The auto-stereoscopic (glasses-free) 3DTV technology is usually criticized by many in the press, especially those that have only seen the first generations of prototypes. The negative comments are mainly about the limited number of viewing positions, the low resolution of the image on each viewing zone (eye) and the disruption of the 3D effect when changing positions.
Auto-stereoscopic panels of today are...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/03/glassesfree-autostereoscopic-3dtv-when.php]Read Article[/url]
Glasses-Free (Auto-stereoscopic) 3DTV - When?
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
You lost me at:
"For those reasons I understand many may feel that it could take several years for auto-stereoscopic 3DTVs to be available at nationwide retail chains at competitive pricing that is comparable to current glasses-required 3DTVs . . . "
I seriously doubt lower price would trump the inferior viewing experience. Current 3D TV is a hard sell even when working perfectly because of the glasses requirement and the eyestrain that occurs when you're focusing on an object that only appears to be where you're focusing. The main problem with auto-stereoscopic 3D is it requires your head to be held steadily in one position to get the effect. (Imagine doing that for two hours!) There are head-tracking systems that eliminate that restraint, but that limits the number of possible viewers to one.
The danger here is that multiple 3D TV concepts, some of which work badly at best, will sour the entire market.
IMHO what we really need is an inexpensive way to do 3D holograms. (As a side note, I was amused when Star Wars showed future holographic TV as performing at only low resolution, rightly anticipating the massive holographic data stream required.)
"For those reasons I understand many may feel that it could take several years for auto-stereoscopic 3DTVs to be available at nationwide retail chains at competitive pricing that is comparable to current glasses-required 3DTVs . . . "
I seriously doubt lower price would trump the inferior viewing experience. Current 3D TV is a hard sell even when working perfectly because of the glasses requirement and the eyestrain that occurs when you're focusing on an object that only appears to be where you're focusing. The main problem with auto-stereoscopic 3D is it requires your head to be held steadily in one position to get the effect. (Imagine doing that for two hours!) There are head-tracking systems that eliminate that restraint, but that limits the number of possible viewers to one.
The danger here is that multiple 3D TV concepts, some of which work badly at best, will sour the entire market.
IMHO what we really need is an inexpensive way to do 3D holograms. (As a side note, I was amused when Star Wars showed future holographic TV as performing at only low resolution, rightly anticipating the massive holographic data stream required.)
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
You did not say where you got lost on the quoted paragraph.
I repeat, one thing is the readiness of auto-stereoscopic for retail at a competitive price, which as I said it will take time; but another thing is the readiness as a technology without the problems seen in most prototypes, which will take much less time, and judging by 3DFusion not for too long, they are doing it now for digital signage and working on it for the home.
The quality issues you mention were mentioned in the article and my recommendation to you is the same I did at the end of the article: visit technology advances in Asia (i.e. Taiwan’s AUO) and other parts of the world, visit 3DFusion in NYC, or visit a 3D show where they may show their technology, then you will realize that generalizing about those problems across the industry is not accurate.
On the next articles I cover the subject of multiple technologies you mention (and I disagree with your statement), and how I consider 3D as just a feature of an HDTV for now, but mainly as one innovation step toward a future display technology; holography could be part of it, although the prototypes I have seen showed the current limitations on how to record the multiple volumetric views and how to display them, in a practical manner, for other than digital signage of simple objects for advertising.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
I repeat, one thing is the readiness of auto-stereoscopic for retail at a competitive price, which as I said it will take time; but another thing is the readiness as a technology without the problems seen in most prototypes, which will take much less time, and judging by 3DFusion not for too long, they are doing it now for digital signage and working on it for the home.
The quality issues you mention were mentioned in the article and my recommendation to you is the same I did at the end of the article: visit technology advances in Asia (i.e. Taiwan’s AUO) and other parts of the world, visit 3DFusion in NYC, or visit a 3D show where they may show their technology, then you will realize that generalizing about those problems across the industry is not accurate.
