Give Me 3D TV, Without The Glasses
2. Live Action 3D Without Glasses
We'd dig 3DTV if it weren't for those annoying glasses. But there's hope: we found several companies at CES who are trying to get rid of them.
The last 3D television set we saw was in a private demonstration off the show floor. 3D Eye Solutions’ CEO Mike Gibilisco walked me through his company’s take on glasses-less 3DTV. The display he used is not his company’s—it is a 3D set made by Philips with a similar lenticular lens coating as the Samsung and TCL screens we saw (Gibilisco said this screen had 9 viewpoints instead of 8). In fact, according to him, Samsung’s screen was actually manufactured by Philips as well, and rebranded for the show floor. I’ll check with Samsung for confirmation.
3D Eye Solutions doesn’t make the display, but it does make the system that puts the content on the TV, as well as turns 2D content into 3D. He played bits from various live action movies, including Iron Man and Wanted. He also played animation in the form of video games: a flight simulator and a Katamari-style game. The live action footage had been converted to 3D before hand. The games were converted to 3D on the fly by a processor/set-top box the company uses to display its footage. While the games looked slightly blurry to my eye, the live action clips looked stunning. I took pictures, but, naturally, they don’t do the effect justice. 3D Eye solutions works with movie studios to convert their existing catalog of films into 3D. Eventually, the 3D Eye Solutions system could convert live TV broadcasts into 3D on the fly.
The company is first targeting the commercial market as well—monitors in the Las Vegas Hilton Resort featured 3D Eye Solutions’ 3D clips this week. The company hopes to get movie trailers for 3D movies as advertising inventory—perhaps, then, consumers will ask why it is they can see a trailer without glasses, but not the entire movie. If all goes well, this consumer demand will drive movie makers and distributors to ditch glasses in favor of auto-stereoscopic “upconverted-to-3D” films post-produced by 3D Eye Solutions. Then, those movies will show up on media players in living rooms, with tech built into the set-top box (and lenticular lenses built into the TV screen). Nobody would buy cheap, uncomfortable 3D glasses again. I’d sure like to see this happen, thought is still a long way off.
- Previous 3D Monitors, No Glasses Required
- Next Make Your Own 3D
-
Latest Fujifilm News
- FujiFilm Camera Knows if Your Cat, Dog is Looking
Don't forget true 3D from:
http://www.holografika.com/
Great article sans "...where bullets don’t look like THEIR two inches from your nose..." Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but "their" is a possessive pronoun and should not be used as a they are contraction.
Great article sans "...where bullets don’t look like THEIR two inches from your nose..." Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but "their" is a possessive pronoun and should not be used as a they are contraction.
You are so right, and I'm so ashamed! Corrected.
I'm not surprised you didn't see magnetic... they are excellent in PR but deliver little. Plus their AS-3D technology is overpriced and extremely painful to watch; you need to be at an exact point to see the effect, and everything that pops out is fuzzy. I'll take glasses over that thank you.
glasses don't bother me a bit, if your getting dizzy and getting eyestrain from a 3d movie, you're trying to hard, you have to let your eyes relax and just watch it like a normal movie. I don't see the inconvenience of glasses either, millions of people wear glasses already just so they can see.
many people wear contacts to
i wonder if you can make 3d contacts... no fuss of glasses on your face 
id try them
glasses don't bother me a bit, if your getting dizzy and getting eyestrain from a 3d movie, you're trying to hard, you have to let your eyes relax and just watch it like a normal movie. I don't see the inconvenience of glasses either, millions of people wear glasses already just so they can see.
Well, then thousands of people are "trying too hard." Shouldn't it just work for everybody? You shouldn't have to learn how to watch a movie. I wear glasses just so I can see, and they don't bother me a bit. I'm glad the glasses don't bother you--but wouldn't it be better without them? Nobody wants to keep track of yet another accessory within the home.
All I got to see at my local Fry's was a 3D monitor that required wearing special eyeglasses. I didn't like it. It didn't look very good and it hurt my eyes.
I suspect that much of the eye-strain and related migraines are caused by flaws in the movie recording itself and not the eye wear. The last few IMAX 3D movies I saw seem to have the problem licked. I myself have very sensitive eyes, wear prescription glasses, and suffer migraines yet I had no headaches or eyestrain during my last few viewings.
Yes, stop bitching and put the glasses on and enjoy an amazing experience!
I really hope to see them introduce 3D sound soon as well. This technology has existed for a long time and the combination of both would be an amazing experience!.
Yes, stop bitching and put the glasses on and enjoy an amazing experience! I really hope to see them introduce 3D sound soon as well. This technology has existed for a long time and the combination of both would be an amazing experience!.
I'm making a long-term bet that glasses will NOT be the technology that eventually makes its way into living rooms. I've got a pretty good track record for consumer electronics industry insights, and I just want to encourage everyone that just because the vendors/manufacturers are saying it has to be one way, consumers have a voice and if they don't like it that way, they can stop it. The companies will think of another way to sell 3DTV to us--a better way.
I suspect that much of the eye-strain and related migraines are caused by flaws in the movie recording itself and not the eye wear. The last few IMAX 3D movies I saw seem to have the problem licked. I myself have very sensitive eyes, wear prescription glasses, and suffer migraines yet I had no headaches or eyestrain during my last few viewings.
I want to make clear that my opposition to glasses is not just about physical discomfort--I really do think it is not an efficient solution for the home. Only time will tell...
This was a good article, Rachel, thanks. It's interesting that Philips seem to be missing out the "requires glasses" wave of 3D TV's and are going straight for "no glasses required" 3D TV. They seem to be in the minority, but it could pay off as they'll refine the technology while the other manufacturer's are busy with the current wave.
Guy
I want to make clear that my opposition to glasses is not just about physical discomfort--I really do think it is not an efficient solution for the home. Only time will tell...
Yes, I realised that the discomfort you described was of a neurological/optical nature and not from wearing the glasses themselves. However, are you certain that it is being caused by the technology itself and not the movie recording? I also hated the headaches I would get viewing 3D IMAX (and the various amusement park equivalents). When a movie is produced all the geometry has to be incredibly precise between the two channels. Even subtle things such as reflections and surface lighting has to be carefully calculated for a natural viewing experience. It was when I saw "Monsters vs. Aliens" that it finally seemed that the effects departments have finally learned how to get it right.
I really don't think polarised glasses are such as nuisance as you suspect. You can wear them anywhere inside the house in much the same way as sunshades. Outdoor lighting may cause problems though.
As far as a direct-viewing solution the only solution I can think of are the ones employing irregular surface. This technology can only work if viewers are sitting within narrow ranges of fixed viewing angles. Also, for each viewing position the screen brightness and resolution falls by 2X the number of intended viewers.
The only possible direct-view solution I can think of is if an LCD (or some other adaptive light blocking technology based) video panel, that preserves light phase, is developed possessing such a super-fine resolution (the pitch would have to be comparable to the wavelength of visible light) that it can function as a light diffraction grating film (similar to how holographic pictures work). It would then be a simple matter (within the near future) to create a composite picture by alternately lighting the panel using RGB laser light generators.
Give me a break. Oh the glasses are the deal breaker for you! Wow. So let me get this straight - when you go outside in the sun, do you NOT put on sunglasses? Hours at a time sometimes?
Give. Me. A. Break.
From a technical standpoint, it is very difficult to manufacture a TV which can send different images to each eye of more than one person from all kinds of angles. 3D monitors have been around for several years but require you to sit almost perfectly centered with respect to the screen. Now imagine 4 people sitting next to each other on a couch. Or wanting to lay down on the couch and watch a movie with your head tilted on a pillow. There are many scenarios in which it's just not feasible yet for the TV to do all the work.
On the flipside, wearing the polarized glasses is an extremely simple solution and already in-use.
Who knows, maybe somebody much smarter than I will figure out a way. I just don't see how it's physically possible to do it right now while maintaining a 'normal' living-room experience/environment.
Give me a break. Oh the glasses are the deal breaker for you! Wow. So let me get this straight - when you go outside in the sun, do you NOT put on sunglasses? Hours at a time sometimes?Give. Me. A. Break.
I wear glasses AND sunglasses. OUTSIDE. Why would I want to wear them inside if I didn't have to? And that's the point--we don't HAVE TO. Manufacturers could embrace the non-glasses options I saw at CES.
From a technical standpoint, it is very difficult to manufacture a TV which can send different images to each eye of more than one person from all kinds of angles. 3D monitors have been around for several years but require you to sit almost perfectly centered with respect to the screen. Now imagine 4 people sitting next to each other on a couch. Or wanting to lay down on the couch and watch a movie with your head tilted on a pillow. There are many scenarios in which it's just not feasible yet for the TV to do all the work.On the flipside, wearing the polarized glasses is an extremely simple solution and already in-use.Who knows, maybe somebody much smarter than I will figure out a way. I just don't see how it's physically possible to do it right now while maintaining a 'normal' living-room experience/environment.
I'm not saying the technology is ready today. But I think it could be very soon if it is endorsed by the big manufacturers. 2 of the options I saw at CES (TCL and 3D Eye Solutions) could be seen from several angles. not necessarily ANY angle, but at least 6 or 7. That means we're close.
I want to make clear that my opposition to glasses is not just about physical discomfort--I really do think it is not an efficient solution for the home. Only time will tell...Yes, I realised that the discomfort you described was of a neurological/optical nature and not from wearing the glasses themselves. However, are you certain that it is being caused by the technology itself and not the movie recording? I also hated the headaches I would get viewing 3D IMAX (and the various amusement park equivalents). When a movie is produced all the geometry has to be incredibly precise between the two channels. Even subtle things such as reflections and surface lighting has to be carefully calculated for a natural viewing experience. It was when I saw "Monsters vs. Aliens" that it finally seemed that the effects departments have finally learned how to get it right.I really don't think polarised glasses are such as nuisance as you suspect. You can wear them anywhere inside the house in much the same way as sunshades. Outdoor lighting may cause problems though.As far as a direct-viewing solution the only solution I can think of are the ones employing irregular surface. This technology can only work if viewers are sitting within narrow ranges of fixed viewing angles. Also, for each viewing position the screen brightness and resolution falls by 2X the number of intended viewers.The only possible direct-view solution I can think of is if an LCD (or some other adaptive light blocking technology based) video panel, that preserves light phase, is developed possessing such a super-fine resolution (the pitch would have to be comparable to the wavelength of visible light) that it can function as a light diffraction grating film (similar to how holographic pictures work). It would then be a simple matter (within the near future) to create a composite picture by alternately lighting the panel using RGB laser light generators.
I'm not even saying that physical discomfort is the only problem. I'm saying that it is impractical to have half a dozen glasses on your coffee table. It is inefficient to have an object between your eyes and the screen. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the glasses. And that "ideal" is not impossible, judging from what I saw at CES.
I hope they do the more real way, not just bump up the refreshrate, sync a pair of googles to dim out an eye while showing the other with the eye separation angle every other frame. Its "lazy", i would like a TV/Monitor that dont require such ways to lure my vision that its 3D. I bet if you see a true stereoscopic movie (IE show both eyes simultanious) it would feel more natural and likely also make you dive into the experience that producer want to create due to the subconsious part in it... Much like subminimal messaging, you can't consiously differentiate when just one frame is altered but unconsiously you will!