Hometoys Interview - 3DTV Technology - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2010, 03:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bob Hetherington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hometoys Interview - 3DTV Technology
David Wertheimer, Entertainment Technology Center at the University of Southern California (USC).


What are the current various 3DTV technologies?

The two main consumer 3D technologies today are passive polarized and active shutter.

Passive polarized displays have a thin film on the surface of the screen which causes the light for one eye's image to rotate clockwise and the light for the other eye's image to rotate counterclockwise. The glasses have paired circular-polarized lenses in them so that the left eye only gets the image intended for the left eye, and the same for the right eye.

Active shutter displays rapidly flip between the left eye and the right eye image on the screen; 120 times per second is currently common. Active shutter glasses have liquid crystal lenses and built-in electronics that synch up with the TV. When the TV is showing the image for the right eye, the electronics in the glasses makes the left eye go black so only the right eye sees the image. When the TV is showing the image for the left eye, the electronics in the glasses makes the right eye go black so only the left eye sees the image.

Passive polarized displays are currently more expensive to manufacture than active shutter displays, but passive polarized glasses are much cheaper to manufacture than active shutter glasses.

What specialized equipment is required to produced 3DTV? Will special glasses always be required to view 3DTV?

Read the complete interview in the latest issue of our eMagazine at HomeToys.com
Bob Hetherington is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-10-2010, 03:22 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:


Passive polarized displays have a thin film on the surface of the screen which causes the light for one eye's image to rotate clockwise and the light for the other eye's image to rotate counterclockwise.

Does this film affect what an image looks like when viewing normal HD?
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:12 PM
Member
 
Mr. Tao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wonder if any of these 3D developers will figure out a way to allow a person who has vision in only one eye be able to experience 3D? I'm sure they will instantly have millons of singled sighted peope worldwide to buy whatever product gets to market .....first!
Mr. Tao is offline  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cctvtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

Be seeing you!
cctvtech is offline  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:21 PM
Member
 
Mr. Tao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.


Excellent elaboration of the science / art and it's inherent limitations +1
Mr. Tao is offline  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Tao View Post

I wonder if any of these 3D developers will figure out a way to allow a person who has vision in only one eye be able to experience 3D? I'm sure they will instantly have millons of singled sighted peope worldwide to buy whatever product gets to market .....first!

DONE!

It's called Autostereoscopic 3D

No glasses - a very special display
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:50 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

Stereoscopic 3D is a stop gap technology for the home until such time that they can make Autostereoscopic 3D work with the kind of picture quality that S3D already can.

Figure about 10 years away.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 01:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
surap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Tao View Post

I wonder if any of these 3D developers will figure out a way to allow a person who has vision in only one eye be able to experience 3D? I'm sure they will instantly have millons of singled sighted peope worldwide to buy whatever product gets to market .....first!

It is impossible to have stereoscopic vision with only one eye. People with one eye have to "learn" to see depth.
surap is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:25 AM
cwt
AVS Special Member
 
cwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nsw australia
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

Good points all ; prescription glasses are coming but ; not of course for active shutter types though

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/g...ands-on-treat/
cwt is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:44 AM
Newbie
 
t-dub77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I saw a company developing eye glasses for 3rd world countries that dont have access to an eye doctor. They are filled with a liquid that changes the prescription by adding more pressure/liquid to the lenses. Then you detach the pump (hand pump)and you have a fully adjustable pair of glasses. I would think this may be the solution for people who wear glasses for the shutter type display.
t-dub77 is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:18 AM
Member
 
RedHot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

In addition to the above, depending on how deeply emersed I am into a program, I may be reading something at the same time. Or I may be watching from the kitchen or breakfast knook while getting a snack. I don't want to have to wear "Special" glasses while doing other things. This technology is a "Sit down and pay attention" solution that interferes with some of the practicalities of home life.

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
RedHot is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:42 AM
Member
 
igboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

I really think that once the original 'cool new technology' factor wears off, the effect of 3D at home will be rather underwhelming. Most home theater screens just don't fill enough of the viewers field of view to really allow for that wow factor that you get at the cinema.

igboo

igboo is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 01:11 PM
Senior Member
 
JCBoomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by igboo View Post

Most home theater screens just don't fill enough of the viewers field of view to really allow for that wow factor that you get at the cinema.