On the next articles I cover the subject of multiple technologies you mention (and I disagree with your statement), and how I consider 3D as just a feature of an HDTV for now, but mainly as one innovation step toward a future display technology; holography could be part of it, although the prototypes I have seen showed the current limitations on how to record the multiple volumetric views and how to display them, in a practical manner, for other than digital signage of simple objects for advertising.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
3D TV's Achilles Heel
I'm sure there are TVs out there now that address many of the problems I've mentioned, but there's one problem with 3D TV that can never be solved because of its very nature. This isn't a trivial problem, and in my estimation it could very well kill the whole concept. The problem occurs when the eyes are focusing on an image that isn't actually in the position you've tricked the brain to think it is. (It isn't nice to fool mother nature.) James Cameron partially solved this problem by putting the object that would normally be focused on in the plane of the screen and, of course, that can be done with TV also. But that's only a band-aid solution that reduces the resulting eye-strain but does not eliminate it. As much I like the idea of 3D TV, for this reason I'm afraid this problem could very well be a time-bomb that could sink the entire concept until the day holography becomes affordable.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Your position seems to endorse the idea that the CE industry and the consumers must sit on the current HD technology for decades and do nothing until holography is made practical and economical for the home.
3DTV is only one step between those two points, and the step permits the industry and consumers to adapt and learn from the lessons and mistakes to take the following step and improve upon. There is no sense in holding all the evolving steps in a lab for decades until holography arrives.
As a consumer you are free to ignore all the in between products and patiently wait until such time, if you are still alive, I do not. Other consumers rather take every step as a good opportunity to gradually replace the various TVs at home when they are due for replacement, others may ignore some of those steps if their TVs do not need replacement at such points and there is no motivation to spend on unneeded sets.
Cameron used depth with caution to make the 3D experience a pleasure rather than risking discomfort. The issue of the variation between the focus point and the convergence point, which does not occur on viewing real life (although with certain exceptions), is “part” of the reason some viewers claimed fatigue or visual discomfort, but at least 80% of the viewers were satisfied with the 3D experience.
However, some issues can be produced by vision problems a person naturally has and was undetected until 3D was shown to them, which could also explain learning disabilities, work limitations for certain jobs such as assembly lines, medical, surgery, astronaut, etc., and 3D may provide a beneficial tool to help people identify those problems and improve their way of life, not as just an entertainment objective.
I attended yesterday a Symposium by the American Optometrist Association and 3D @ Home Consortium in NYC where they joined efforts to help the public with science and facts about 3D and vision health, rather than uninformed negativism.
http://displaydaily.com/2011/03/16/aoa- ... on-health/
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
3DTV is only one step between those two points, and the step permits the industry and consumers to adapt and learn from the lessons and mistakes to take the following step and improve upon. There is no sense in holding all the evolving steps in a lab for decades until holography arrives.
As a consumer you are free to ignore all the in between products and patiently wait until such time, if you are still alive, I do not. Other consumers rather take every step as a good opportunity to gradually replace the various TVs at home when they are due for replacement, others may ignore some of those steps if their TVs do not need replacement at such points and there is no motivation to spend on unneeded sets.
Cameron used depth with caution to make the 3D experience a pleasure rather than risking discomfort. The issue of the variation between the focus point and the convergence point, which does not occur on viewing real life (although with certain exceptions), is “part” of the reason some viewers claimed fatigue or visual discomfort, but at least 80% of the viewers were satisfied with the 3D experience.
However, some issues can be produced by vision problems a person naturally has and was undetected until 3D was shown to them, which could also explain learning disabilities, work limitations for certain jobs such as assembly lines, medical, surgery, astronaut, etc., and 3D may provide a beneficial tool to help people identify those problems and improve their way of life, not as just an entertainment objective.
I attended yesterday a Symposium by the American Optometrist Association and 3D @ Home Consortium in NYC where they joined efforts to help the public with science and facts about 3D and vision health, rather than uninformed negativism.
http://displaydaily.com/2011/03/16/aoa- ... on-health/
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
Back Up Your Claims
You admit there is a problem and then claim most people will be satisfied and scientific objections are merely negativism? As I explained, current 3D methodology subjects the hunan eye and brain to conditions that it has not evolved to process. That alone should ring some alarm bells. It's true personal discomfort will vary dependent on viewing time and the skill and methodology of the producer. As I mentioned, James Cameron's specific methodology seemed to work well for most people in the context of a two-hour movie. But 3D over long periods of time such as that expected in viewing a television set is almost certainly a disaster waiting to happen.
