Dolby Announces Agreement with Cameron/Pace Group to Use Glasses-Free Dolby 3D - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-22-2013, 06:44 PM
Newbie
 
mbbailey123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have looked at the products in the 3D market for the past couple of years and am convinced that they can do much better. I will not wear glasses to watch any entertainment. This new technology will not hit the market until the existing products have matured and initial investments have been regained.
mbbailey123 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-22-2013, 06:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hays, KS
Posts: 1,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 177
I'm very skeptical until I can see and judge for myself. Other glasses-free tech I've seen didn't deliver.

JBL Pro Cinema
Reddig is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 07:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
docrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL -- Soundside
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I toured the Air Force's vision lab at Wright-Patterson in Dayton, Ohio, and saw some amazing glasses-free 3-D technology. One I will not forget was standing besides a small table with a central screen (~ 24" x 30"), and the satellite view was completely 3-D. Not simulated, but completely 3-D. As you walked around the table, you could see the opposite walls of buildings you could not see from the other side.... wild! Resolution was low, but the proof-of-concept was fantastic and quite memorable.

That will be amazing someday in television when the HD 3-D image will have a slightly different perspective...depending on whether you are sitting left, center or right.

Cheers,

Doc Rings
docrings is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 09:12 PM
Newbie
 
wbloos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Of course, autostereoscopic 3D is much like passive-glasses 3D—the vertical resolution must be cut in half for each eye. Last year's demo was shown on a 4K LCD TV (seen in the photo above) with a lenticular filter, providing roughly 2K resolution for each eye,
...
The system provides 28 stereo views in so-called "viewing cones."

so if there are 28 views the resolution will be 1/28th (!!) of the original resolution and not 1/2 - depending on the orientation of the barrier/lenticular e.g when applied diagonal the resolution loss is in BOTH direction - horizontal AND vertical. So you end with 1/28 vertical and 1/28 horizontal resolution

With recent technology glasses free 3D is a dead end!

Werner
wbloos is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 02:18 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,478
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1801 Post(s)
Liked: 3115
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbloos View Post


so if there are 28 views the resolution will be 1/28th (!!) of the original resolution and not 1/2 - depending on the orientation of the barrier/lenticular e.g when applied diagonal the resolution loss is in BOTH direction - horizontal AND vertical. So you end with 1/28 vertical and 1/28 horizontal resolution

With recent technology glasses free 3D is a dead end!

Werner

That's not how glasses-free viewing works, in practice the result is still half-resolution. Also, for glasses-free viewing, the orientation of the filter can only be vertical. 


Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
Old 04-23-2013, 06:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
motorman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vermont
Posts: 574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
the film may only effect the vertical res but cannot help but effect 2D that will be the majority of content viewed with an expensive 4k tv. there is better glasses free tech coming and lenticualr barrier filters is not new by any means and will be surpassed.
it is pretty cool to see a dedicated group pushing this despite its limitations.

motorman45 is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NickTheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 1,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I've thought that this would be the defining moment for 3D, though I guess, who didn't?

Once this gets perfected and affordable, I think 3D will really take off smile.gif
NickTheGreat is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 02:28 PM
Member
 
barnabas1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

This is exactly why I didn't jump on the 3D bandwagon several years ago. I knew this was going to happen but not this fast. Scott is there any word on when this might be available for home theater use? And if it could stop some people from getting sick from 3D?
By the time the price on this technology comes down to be affordable, my 1-year-old active 3D plasma (Samsung PN64D8000) will be ready to be replaced. I enjoy 3D and don't mind the glasses one bit. I got the dealer to include four pairs of glasses for free even after talking him down on the price by $500.00 and then bought three more pairs (used) on e-bay for $20 each. Then, I bought 100 of the lithium batteries on e-bay for $10.

All in all, it was a good deal.

This newest glasses-free technology sounds promising, but I'll wait until the price comes down somewhere around what I paid for my set.
barnabas1969 is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
comfynumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Northeast PA.
Posts: 4,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnabas1969 View Post

By the time the price on this technology comes down to be affordable, my 1-year-old active 3D plasma (Samsung PN64D8000) will be ready to be replaced. I enjoy 3D and don't mind the glasses one bit. I got the dealer to include four pairs of glasses for free even after talking him down on the price by $500.00 and then bought three more pairs (used) on e-bay for $20 each. Then, I bought 100 of the lithium batteries on e-bay for $10.

All in all, it was a good deal.

This newest glasses-free technology sounds promising, but I'll wait until the price comes down somewhere around what I paid for my set.



Good deals for you smile.gif I'll be ready to buy a new panel within the next couple of years. I want to see where 4K goes. Also with HDMI 2.0 about to come out I think it is wise for me to hold off. I just know as soon as I buy one they'll be something better out in 6 months biggrin.gif
comfynumb is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 08:38 PM
Newbie
 
cosber's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm virtually blind in the right eye so 3D was never an option for me. I wonder if no glasses 3D would allow me to see experience it.
cosber is offline  
Old 04-24-2013, 12:28 AM
Senior Member
 
AVTrauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Bummer for those who are fortunate to own PJ's. eek.gif
Also a bummer for someone unfortunate to be stuck viewing the screen between the "cones" (Think "Superbowl Party" with lots of friends/family gathered to watch your new set-up).
I also wonder about the effect on 2D viewing.