That's my biggest concern about home 3D. The most realistic 3D effect I've seen was at Disneyland in Orlando during the Mickey's Philharmagic show, but the screen wraps around so all of your vision is taken up by the screen. I enjoy watching theater movies in 3D as well, but have noticed you need to sit closer to the screen to get the best effect, where you can't see anything but the screen outside your FOV. Taking up all of your FOV will be a challenge for home displays. I won't discount it, though. The effect is pretty neat when the conditions are correct.
JCBoomer is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
micah3sixty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

You pretty much described why I wasn't very "wowed" when I saw Avatar in 3D. Can't necessarily see anything you want in focus. I have 20/20 vision and sat fairly close but still found the whole experience as unnatural 3D and somewhat straining on my eyes. It was a cool affect, but until stereoscopic TVs are out that don't require glasses and have a wide "sweet spot" for at least a half dozen or more viewers to benefit from, I don't see this taking off. The 3D affect also seems to shrink the perceived image size, meaning it may not be so cool when used at home on a 50" screen where you have to sit 5 feet away or less to fill your FOV. The shutter glasses themselves can cost $150 a pair. That will keep many from adopting this technology as a family of 4 would probably have to buy at least one or two more pairs on top of the initial purchase. More if they expect to entertain party guests etc. Blu-ray is still not what I would call mainstream, nor are HDTVs. The economy won't be helping this take off either. So my summation: Cool novelty but too early and too expensive for a significant market penetration.

Micah
micah3sixty is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 05:20 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by micah3sixty View Post

You pretty much described why I wasn't very "wowed" when I saw Avatar in 3D. Can't necessarily see anything you want in focus. I have 20/20 vision and sat fairly close but still found the whole experience as unnatural 3D and somewhat straining on my eyes. It was a cool affect, but until stereoscopic TVs are out that don't require glasses and have a wide "sweet spot" for at least a half dozen or more viewers to benefit from, I don't see this taking off. The 3D affect also seems to shrink the perceived image size, meaning it may not be so cool when used at home on a 50" screen where you have to sit 5 feet away or less to fill your FOV. The shutter glasses themselves can cost $150 a pair. That will keep many from adopting this technology as a family of 4 would probably have to buy at least one or two more pairs on top of the initial purchase. More if they expect to entertain party guests etc. Blu-ray is still not what I would call mainstream, nor are HDTVs. The economy won't be helping this take off either. So my summation: Cool novelty but too early and too expensive for a significant market penetration.

Sherman! Set the Wayback machine to:

1997 - DVD

1998 - HDTV

2006 - HDM

2010 - 3D

Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:10 PM
cwt
AVS Special Member
 
cwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nsw australia
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by t-dub77 View Post

I saw a company developing eye glasses for 3rd world countries that dont have access to an eye doctor. They are filled with a liquid that changes the prescription by adding more pressure/liquid to the lenses. Then you detach the pump (hand pump)and you have a fully adjustable pair of glasses. I would think this may be the solution for people who wear glasses for the shutter type display.

Nice outside the box idea but not practical with turning transparent to dark at such a quick refresh rate . Its good that the tech has a chance to mature when their is so little material available atm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD_shutter_glasses
cwt is offline  
Old 02-15-2010, 07:23 PM
Member
 
notabadname's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 20
It is a little incorrect to imply that 3D forces the viewer to "look" at parts of an image differently than 2D. That is really a function of Depth of Field (DOF) and is just as evident in 2D photography/cinematography as it is in 3D. Most directors and cinematographers are fairly traditional in their selection of aperture/lens, whether there is one lens or two lense (both options exist for 3D while of course only one lens is used for 2D). And the technique to have a very deep DOF is available to both formats too, allowing the viewer to "look about" in the frame more freely. James Cameron ironically even talked about the technique recently, and used both in Avatar, depending if he wanted the viewer to "explore". But usually, most directoras have wanted the audience drawn onto the subject, particularly during dialogue delivery with shallower depth of field. That is an effective way to "direct" the audience and how they see the film. But to imply 3D forces the audience to see one thing or depth more than 2D is incorrect. Additionally some 3D films, including the new "Alice in Wonderland" are actually filmed single camera in 2D and then "dimensionalized" to 3D in post-production.
notabadname is offline  
Old 02-15-2010, 07:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cctvtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by notabadname View Post

Additionally some 3D films, including the new "Alice in Wonderland" are actually filmed single camera in 2D and then "dimensionalized" to 3D in post-production.