However I have an open mind. If you want to refute this objection, please list scientific, peer-reviewed papers that support your conjecture. Articles written by people who are not scientists and especially those with connections to the business of television need not apply. Name calling is even less convincing.
However I have an open mind. If you want to refute this objection, please list scientific, peer-reviewed papers that support your conjecture. Articles written by people who are not scientists and especially those with connections to the business of television need not apply. Name calling is even less convincing.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
I do not think you are reading with a clear mind either the series of articles or the posts.
I said clearly that there are issues 5-20% of people claimed when viewing 3DTV or 3D at the local theater. The “ring the bell” you mentioned is an event that already happened and I provided a link to the Symposium that addressed this particular issue on the post right before this one, are you reading?
Most of the information out there is not based on scientific research. Companies like LG Display claimed they did research at CES 2011 for their switch from active-shutter to passive glasses but the research did not conclude that 3DTV was to be generally avoided for daily 3DTV viewing, and I also reported and shown the posters of their findings on my other articles on this series:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... scopic.php
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... fected.php
Particularly this one that deals with the health issues:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... or-you.php
The Symposium above declared that they will perform research and public education/tests on theaters and TVs for people to self-identify if they have a problem and go to the doctor to determine if they have a vision/health problem that 3D brought to surface (and 3DTV may actually be the lesser of their problems).
This is why the 3D & Home Consortium established the joined effort with the American Optometrist Association, and the Team 5 of the consortium was formed to exclusively address the vision/heath issues of 3DTV, which is lead by a professionally-life-long-expert from Intel about the subject.
Instead of me providing again all the information that is already published and you can read, why don’t you provide scientific information that proves that daily viewing of 3DTV is not scientifically/factually healthy for the majority of the population and because of that 3DTV should be discontinued?
Your position (“almost certainly a disaster”, as you said) is based on your personal opinion and perception that convergence/focus disparity causes a generalized problem to the whole population. My position continuous to be that issues have been identified (reportedly by 5-10% of viewers) regardless of the 3D glasses they use, some of those were found to have natural vision problems that 3D fortunately brought to the surface (not caused), and due to that the scientific/research steps mentioned above have started.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
I said clearly that there are issues 5-20% of people claimed when viewing 3DTV or 3D at the local theater. The “ring the bell” you mentioned is an event that already happened and I provided a link to the Symposium that addressed this particular issue on the post right before this one, are you reading?
Most of the information out there is not based on scientific research. Companies like LG Display claimed they did research at CES 2011 for their switch from active-shutter to passive glasses but the research did not conclude that 3DTV was to be generally avoided for daily 3DTV viewing, and I also reported and shown the posters of their findings on my other articles on this series:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... scopic.php
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... fected.php
Particularly this one that deals with the health issues:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... or-you.php
The Symposium above declared that they will perform research and public education/tests on theaters and TVs for people to self-identify if they have a problem and go to the doctor to determine if they have a vision/health problem that 3D brought to surface (and 3DTV may actually be the lesser of their problems).
This is why the 3D & Home Consortium established the joined effort with the American Optometrist Association, and the Team 5 of the consortium was formed to exclusively address the vision/heath issues of 3DTV, which is lead by a professionally-life-long-expert from Intel about the subject.
Instead of me providing again all the information that is already published and you can read, why don’t you provide scientific information that proves that daily viewing of 3DTV is not scientifically/factually healthy for the majority of the population and because of that 3DTV should be discontinued?
Your position (“almost certainly a disaster”, as you said) is based on your personal opinion and perception that convergence/focus disparity causes a generalized problem to the whole population. My position continuous to be that issues have been identified (reportedly by 5-10% of viewers) regardless of the 3D glasses they use, some of those were found to have natural vision problems that 3D fortunately brought to the surface (not caused), and due to that the scientific/research steps mentioned above have started.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
stevekaden
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:20 pm
I'm wondering when we evolved to watch 3d simulations on 2d surfaces (any non-3d movie or TV), or even to read on a flat surface? Given that the former has only been around for about 100 years and the latter about 500 (since Guttenberg) we have not had time to evolve to either. And both can tire the eyes - especially when either is poorly done. And both are tricking the brain to focus on a fixed plane when naturally we focus and converge in a constant dynamic (not fixing the eye muscles on the one plane).
