Walther Roelen, CEO of SeeCubic and developer of StreamTV Networks' Ultra-D glasses-free 3D technology, talk about how humans use many different perceptual cues to see in 3D, how glasses-based 3D uses only one of those cues (stereopsis), early glasses-free (autostereoscopic) 3D displays and their limited viewing positions, how Ultra-D creates a light field with essentially continuous viewing positions by manipulating the RGB subpixels electronically and optically, how much processing power it takes to analyze and convert 2D and 3D signals into the Ultra-D format in real time, which TV manufacturers are building Ultra-D sets, answers to chat-room questions, and more.
Scott, when you saw the technology demo, did you notice the wavy effect occurring when your head was not in motion?
P.S. Why do we still call it Moore's Law? Couldn't we all at least call it "Moore's Hypothesis"? Or how about "Moore's observation that gets used by the hardware industry to keep us all upgrading our electronics regularly"? It doesn't roll off the tongue, but it's a more accurate moniker.....
I'd like to see how it shapes up to comparable technology in the near future. I'd love to see an interview with a rep from Dolby 3D as well!
What is the meaning of life?
I do have a question about the "wavy" appearance of the screen as one walks around it. Is the waviness a repeating effect of 3D collapsing to 2D as you move laterally (as per Walther's explanation)? Or is it an artifact caused by the optical layer's rhythmic distortion of an otherwise flat screen surface?
Walther seems really bright, i can't imagine knowing the term "perpendicular" or [news] "scoop" in another language.
I was amazed at how complex their system seemed, not that I fully understood all of it. I did have a feeling that auto-stereoscopic displays for multiple viewers would have to be very complex. I still don't understand how there are no viewing zones.
Good to hear that they can change the depth. Using their 2D conversion scene analysis algorithms, I really hope they can also change the depth of scenery to account for different screen sizes, viewing distances and IPD lengths of true 3D content made for large screens such as IMAX, which i assume gets scrunched together on a small screen ruining what often little depth there is to begin with, which certainly is the case when measuring the depth in 3D movie previews seen on youtube. This could also eliminate the need to push the sides of the screen off the edges of the TV using the depth changing functions that exist currently.
There are no issues with 2D. The conversion process is user controlled and allows you to turn it off and send input as 2D or you can reduce the 3D POP to flat via remote control.
I'm impressed how it was Walther's daughter who served as the inspiration for perfecting this!
Q: If you were to apply this to a 1080p display, would it be right to assume the res factor is at least better than 720p? I mean, if I were to be in the market for an 80-90-inch panel Ultra-D-equipped BUT 1080p (and NOT 4K) simply because it'll be (a lot) cheaper, how bad (good?) would 3D look? Have you considered something along those lines, maybe for smaller screens? Thanks.