or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Ultra-D is Glasses-Free 3D for UHDTV, Coming This Year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ultra-D is Glasses-Free 3D for UHDTV, Coming This Year - Page 2

post #31 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I'm not sure what you mean? He demoed it in Philly so it must be 110 volt.

I wasn't trying to sound dumb. Last week, I wasted about 15 minutes of my life checking out a competittor to Vizio for cheap 4K panels only to find out at the end of the surfing that the manufacturer, China's largest TV manufacturer by the way, had no intention to make a 110v version.
post #32 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjvnyc View Post

I wasn't trying to sound dumb. Last week, I wasted about 15 minutes of my life checking out a competittor to Vizio for cheap 4K panels only to find out at the end of the surfing that the manufacturer, China's largest TV manufacturer by the way, had no intention to make a 110v version.



Ok I gotcha smile.gif
post #33 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post


I've actually never seen anything in '3D', i'm blind in one eye.

that's why it's purely a technological interest to me. can't be something I just experience, I want it explained to me, hahamy question is actually how does it work for 2D. for me, i'd love the idea of glasses free 3D just so that I could watch 'normally' and still let others enjoy their 3D. it's a little annoying having to wear glasses just to see the movie in 2D right now.

that's been my 'pet peeve' about TV's for about 4yrs now. it seems like manufacturers keep adding features(3d, smart TV's, etc) instead of just fixing the problems with backlight uniformity, contrast/blacks, motion resolution, etc. i'd much prefer somebody produce a display that shows near perfect 2D images than one that has every feature known to man but looks like garbage

 

Too bad you cant see 3D....but I think in your case, it should "just work", because if either eye was seeing anything but it's own image, the 3D effect wouldnt work.  There might be some artifacts though, but probably nothing too huge.

 

You should give 3D some credit though, it's existence has probably done more to accelerate the pace of change in those factors than anything else.  It requires a quick response, high refresh rate LCD panel or quick decaying phosphors on plasma (better motion resolution) and lots of light output (better contrast). Black levels have still been steadily improving on plasma, and LCDs have benefited in that area from the strobing backlights needed to make 3D work well on them. Beyond that, all the TV needs for 3D is a cheap little IR emitter, which adds almost nothing to the cost. Basically, the requirements of 3D significantly improve 2D quality...and arguably, they may have dragged their feet on making those improvements without it. 

post #34 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

While I moved around the room on foot to check viewing angles, I noticed that the 3D image exhibited a minor flutter, a visual pulsation of sorts. That flutter is a known side effect of transitioning between "viewing cones," the means by which autostereoscopic screens deliver discrete information to each eye. It was only noticeable when moving around; all stationary viewing positions yielded exceptional 3D.
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter

Very exciting stuff Mark .Just read another older UK based blog which makes me think there's something else at play if not transitions between cones ?
Quote:
The Philedelphia based company will have competition from TV maker DaVinci, which, like Stream, also claim to be able to offer a ‘true glasses free 3D TV’. Stream claim Ultra-D is the only true glasses free 3D technology as it is based on a unique optical system, and not lenticular like its rivals, meaning there are no viewing cone ‘jumps’.
Quote:
The gaming example looked great although there were definitely viewing cones – if I moved my head slightly, the negative and positive parallax would invert. Colours and brightness were excellent and we can’t wait to see the 4K version.
This was an earlier version though before the latest 4k version that's so exciting smile.gif
http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/glasses-free-3d-2/ultra-d-3d-tvs-in-uk-early-next-year/10837
post #35 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Too bad you cant see 3D....but I think in your case, it should "just work", because if either eye was seeing anything but it's own image, the 3D effect wouldnt work.  There might be some artifacts though, but probably nothing too huge.

