Another glasses-free 3D TV at CES is in the Samsung booth. The demonstrator didn't know what technology it uses, but I suspect it isn't Dolby 3D, because I was told the resolution for each eye was only 720p. Of course, it could be Dolby 3D, but without 1080p per eye, Samsung would be prohibited from using the Dolby name.
This is the third year Samsung as shown an autostereoscopic display. Last year, it had nine viewing zones; this year, it has 35. The transitions between zones were pretty smooth, but not as smooth as the best I've seen.
The Samsung glasses-free 3D demo included footage from a native 3D title called Food Fight, in which people throw food at the audience and each other. Super cheesy!
I also saw that display, and I concur—the technology Samsung showed is improved, but not at the head of the pack. However, it is clear that glasses-free 3D is a viable technology that can only get better.
Is this something that will be available in a converter box or only built into expensive TVs? What is the best (most natural looking) 2D- 3D conversion system available as a converter box for 1080P TV? What was best 3D of the show (with or without glasses)?
Glasses-free TV will always need to be built into a TV.
I'll go out on a limb and say that a UHD OLED with active 3D could be the best-looking overall. Ultra-D had the best glasses-free system, followed by Dolby 3D. Samsung's worked but it comes in third.
That answer begs the question: Who had the best looking 3D at the show -- glasses or glasses-free? I would assume it was a T.V. with either passive or active glasses, which would mean there's better 3D out there than glasses-free 3D. Am I right or wrong? I was hoping Ultra-D would steal the show, but I guess I was wrong.