Is that an improvement? When I watched Avatar I could see that in most scenes, if I looked elsewhere other than at the focal point of the scene, the 3D effect became quite muted. Of course, it could be me since I have both astigmatism and presbyopia.

Be seeing you!
cctvtech is offline  
Old 02-15-2010, 09:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dlplover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Cool, now we all just have to buy new eyes in order to take full advantage of 3-D. Anyone have some 20-20's up for auction? I need cheap though - preferably under $500 so it fits in with my HT budget.
dlplover is offline  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:54 PM
Newbie
 
CuriousJ3t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by notabadname View Post

It is a little incorrect to imply that 3D forces the viewer to "look" at parts of an image differently than 2D. That is really a function of Depth of Field (DOF) and is just as evident in 2D photography/cinematography as it is in 3D. Most directors and cinematographers are fairly traditional in their selection of aperture/lens, whether there is one lens or two lense (both options exist for 3D while of course only one lens is used for 2D). And the technique to have a very deep DOF is available to both formats too, allowing the viewer to "look about" in the frame more freely. James Cameron ironically even talked about the technique recently, and used both in Avatar, depending if he wanted the viewer to "explore". But usually, most directoras have wanted the audience drawn onto the subject, particularly during dialogue delivery with shallower depth of field. That is an effective way to "direct" the audience and how they see the film. But to imply 3D forces the audience to see one thing or depth more than 2D is incorrect. Additionally some 3D films, including the new "Alice in Wonderland" are actually filmed single camera in 2D and then "dimensionalized" to 3D in post-production.


very accurate. a change in lenses (aperture setting) won't give the user-end a true sense of 3d but focus points will change giving it a 3d feeling.
CuriousJ3t is offline  
Old 03-24-2010, 02:52 PM
Newbie
 
HiPhidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While I'm excited about the leaps and bounds made in 3D technology (it's basically a whole new world), I've always been a little skiddish about the art of movie making being compromised by the perceived need to sensationalize to beef up the bottom line. But what do I know!
HiPhidelity is offline  
Old 04-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Newbie
 
EmmaMadeleine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A 3D television is a television that employs techniques of 3D presentation, such as stereoscopic capture, multi-view capture, or 2D plus depth, and a 3D displaya special viewing device to project a television program into a realistic three-dimensional field. 3D episodes became moderately popular in the late 1990s when several shows in the USA used the technique to attract viewers and increase ratings.
EmmaMadeleine is offline  
Old 04-14-2010, 02:12 PM
Member
 
hifidavepa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

I think the biggest issues will be the requirement to wear special glasses and the fact that not everyone can properly see 3D effects, especially users who don't have uncorrected 20/20 vision. Eyeglass wearers have to wear two pairs of glasses; one over the other. I find that extremely annoying myself. Many people also don't see a "natural" 3D. Instead the image appears to consist of several 2D planes layered over each other. Finally, the viewer is forced to look at the area of the image that the camera operator focused on. Attempting to look outside that focus point can ruin the effect.

Now that these 3D sets have been on display for a little while, have you had the opportunity to try the various manufacturer's glasses with your own prescription glasses? Do any of them work better than others? I would think that the manufacturers would be aware of this issue when they designed their glasses.
hifidavepa is offline  
Old 04-25-2010, 09:13 AM
Newbie
 
2gully's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NOVA
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote=igboo;18115623]I really think that once the original 'cool new technology' factor wears off, the effect of 3D at home will be rather underwhelming. Most home theater screens just don't fill enough of the viewers field of view to really allow for that wow factor that you get at the cinema.

I think James Cameron was/is indeed a pioneer and partly responsible for helping to bring this technology to the forefront, the problem though, is that other movies/film makers will not be spending buko years even on their movies,I think case in point Alice in Wonderland?

My opinion at least, FWIW?
2gully 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