache!

  • During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

    30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

    • by Rockoon (1252108) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:57PM (#29393609)
      Microsoft audio and visual appliances and Microsoft cars.
    • I don't know, but you seem to be proposing that it will be Japanese...
    • by Facegarden (967477) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:13PM (#29393785)

      During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars.

      30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

      Maybe Daewoo? They make cars and microwaves and forklifts and assault rifles, that's all you could ever want!
      -Taylor

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If I could get a forklift with a microwave and an assault rifle mounted on it, I wouldn't need the car.

      • by Gilmoure (18428)

        I have a nice Daewoo .380. Is Walther PP copy. Very nicely made.

    • During the last 30 years, the brands possessing the most value (for the money) for the typical customer has changed dramatically. In 1979, heaven for the consumer was Sony audio and visual appliances and Honda cars. Now, heaven for the consumer is Panasonic audio and visual appliances and Toyota cars. 30 years from now, what will be heaven for the consumer?

      Thomas L. Friedman, is that you?

  • by PingXao (153057) on Friday September 11, 2009 @04:48PM (#29393535)

    Depth of field is important to film makers. They don't want everything to be in focus. It looks too much like video instead of film. For live sporting events, that may be fine, but the fact that the movie trailer looked like shit is no surprise at all.

  • by parlancex (1322105)

    I actually laughed out loud when I scrolled down the article and saw the picture of the man wearing the glasses. While I'm sure it looks lovely when you're wearing them, as long as your 3D display technology requires headgear it will never replace or even slightly displace mainstream conventional displays. Period.

    Instead of wasting their time developing this kind of technology they should be working on developing alternatives.

    • I actually laughed out loud when I scrolled down the article and saw the picture of the man wearing the glasses. While I'm sure it looks lovely when you're wearing them, as long as your 3D display technology requires headgear it will never replace or even slightly displace mainstream conventional displays. Period.

      Instead of wasting their time developing this kind of technology they should be working on developing alternatives.

      This technology is pretty much ready for primetime, so they wanna see how people like it. The future will be glasses-free 3D and they are working on it but plenty of people don't mind the glasses, so it's worth a shot for them to produce these things. For people like you, well, wait. At least when it's all ready, these TV's will have driven the content production.

      -Taylor

    • by iceOlate (1094287) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:30PM (#29393937)
      The alternative was already invented some time ago... Its called LSD. No glasses, batteries or any of that junk required; and everything looks 3D, even things that other people can't see!
      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        The way the moderation happened your commend appeared directly below the "oh my god, 3D porn" comment and looked like a reply to it.

        When you said "the alternative was already invented some time ago" I figured you meant "reality." Then you said LSD.

  • Yeah, yeah, yeah...

    Pics or it didn't happen!

  • Face tracking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Idiomatick (976696) on Friday September 11, 2009 @05:35PM (#29393981)
    Face tracking is the future of 3d tvs not funny glasses. People are vain it will never become mainstream. I am aware they are different things... to a degree.

    Comparatively face tracking has many advantages.

    1. The tech can be used and worked on RIGHT NOW. Most laptops sold these days come with a webcam. Using this you can have full 3d applications right now. Having a preinstalled base of millions clearly helps.

    2. Headtracking can be used in games and applications to allow you to interact with the environment. And to have 3d as good as an object in front of you. You can use it to work like a window rather than a pane, moving forwards gives you a wider field of vision, moving to the left allows you to see more to the right and so on. Recorded 3d clearly won't allow you to change where you are viewing.

    3. Most importantly it makes it so you don't have to wear stupid looking glasses. This is the main problem and it will kill panasonic's 3d tv.

    4. Utility, Having a camera on your tv is way more useful and flexible than silly glasses.

    The downside of course is that this doesn't provide 3d as in depth it provides 3d as in view. This can be fixed by having a mechanism for the tv that allows it to have auto-stereoscopy (This tech exists of course). This will be limited likely to a few viewers at first and improve.
    • Also I'd like to point out another big problem. The main audience for this cutting edge tech is nerds. They are also the group that is least likely to give a rats ass about looking stupid. Awesome right?
      Sorry, one big flaw with that. A lot of nerds already wear glasses. Stacking glasses really doesn't work well so i'd say 60% of the cutting edge people will find the product hardly useable at best.
    • by Saysys (976276)
      your system only works one person at a time, any number of people can ware glasses and see the 3d tv;

      eye tracking would fix the depth problem.
  • by istartedi (132515) on Friday September 11, 2009 @06:27PM (#29394359) Journal

    Wait for a holographic display. Yeah, we're nowhere near being able to achieve it now. You'd need (horiz)(height) the bandwidth although compression should help a lot. You'd need a way to have a microscopic projector in each pixel, projecting a complete image.

    Upside: No glasses. Your TV would literally look like a window into another world.

    Downside: Scads of energy to throw enough light from each microprojector, horrendous bandwidth requirement.

    Maybe the horrendous bandwidth requirement isn't a downside--it's the problem looking for the solutions that involve shoving 20 Libraries of Congress through a fiber every second.

    Anyway, give me a call when these holographic window displays are available.

  • by DanielRavenNest (107550) on Friday September 11, 2009 @07:28PM (#29394737)

    Anyone here think that will not be a major selling point?

    (and dont forget the wireless sex toys)

  • (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

  • As someone that is extremely left-eye dominant, 3d does not work for me. Period. I always wondered what the big deal about ViewMasters were when I was a kid, not realizing the things should be 3d (I saw them as two images of the same thing, well, one adjusted for the 3d effect everyone else was getting). If TV, movies and everything else starts following this the way everyone followed HD to screens that weren't compatible with my eyes either (any motion makes me sick, as I see horrible tearing and delays

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.

Working...