You should give 3D some credit though, it's existence has probably done more to accelerate the pace of change in those factors than anything else.  It requires a quick response, high refresh rate LCD panel or quick decaying phosphors on plasma (better motion resolution) and lots of light output (better contrast). Black levels have still been steadily improving on plasma, and LCDs have benefited in that area from the strobing backlights needed to make 3D work well on them. Beyond that, all the TV needs for 3D is a cheap little IR emitter, which adds almost nothing to the cost. Basically, the requirements of 3D significantly improve 2D quality...and arguably, they may have dragged their feet on making those improvements without it. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Too bad you cant see 3D....but I think in your case, it should "just work", because if either eye was seeing anything but it's own image, the 3D effect wouldnt work.  There might be some artifacts though, but probably nothing too huge.

You should give 3D some credit though, it's existence has probably done more to accelerate the pace of change in those factors than anything else.  It requires a quick response, high refresh rate LCD panel or quick decaying phosphors on plasma (better motion resolution) and lots of light output (better contrast). Black levels have still been steadily improving on plasma, and LCDs have benefited in that area from the strobing backlights needed to make 3D work well on them. Beyond that, all the TV needs for 3D is a cheap little IR emitter, which adds almost nothing to the cost. Basically, the requirements of 3D significantly improve 2D quality...and arguably, they may have dragged their feet on making those improvements without it. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt View Post

Very exciting stuff Mark .Just read another older UK based blog which makes me think there's something else at play if not transitions between cones ?

This was an earlier version though before the latest 4k version that's so exciting smile.gif
http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/glasses-free-3d-2/ultra-d-3d-tvs-in-uk-early-next-year/10837

Correct, someone with monocular vision looking at one of these sets would see a 2D image, not a double image.
post #36 of 106
Thanks for the review... I really like the idea of not having to wear glasses to watch 3D. What happens when you turn your head or view from a severe angle?


Now if someone could just figure out a way to project a 3D image for front projectors!
post #37 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by vikgrao View Post

Great exciting news! Now i am waiting for someone to drop the news about an ultra-D native anamorphic projector!

+1

Id love to see glasses free 3D on a projector. But honestly I don't mind wearing glasses for 3D but I hate the brightness reduction it causes. This is defiantly exciting news tho.
post #38 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post

+1

Id love to see glasses free 3D on a projector. But honestly I don't mind wearing glasses for 3D but I hate the brightness reduction it causes. This is defiantly exciting news tho.

I don't mind wearing glasses either....since I'm wearing prescription glasses anyway. If they come somehow make a set of prescription active glasses that actually looked like normal prescription glasses, then I'd be all for it....even better, I could just press a button and turn them into sunglasses.
post #39 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

Thanks for the review... I really like the idea of not having to wear glasses to watch 3D. What happens when you turn your head or view from a severe angle?
This and viewing positions that work out are good questions. But 3D even with this news might be timed wrong. I see currently that domestic audiences are a bit turned off to 3D now, with international audiences doing a bit better in the theaters.

There is also this news today: The end of 3D glasses? Researchers create a multidimensional image using nothing but a simple camera and basic software.
post #40 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I don't mind wearing glasses either....since I'm wearing prescription glasses anyway. If they come somehow make a set of prescription active glasses that actually looked like normal prescription glasses, then I'd be all for it....even better, I could just press a button and turn them into sunglasses.

I know I read somewhere that there is at least a company or two that do prescription 3D glasses. They were however, easily $400+ a pair, and were ONLY for 3D movie viewing. What it did was save the user from having to wear prescription glasses under the bulky 3D ones...

It may have been Ray-Ban or definitely a high-end frame maker. I cannot recall as I no longer wear glasses (lasik surgery) myself. The issue I have is now that my eyes are "corrected" from the surgery, they do not allow me to view 3D at all very well.
post #41 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Too bad you cant see 3D....but I think in your case, it should "just work", because if either eye was seeing anything but it's own image, the 3D effect wouldnt work.  There might be some artifacts though, but probably nothing too huge.