But I do welcome all the advances made to improve our Home Theater experience, even if I'm not in the market (currently) for the latest & greatest!
AVTrauma is offline  
Old 04-24-2013, 01:53 AM
Member
 
mikewinburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Seems the fly in the soup for me is the admission that this is the best 3d that can be had without glasses..... What I heard was, "it's not as good as 3d with glasses, but hey...". I for one 3d a nice treat once in a while, but overall inferior to the same material presented in 2D. At least that been my experience w home 3d. So till I see it, the news doesn't excite me.
mikewinburn is offline  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:14 AM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
probably not going to work if you are blind in one eye you won't get the stereo effect .
if you get stuck in the cone in between the 3d viewable areas you might go blind in your other eye, just kidding!
spectrogj is offline  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:27 AM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
w
spectrogj is offline  
Old 04-24-2013, 07:31 AM
Member
 
spectrogj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

Bummer for those who are fortunate to own PJ's. eek.gif
Also a bummer for someone unfortunate to be stuck viewing the screen between the "cones" (Think "Superbowl Party" with lots of friends/family gathered to watch your new set-up).
I also wonder about the effect on 2D viewing.

But I do welcome all the advances made to improve our Home Theater experience, even if I'm not in the market (currently) for the latest & greatest!


agree with you getting stuck inside the cone area would suck.

But it may open a new market of neck braces and head support that will be sold as accessories.

chiropractors will also probably benefit from this poor idea.

wearing 3D glasses doesn't seem that bad, when there is so much expense and little effect.

It's about as good as sucking one of your eyeballs out of your head to gain perspective.

I think i'm sticking to passive 3D.
spectrogj is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 08:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
eaamon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: South mid Tn.
Posts: 556
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I see this i a few weeks old but had to comment. note highlights.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dmaven View Post

Filtering a different image to each eye (fake 3D) is the equivalent of surround sound from a stereo source, which tries to mimic the alteration of sound waves that occurs when they hit all those funny ridges in your ear. The other option is to track head movement and adjust the perspective of the video accordingly, but then you always have to be moving your head to get the illusion of 3D, and you would need to film all your content with a Lytro type camera. Otherwise, a really high quality display that is calibrated and placed in a well designed viewing environment will often have more "dimensionality", i.e. your brain will read all the well preserved depth cues and perceive some level of depth and realism.
I read this and can agree with it. more later......
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Actually, stereoscopic 3D is equivalent to stereo sound, not surround sound derived from stereo. 2D video is the same a monophonic sound. That's why I don't get your conclusion: 3D is fake, so sometimes 2D is more 3D than 3D? All things being equal, a stereoscopic display shows depth and a 2D display does not. That's the difference and it's a big one.

The kind of 3D reproduction you discuss, great for VR applications and video games, but that's not how TV and movies work. Movies and shows are inherently linear and guide the viewer through the scene, with a fixed perspective. Traditional stereoscopic techniques are exactly appropriate for linear presentations.
3Dmaven as he suggest is better some times than 2D. (highlighted comment) I found when
walking into a Best Buy or Electronic Express during the daytime. I had my polarized
sunglasses on. most displays looked flat 2D. then I got to the Sony HX series in the
higher end areas. the Sony HX displays looked almost perfect 3D to me.
plain polarized glasses nothing more.
now as to the why they looked better let me explain.
3D has a loss of depth of field due to viewed area being in focus. this is
inherent with Camerons cameras and all other I have seen with my 3D set.
either close or far is really in focus (Depth of field).
but 2D HX at 1080P everything looks more in focus near
and far. that is due to the cameras again.
the Sony HX8xx orHX9xx does indeed trick my mind.....
but it does sound like the 1/2 image of the new 4K would be almost
the equivalent of the HX at 1080P.

now you have me wondering what the new Sony 4K looks like with
those standard every day polarized glasses on.

my HT
eaamon is offline  
Old 04-27-2013, 10:44 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,478
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1801 Post(s)
Liked: 3115
now you have me wondering what the new Sony 4K looks like with
those standard every day polarized glasses on.

Are you saying you wear regular polarized sunglasses when you watch TV? What purpose is that supposed to serve? At some point in the past, I was daydreaming and I wondered if wearing sunglasses while watching a LED television would improve the black levels. 

 

I thought about that because blacks are genuinely deeper when watching my TV using the proper polarized 3D glasses.


Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:13 AM
Member
 
Dadbart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A truly glassesless 3D TV would be great. It is getting better, but isn't quite there yet, though I have not seen this one.
Dadbart is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off