[Low Tech]

Back in the late 80's a NASA engineer in Moutain View California developed 3D tv that required two broadcast TV cameras and some sort of multiplexor subsystem.


The beauty of it was it did not require a special TV to watch.


It was broadcast on a bay area news station... channel 7 or 5 and showed his son playing catch with a football.


It was way cool and did not make the foot ball look fake, like it was going to hit ya right in the head.


Now that there is HD television, most of the sharpness and details do not require 3D to give eye poping realisim.


But to give true 3D depth the dual camera system would be the best as new technology is cheaper to manufacture and obtain than back in the 80's.


It think todays scam of keeping 3D the way it was with glasses and have things seem like they are too close to hitting ya in the face makes it childish and too gimmicky for the masses.


So even though I have a 3D capable tv, I do no need to use it as I am satisfied with HD and the computer animation in todays cartoon features.


I just wanted to tell peeps here as some are engineers and may have the resources to bring the better 3D technology into play as nobody wants to wear glasses to watch tv.

 

[GI Joe Sixpack]

Didn't want your post to go unremarked. It was looking lonely.

I have that deja vu feeling. I've heard about this before somewhere, maybe in the forums that used to be on the RealD web site. Any more details?

 

[glaufman]

You say the tech in the 80s didn't require a special tv, but no mention of whether it required glasses....

 

[GenkaiSIX]

I think it would be possible if a filter was placed over the display and by that method you would get depth. It would be impossible to have stuff come out at you but it could provide depth to whatever you were watching giving you a true sense of looking through a window.


I really hope 3D isn't going to strive for those in your face antics but more so, true to life immersion.

 

[fire407]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Tech /forum/post/18241365


Back in the late 80's a NASA engineer in Moutain View California developed 3D tv that required two broadcast TV cameras and some sort of multiplexor subsystem.


The beauty of it was it did not require a special TV to watch.


It was broadcast on a bay area news station... channel 7 or 5 and showed his son playing catch with a football.


It was way cool and did not make the foot ball look fake, like it was going to hit ya right in the head.


Now that there is HD television, most of the sharpness and details do not require 3D to give eye poping realisim.


But to give true 3D depth the dual camera system would be the best as new technology is cheaper to manufacture and obtain than back in the 80's.


It think todays scam of keeping 3D the way it was with glasses and have things seem like they are too close to hitting ya in the face makes it childish and too gimmicky for the masses.


So even though I have a 3D capable tv, I do no need to use it as I am satisfied with HD and the computer animation in todays cartoon features.


I just wanted to tell peeps here as some are engineers and may have the resources to bring the better 3D technology into play as nobody wants to wear glasses to watch tv.

I really wish that you had a link to some info about the specific system that they were using. I'm skeptical that it worked the way you said it did, but I could be wrong. You actually saw this, and you didn't have to wear glasses or have a filter on your TV or anything????

 

[IanD]

There's some information in one of the 3D links about a side-by-side system that involves positioning the viewpoint at a particular distance and providing a barrier in the centre which blocks each eye's view from the alternate image.


I would hazard a guess that the 80's demonstration used an approach like that: it may not have used glasses, but perhaps required a simple object placed between the eyes.


Like those buried image paintings, perhaps you have to go slightly cross-eyed to see it.


I wish I could remember where I read it recently though.

 

[GeekGirl]

Here's the magic word: Autostereoscopy


Click on any of the Wikipedia links for information. I have no idea on the accuracy of information or product availability, but it's a start.

 

[fire407]

When I was at CES, I made a point of checking out all of the autostereoscopic displays. The effect was great sometime, and horrible most of the time. You would never want to watch a movie on such a display with current technology. Because the screen resolution has to be divided up so much to allow for all of the angles, this technology will only be viable for in home use when 4K resolution or better is adopted---many years away if ever. You will see the technology used in signage for advertising, and you will be mildly impressed that objects on the screen appear to be 3D. And what's more impressive is that as you walk by the display and change your angle, the video changes with you, so you get the right perspective. However, the faults outweigh the advantages now--the video is low rez, and if you're between angles it can be a blurry mess. Now, back on topic--WHAT DID THE OP SEE? I can't find any information about any television format that allowed for 3D on a standard def TV without any special filter or glasses. There was a method of getting a 3D look from video where a single camera is in constant motion going from left to right and the viewer wears glasses with one eye darker than the other. Supposedly the brain processes the darker video slower, and the images from each eye would register at the same time giving one eye a slightly different angle than the other. I saw it only used a very few times for some gimmicky commercials where the camera never settled. I'm not saying Low Tech didn't see what he said he did---I just want more info. I just learned this past week that there was a JVC 3D video disk system in the 80's that used field sequencial tech with shuttered glasses. There were several movies released on the format, and I never knew it existed--otherwise I would have had one. There's more info on the format in the 3D Source Components thread.

 

[David Susilo]

there were several versions of 3D video disk systems in the 80's.


Alas the only one I actually witnessed was Hughes-Sansui collaboration: LaserFilm. It uses shutter glasses too. The movie I watched at the time was The House 3-D. Awful movie, but fun to be able to watch 3D in my own home.


Yet 25 years later we are still using the same field sequential WITH the flicker effect attached

 

[xrispy]

I have personally witnessed auto-stereoscopic displays at one of the higher end malls in Bangkok, Thailand a couple of years ago no less. I believe it was Siam Paragon Mall. They used them for advertising and showing cooking shows at strategic locations throughout the mall.


They looked like lenticular 3D displays except with full video. Its nothing you would want in your home theater, but a great novelty to catch your attention when shopping. I wish I had taken a picture of them but my fiancee was in a hurry and didn't appreciate the displays as much as I did.

Having seen such a display in production I hope that technology continues to be developed so we can have HD 3D without glasses.

 

[David Susilo]

Yup! I first saw those autostereoscopy screens for similar applications back in early 2007 when I visited Indonesia. I saw them at more than 4 higher-end malls there.

I had a chuckle when at CES2009 RCA claimed to have the world's first autostereoscopy display (which by th way, worse in quality than the ones used in Indonesia 2 years prior!)

 

[xrispy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo /forum/post/18334507


Yup! I first saw those autostereoscopy screens for similar applications back in early 2007 when I visited Indonesia. I saw them at more than 4 higher-end malls there.

I had a chuckle when at CES2009 RCA claimed to have the world's first autostereoscopy display (which by th way, worse in quality than the ones used in Indonesia 2 years prior!)

You know I think the displays were common at these locals by the time I saw them the first time as I seemed to be the only person in the mall standing there in amazement. I tried to explain the significance of the technology to my fiancee who lives there. The response was a lackluster "Yeah, and?"


But I do get a chuckle myself whenever I read news of autostereoscopic displays as if it was some recent development but places like Thailand and Indonesia have had them for years and using them for commercial applications.

 

[David Susilo]

It's pretty tragic actually that most technologies have been adopted in Indonesia before Canada/US. It is supposed to be a third world country but even something as simple as CCFL bulbs were commonplace back in 1989 and yet it's only been as commonplace in Canada starting around 2008. Goodyear's Aquatread was sold for the first time in mid 80's in Indonesia and only reached Canada about F years later. The same goes with internet sticks. I've been using them since 2007 in Indonesia and we didn't have them until mid 2009... Sad!


Ps: I've known Vertu (because of my clients in Indonesia) since around 2006 and most people in US and Canada still don't know what Vertu is.


Ha!

 

[Ken H]

Autostereo that is as near as good as what we have with LCD shutter glasses is a long, long way off.

 

[nalrep]

Back in the late '80's I lived in San Diego, I also saw the demonstration referred to earlier in this thread. The 3D video of the father and son playing together blew me away when it was shown on a local news broadcast on REGULAR television... No glasses, just very real (as I remember it) depth. For years I wondered what was going on with this technology. Sad to hear that once again we here in the USA are behind the curve.

 

[David Susilo]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H /forum/post/18348167


Autostereo that is as near as good as what we have with LCD shutter glasses is a long, long way off.

Not that "long, long way off" if you've seen what's currently being used in Indonesia.


The autostereoscopy shown by RCA and several other companies at CES 2010 is the OLDER (yes, older) version of the ones the Indonesian use way back when in 2005. Mark my word, if 3D stays popular, we'll see near-perfect autostereoscopy within 3 years.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo /forum/post/19176741


Not that "long, long way off" if you've seen what's currently being used in Indonesia.


The autostereoscopy shown by RCA and several other companies at CES 2010 is the OLDER (yes, older) version of the ones the Indonesian use way back when in 2005. Mark my word, if 3D stays popular, we'll see near-perfect autostereoscopy within 3 years.

What is your definition of "near-perfect" Auto 3D?


For me it would have to:


1. Be viewed at any angle

2. Be viewed at any distance

3. Be 1080 Full HD images

4. Cost the same as todays 3DTVs


I just don't see that being accomplished in 3 years. Not when there has been so little advancement in the last 3 years. All of the above are specific roadblocks that they have yet to get past since the invention of Auto 3D. AFAIK, about the only one they did get past was having the display do both 2D and 3D as opposed to just 3D.

 

[walford]

It is not only important that each image consist of 1080 rows per eye but that it also consist of 1920 pixels per row per eye. User's today do not deserve or want any less as evidenced bythe low popularity of RP DLP 3D TVs that only display 960x1080 per eye.

 

[TRU3D007]

Look up ultra-high speed refresh displays with moving slit based auto-stereo technology. It is a giant leap beyond the lenticular lens or parallax barrier based technology commonly seen. It provides for full parallax, without tear zones, glases-free 3D.


$75K for a 60in.

 

[icester]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TRU3D007 /forum/post/19203547


Look up ultra-high speed refresh displays with moving slit based auto-stereo technology. It is a giant leap beyond the lenticular lens or parallax barrier based technology commonly seen. It provides for full parallax, without tear zones, glases-free 3D.


$75K for a 60in.

The basic problem with it is that it cannot display simple stereoscopic pair. Also it cannot play 3D movie like AVATAR.


Useless for consumers like me or you.


Mathew Orman