Ed's View - 3DTV - Why Not Glasses?

[Ed Milbourn]

At least at the start.

There is no doubt (at least in my little mind) that the next big step in television development is the addition of the third dimension - i.e. "3DTV." Interestingly, virtually all of the technical elements are in place to commercialize fully compatible 3DTV.

The one caveat to this statement is...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/01/eds_view_-_3dtv.php]Read the Full Article[/url]

[jhecondevsys]

Ed...I know you've commented extensively about DirecTV's problems with their latest TIVO-type product. If you were a DirecTV subscriber now that wanted the same service that I have with my wonderful DirecTV TIVO on a "regular" TV and am purchasing an HD plasma in the near future...which direction would you go?? Thanks. JH

[hdtvjim]

Don't confuse 3D graphics with stereoscopic photography. 3D graphics do not need glasses as the 3D image is based on persprctive. In stereoscopic photography the left eye see the left image and the right eye sees the right image. There are a couple of ways of doing the later for good stereoscopic imaging.

Anaglyph using red and green anaglyph glasses, IMHO, won't cut it.

Properly photographed stereo images, both still and in motion is a very interesting experience.

Some Hollywood film makers are going to and havre explored the stereo image and predict it will be the wave of the future movie goers.

Stereo is not new, but as you say in your article, the modern technology will help overcome some of the pitfalls of the past.

I'm looking forward to it.

[techylah]

Ed & company,
Is the hangup regarding glasses just that special ones, no matter how cheap are needed, or that they must be quite expensive?

If display technology progresses (or has progressed) to that level that two simultaneous but differently polarized images can be placed on an LCD screen, the glasses need only be some cheap cardboard ones with a differently oriented polarizing film for each eye. (A)

Alternatively, even a traditional LCD display, if fast enough (and at 6ms they are) can display two video streams frame-alternately. In this case the glasses must be active, synchronized with the display, and involve expensive electronic lcd shutters in front of each eye. (B)

Ed+, are you think A or B?
Mitch

[Dhunter]

Dear Mr. Milbourn,

I was very interested in your article and was just wondering if you are aware of our company - Dynamic Digital Depth? We are involved in the 3D (sterescopic) industry and have glasses free 3D mobile phones, polarized glasses based 3D 32" LCD TVs and a variety of other 3D technologies including a real time conversion process to convert 2D content into 3D.

I would be intereste to talk more.

Regards,
Douglas Hunter

[harmil2]

I am of a certain age...I remember 3D movies when they came out in the 1950's. I especially remember watching a spectacular version of Hondo, starring John Wayne. It was shot in technicolor and used polarized glasses, not the red and green ones that were used for black&white, usually scifi "B" movies. The biggest negative for me was not headaches, poor implementation, ext., but the fact that I already wore prescription glasses and adding the 3D glasses not only didn't look "hip," but were uncomfortable, smudged up, and just not worth the experience. Hopefully someone will figure out something that works better if 3D comes back with glasses...a lot of folks wear prescription glass after all. Otherwise promoters will loose a lot of viewers right up front.