No I am not so naieve to have missed the lessor percentage issue of people who do not adjust to 3d (I have not read the AOA article so I will stop here).
Now, for a real question - would, or does holographic projection prevent the 3d issue? In my first thoughts, it would seem that the light is not focused in space, it only appears to be. It is actually emanating from the surface (or depth of the thin holograph's material) Thus even a holograph would present the same issue - the focal plane is flat. I will go research.
No I am not so naieve to have missed the lessor percentage issue of people who do not adjust to 3d (I have not read the AOA article so I will stop here).
Now, for a real question - would, or does holographic projection prevent the 3d issue? In my first thoughts, it would seem that the light is not focused in space, it only appears to be. It is actually emanating from the surface (or depth of the thin holograph's material) Thus even a holograph would present the same issue - the focal plane is flat. I will go research.
-
dabhome
- Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:22 am
3D Viewing
I have worked in the field of 3D viewing for over 10 years. In that time, I have made a couple of annodotal observations. More research should be done.
1. 3D viewing gets easier and less stressful the longer you are exposed to it. As others have pointed out the focus plane (the screen) and where the object is located are different. Our brain is used to modifying the eye muscles to focus in at the depth of the object. At first this can be stressful and some people have trouble with it. However, over time the brain seems to adapt and 3D becomes less stressful.
2. About 20% of people have difficulty with 3D viewing. Some people see it, but don't like it. Some people have depth perception problems in real life. Some get around this by moving there head. However, this doesn't work with today's 3D viewing. Some people have problems seperating focus from location. It is not clear if these people can be trained in 3D viewing.
3. 3D should not be the focus of the material. The focus should be on the story you are telling. 3D just enhances the story, just like sounds, music, cinematography, special effects, etc. do.
1. 3D viewing gets easier and less stressful the longer you are exposed to it. As others have pointed out the focus plane (the screen) and where the object is located are different. Our brain is used to modifying the eye muscles to focus in at the depth of the object. At first this can be stressful and some people have trouble with it. However, over time the brain seems to adapt and 3D becomes less stressful.
2. About 20% of people have difficulty with 3D viewing. Some people see it, but don't like it. Some people have depth perception problems in real life. Some get around this by moving there head. However, this doesn't work with today's 3D viewing. Some people have problems seperating focus from location. It is not clear if these people can be trained in 3D viewing.
3. 3D should not be the focus of the material. The focus should be on the story you are telling. 3D just enhances the story, just like sounds, music, cinematography, special effects, etc. do.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Thanks for your input Dabhome,
Good timing, most of your observations were mentioned by the doctors on the 3D Vision and Health Symposium I attended last week at SUNNY College of Optometry.
Some additional factors that were mentioned is that viewing 3D can also help determine if the eye muscles are operating as they should, many vision deficiencies could be corrected if addressed on time, but unfortunately many others cannot after the window of correction closes.
For example, only 7% of children younger than 7 years of age were subjected to eye exams. The majority of exams people take pass as healthy when they are not (I believe that number was about 75% of false success).
The overall consensus of the Optometrist presentations is that the system is broken and 3D viewing can and should be used as an opportunity that can let people identify issues that could bring them to the Dr. when otherwise they would not, as simple as asking someone if they view depth on a 3D image test.
3 to 9 million people that experienced 3D were identified to have health issue problems, and a vast majority of people do not check their vision because they feel they do not have problems with it.
I touched this subject with the lead presenter (the Dr. that will actually perform further research on 3D), I told him that my view on this is that the sample has to be extended, the 9 million people may be the 20% (of about 40 million) that may have experienced 3D, but the sample covers about 10% of the US population (40 of about 350 million).