You should give 3D some credit though, it's existence has probably done more to accelerate the pace of change in those factors than anything else.  It requires a quick response, high refresh rate LCD panel or quick decaying phosphors on plasma (better motion resolution) and lots of light output (better contrast). Black levels have still been steadily improving on plasma, and LCDs have benefited in that area from the strobing backlights needed to make 3D work well on them. Beyond that, all the TV needs for 3D is a cheap little IR emitter, which adds almost nothing to the cost. Basically, the requirements of 3D significantly improve 2D quality...and arguably, they may have dragged their feet on making those improvements without it. 

that's what i'd like to confirm. as much as this will be a 'game changer' for 3d fans, it could be a 'game changer' for me as well. if it looks like normal 2D when you close one eye, then it's an improvement.

i'd still wish my money went towards the R&D of a tv with better blacks, or less input lag, or something like that. you can make arguments about how 3d can improve 2d, but I haven't seen that as much as sticker prices go up for similar quality 2d performance(in some case 'go up' really means "didn't get cheaper like it should") just because it now supports 3d, has smart features, or some other function that I don't want. but at least for the social aspect of viewing, a glasses free 3D tv is worlds better than what we have now for 3D
post #42 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlwiz1 View Post

I know I read somewhere that there is at least a company or two that do prescription 3D glasses. They were however, easily $400+ a pair, and were ONLY for 3D movie viewing. What it did was save the user from having to wear prescription glasses under the bulky 3D ones...

It may have been Ray-Ban or definitely a high-end frame maker. I cannot recall as I no longer wear glasses (lasik surgery) myself. The issue I have is now that my eyes are "corrected" from the surgery, they do not allow me to view 3D at all very well.

Why can't you see 3D after the surgery? I thought it was supposed to improve your vision without any drawbacks?
post #43 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Why can't you see 3D after the surgery? I thought it was supposed to improve your vision without any drawbacks?
Must be due to a unique eye condition with which he hasn't shared. 3D looks pretty good to me post LASIK.
post #44 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Why can't you see 3D after the surgery? I thought it was supposed to improve your vision without any drawbacks?
my eyesight is really really good now, but it is definitely "different." When I focus on reading close up and then look away, the distant object I focus on initially looks "off" since my eyes are resetting at different speeds. This happens when I watch 3D. My eyes are shifting ever so slightly that the difference is noticeably obvious to my brain in "creating" the 3D image. I think it is similar to if you tilt your head wearing 3D glasses. A slight defect in the image.
I can see 3D, it just is not great and doesn't work unless the image is really really crisp and awesome (I'm assuming it may mostly be bad 3D rendering and/or implementation on the screens rather than my eyes).
post #45 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlwiz1 View Post

I know I read somewhere that there is at least a company or two that do prescription 3D glasses. They were however, easily $400+ a pair, and were ONLY for 3D movie viewing. What it did was save the user from having to wear prescription glasses under the bulky 3D ones...

It may have been Ray-Ban or definitely a high-end frame maker. I cannot recall as I no longer wear glasses (lasik surgery) myself. The issue I have is now that my eyes are "corrected" from the surgery, they do not allow me to view 3D at all very well.

I had Lasik surgery too... I haven't tried 3D since the surgery. I was planning on getting some 3D glasses to try out on my projector. I will have to make sure they can be returned if I have a problem.
post #46 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

All this talk of tablets and TVs and technology led me to ask Riley, "What about projectors, could this ever work for a projector-based home theater?"

As a projector-based home theater owner, that would be my first question too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

His response—Stream TV Networks plans to tackle holographic display, which is where all display technology is ultimately heading.

Great!

Wait...uh...what the heck does that mean?

Rich H
post #47 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


Wait...uh...what the heck does that mean?

Rich H

Holodecks!!! biggrin.gif
post #48 of 106
C
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlwiz1 View Post

my eyesight is really really good now, but it is definitely "different." When I focus on reading close up and then look away, the distant object I focus on initially looks "off" since my eyes are resetting at different speeds. This happens when I watch 3D. My eyes are shifting ever so slightly that the difference is noticeably obvious to my brain in "creating" the 3D image. I think it is similar to if you tilt your head wearing 3D glasses. A slight defect in the image.
I can see 3D, it just is not great and doesn't work unless the image is really really crisp and awesome (I'm assuming it may mostly be bad 3D rendering and/or implementation on the screens rather than my eyes).
Can you see your everyday 3D surroundings clearly? If you can, there should be no difference when viewing Active 3D on a plasma. Now passive 3D might give you some issues.
post #49 of 106
Yes, everyday eyesight is fine. It is hard to explain (obviously!), but I guess I would say that instead of being a constant 3D image, when I look around the screen (albeit a large movie theater screen) the 3D effects has artifacts/issues, and doesn't work for me seemlessly. It often takes me out of the movie because I notice the error/issue and it makes me distracted. It isn;t a full-blown "I cannot see 3D at all" issue, but rather a weird and subtle odd movement to the object that is in 3D. For instance, on Avatar when Jake is floating after cryo-sleep, that entire scene doesn't work for me. However, when I saw Hobbit in IMAX there was only a few points that I noticed it being an issue. It happens with the really fast motion stuff. Anything close to the viewer or moving quickly has a double image. It's almost like my eyes aren;t being processed at the same speed by my brain as the film is trying to send the images to each eye. Hmmmmm, maybe my brain is malfunctioning! eek.gif
post #50 of 106
This is great news. Even though I don't mind wearing the 3D glasses. I just hope this isn't another thing like OLED. Seems promising, but It never seems to make it to the showroom.
post #51 of 106
OLED in stores now, if you have 15 grand laying around. Ouch!
post #52 of 106
Thanks so much for the report. Found my reason to upgrade my 5 year old LCD in the family room! If the effect is close to 'glasses 3D' this will revive and solidify the home 3D market. Wondering if you can take advantage of the 4K resolution in 2D mode? An early Philips 4K 60" glassless 3D implementation didn't allow the lenticular screen lensing for 3D mode to switch/flatten for 2D mode.
post #53 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by derek View Post

Thanks so much for the report. Found my reason to upgrade my 5 year old LCD in the family room! If the effect is close to 'glasses 3D' this will revive and solidify the home 3D market. Wondering if you can take advantage of the 4K resolution in 2D mode? An early Philips 4K 60" glassless 3D implementation didn't allow the lenticular screen lensing for 3D mode to switch/flatten for 2D mode.

Ultimately, these are UHD televisions. In 2D mode you get all eight million pixels to work with, like any other UHD set. By the way, when Philips laid off their best engineers, who were working on that technology, guess who hired them...
post #54 of 106
A lot of people are going to be jumping on the 3DTV bandwagon soon
post #55 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

This is great news. Even though I don't mind wearing the 3D glasses. I just hope this isn't another thing like OLED. Seems promising, but It never seems to make it to the showroom.

A valid point about oled, but lcd technology is a different animal, one manufacturers are familiar with, so I dont think the same fears apply here
post #56 of 106
I'm still looking for some clarity on what Riley's reply meant for this 3D technology and front projectors.

Anyone? Mark Henninger?

Thanks.
post #57 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm still looking for some clarity on what Riley's reply meant for this 3D technology and front projectors.

Anyone? Mark Henninger?

Thanks.

Leo said that glasses-free front projection basically requires a holographic display to work, and that they are working on it. I'm guessing that means no screen, but he offered no details beyond that. Since there have been examples of on-stage holograms at concerts, it doesn't seem impossible.
post #58 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Leo said that glasses-free front projection basically requires a holographic display to work, and that they are working on it. I'm guessing that means no screen, but he offered no details beyond that. Since there have been examples of on-stage holograms at concerts, it doesn't seem impossible.

Hmm, thanks.

That processes in my mind as "no, we aren't really offering this for projection and glasses-free 3D will arrive around the time we deliver those flying cars..."
post #59 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Hmm, thanks.

That processes in my mind as "no, we aren't really offering this for projection and glasses-free 3D will arrive around the time we deliver those flying cars..."

That analogy may not be a good one...
There is a Company that has been developing a flying car. They are losing money but I believe they actually had it flying.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/20/moller-unveils-two-new-flying-cars
post #60 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post

That analogy may not be a good one...
There is a Company that has been developing a flying car. They are losing money but I believe they actually had it flying.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/20/moller-unveils-two-new-flying-cars

If... and I mean if... flying car analogies are the best way to make the point—then the Terrafugia is the right response.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Ultra-D is Glasses-Free 3D for UHDTV, Coming This Year