3D w/o glasses in your living room?!?

[elmoreas]

A friend of mine said he heard that TV makers were working on a 3DTV that didn't require glasses to be worn. He has to be wrong, correct? That is not possible physically... yet. Anyways has anyone else heard of this from a legit source? Thanks.

 

[Ethevion]

I have also heard of this but from a friend, not a legit source. Would be cool to have something like that.

 

[gifi4]

A friend of mine said he heard that TV makers were working on a 3DTV that didn't require glasses to be worn. He has to be wrong, correct? That is not possible physically... yet. Anyways has anyone else heard of this from a legit source? Thanks.

Yep, it's true, it was on the news here, they've been planning it since they released original 3D T.V's (ones with glasses) And they only recently got it in the works. I don't know how they'll do it but the nintendo 3DS has done it, so they will do it aswell.

 

[MrCooper]

I would like a link because that is not physically possible for a TV to do this. The only reason that 3D works is because one lens of the glasses allows you to see the picture and the other creates an artificial depth.

 

[Costello]

they're working on a TV with 3D without glasses...
however the 3D effect will only be visible using special contact lenses

 

[MrCooper]

they're working on a TV with 3D without glasses...
however the 3D effect will only be visible using special contact lenses

Wouldn't that be a more complicated version of wearing the glasses. The only way that would be any advancement is if the contacts could be worn while you weren't watching TV, but that wouldn't work because the lens that creates the artificial depth blurs your vision slightly.

 

[ByteMunch]

they're working on a TV with 3D without glasses...
however the 3D effect will only be visible using special contact lenses

Wouldn't that be a more complicated version of wearing the glasses. The only way that would be any advancement is if the contacts could be worn while you weren't watching TV, but that wouldn't work because the lens that creates the artificial depth blurs your vision slightly.

Pretty sure that was a joke...

Anyway, you have to be pretty close to the 3DS to see 3D. Also, parralax barriers need to be small screens ATM AFAIK... Woo acronyms

 

[Joe88]

the problem with a tv with this technology, is every one has to sit in the same exact spot/area
move slightly away from that spot and the 3d effect is lost

 

[friarhat]

I would like a link because that is not physically possible for a TV to do this. The only reason that 3D works is because one lens of the glasses allows you to see the picture and the other creates an artificial depth.

umm...3ds? ok its not a tv but scale it up no reason it would nt work

 

[Veho]

one lens of the glasses allows you to see the picture and the other creates an artificial depth.
QUOTE(MrCooper @ Sep 29 2010, 04:15 PM) the lens that creates the artificial depth blurs your vision slightly.

Wait, what? Could you explain that? How does that work?

 

[Kwartel]

You mean this baby?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20014509-1.html

 

[FAST6191]

the problem with a tv with this technology, is every one has to sit in the same exact spot/area
move slightly away from that spot and the 3d effect is lost

I take it you never saw an early LCD TV?

Still three options
1) True video glasses- some exist but nothing has got beyond (expensive) toy stage yet
2) Eye tracking projection- given you can barely track a finger unaided....
3) Lenticular screens- this is what the 3ds uses and it works fairly well. Truth be told I am actually quite shocked the makers went for polarised or shutter glasses when this has been kicking around for years (those little "moving" images you got in cereal boxes- same idea but considerably less advanced).

Frankly I find 3d almost as much of a gimmick as what we are told counts as HD.

Also http://darkfader.net/3dstereo/

 

[mameks]

Fuji'll probably do something: this

 

[MrCooper]

one lens of the glasses allows you to see the picture and the other creates an artificial depth.
QUOTE(MrCooper @ Sep 29 2010, 04:15 PM) the lens that creates the artificial depth blurs your vision slightly.

Wait, what? Could you explain that? How does that work?

Try putting 3D glasses on and look around its slightly blurry

 

[updowners]

the problem with a tv with this technology, is every one has to sit in the same exact spot/area
move slightly away from that spot and the 3d effect is lost

Yeah, it already exists, I've seen it with my own eyes. If your somewhere around in Tokyo go to NHK Studio Park to see it in action.

 

[Jamstruth]

A friend of mine said he heard that TV makers were working on a 3DTV that didn't require glasses to be worn. He has to be wrong, correct? That is not possible physically... yet. Anyways has anyone else heard of this from a legit source? Thanks.
Its not quite possible yet but they're working on it. Those are the key words there.

one lens of the glasses allows you to see the picture and the other creates an artificial depth.
QUOTE(MrCooper @ Sep 29 2010, 04:15 PM)

the lens that creates the artificial depth blurs your vision slightly.

Wait, what? Could you explain that? How does that work?

Try putting 3D glasses on and look around its slightly blurry

Incorrect...
3D glasses (the passive kind) work because the lenses are polarised to let only 1 orientation of light in. Vertical or Horizontal. The picture is encoded so that the image intended for one eye is only vertical and the other is only horizontal (if you wear a pair of 3D glasses and look at an LCD screen try tilting your head you'll notice the screen getting brighter or dimmer depending on how much light gets through the polarised lenses). This means your eyes see 2 different images creating a stereoscopic effect and therefore a sense depth. 3D glasses don't make everything blurry (unless they're dirty).

 

[Maplemage]

I remember seeing on the news that they already made the 3D TV's I think....

 

[MrCooper]

I remember seeing on the news that they already made the 3D TV's I think....

Where have you been
Sony 3D TVs
I don't know why sony, I was just trying to show you

 

[Fat D]

3d media without filters on the eyes of the viewer can only work from a wider set of viewing angles if they provide a very large set of possible angles, which makes the media far more complex than simple stereoscopic ones. It will be more dolbysurroundscopic. Even if I do not believe even 8 angles will be enough to cover a significant field.

 

[Midna]

Incorrect...
3D glasses (the passive kind) work because the lenses are polarised to let only 1 orientation of light in. Vertical or Horizontal. The picture is encoded so that the image intended for one eye is only vertical and the other is only horizontal (if you wear a pair of 3D glasses and look at an LCD screen try tilting your head you'll notice the screen getting brighter or dimmer depending on how much light gets through the polarised lenses). This means your eyes see 2 different images creating a stereoscopic effect and therefore a sense depth. 3D glasses don't make everything blurry (unless they're dirty).

Thank you. I was about to explain that. How did the claim that one 3D glasses lens lets in the picture and the other somehow creates depth go unchallenged that long?