I asked him to consider evaluating if the 20% ratio will grow (or reduce) when the other 300 million in the US that did not yet experience 3D actually do (at home or at the theater). After witnessing the presentations by these doctors my primary concern is not about 3D as a feature on a TV, but actually about so many millions of people that have abandoned their vision when 80% of the human learning is related to vision and they do not know they have a problem.
Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri are the only 3 states that require eye exams for children entering school. Many children are treated with prescription drugs for reading/learning/attention disabilities when the source of the problem could actually be vision related, and 3D could help them and their parents identify issues informally on their own, which could trigger a doctor’s visit and an opportunity to hopefully correct the problems on time and enhance their quality of life.
Regarding holography, one of the doctors briefly mentioned that the issue of disparity of points of convergence and focus that makes the brain and eye muscles to work differently in 3D viewing (than real life objects viewing) is not believed to be existing in holography, but more research is needed.
Another front they are planning to open (to bring more people to test their vision) is to work with the health insurance industry to include vision exams as part of their plans.
I agree with you about the use of 3D for story-telling and not using 3D as a show off tool to sell movie tickets. Along those lines one of the presenters said that imaging 5 to 20 feet away should be used as sweet spot to avoid forcing the extreme viewing of the content. I do not have handy the details of Cameron’s Avatar filming technique but judging by the mild 3D effect on the movie I would assume he was within those parameters.
If I am still alive by the time holography becomes a practical consumer product I will probably be covering the subject as I am doing with 3D over the past couple of years (and HD since the 80s).
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Good timing, most of your observations were mentioned by the doctors on the 3D Vision and Health Symposium I attended last week at SUNNY College of Optometry.
Some additional factors that were mentioned is that viewing 3D can also help determine if the eye muscles are operating as they should, many vision deficiencies could be corrected if addressed on time, but unfortunately many others cannot after the window of correction closes.
For example, only 7% of children younger than 7 years of age were subjected to eye exams. The majority of exams people take pass as healthy when they are not (I believe that number was about 75% of false success).
The overall consensus of the Optometrist presentations is that the system is broken and 3D viewing can and should be used as an opportunity that can let people identify issues that could bring them to the Dr. when otherwise they would not, as simple as asking someone if they view depth on a 3D image test.
3 to 9 million people that experienced 3D were identified to have health issue problems, and a vast majority of people do not check their vision because they feel they do not have problems with it.
I touched this subject with the lead presenter (the Dr. that will actually perform further research on 3D), I told him that my view on this is that the sample has to be extended, the 9 million people may be the 20% (of about 40 million) that may have experienced 3D, but the sample covers about 10% of the US population (40 of about 350 million).
I asked him to consider evaluating if the 20% ratio will grow (or reduce) when the other 300 million in the US that did not yet experience 3D actually do (at home or at the theater). After witnessing the presentations by these doctors my primary concern is not about 3D as a feature on a TV, but actually about so many millions of people that have abandoned their vision when 80% of the human learning is related to vision and they do not know they have a problem.
Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri are the only 3 states that require eye exams for children entering school. Many children are treated with prescription drugs for reading/learning/attention disabilities when the source of the problem could actually be vision related, and 3D could help them and their parents identify issues informally on their own, which could trigger a doctor’s visit and an opportunity to hopefully correct the problems on time and enhance their quality of life.
Regarding holography, one of the doctors briefly mentioned that the issue of disparity of points of convergence and focus that makes the brain and eye muscles to work differently in 3D viewing (than real life objects viewing) is not believed to be existing in holography, but more research is needed.
Another front they are planning to open (to bring more people to test their vision) is to work with the health insurance industry to include vision exams as part of their plans.
I agree with you about the use of 3D for story-telling and not using 3D as a show off tool to sell movie tickets. Along those lines one of the presenters said that imaging 5 to 20 feet away should be used as sweet spot to avoid forcing the extreme viewing of the content. I do not have handy the details of Cameron’s Avatar filming technique but judging by the mild 3D effect on the movie I would assume he was within those parameters.
If I am still alive by the time holography becomes a practical consumer product I will probably be covering the subject as I am doing with 3D over the past couple of years (and HD since the 80s).
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra