Look Ma 3D With No Glasses

BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
Not sure who has actually seen an autostereoscopic display, but the ones I have seen range from poor to crap.

Infocomm was busting at the seams with 3D, and autostereoscopic was definitely a technology very much on display. Samsung and others had it going on, but their setups would fall into the 'crap' category. Perhaps 200 lines of resolution, definitely worse than NTSC television, with text completely illegible unless it was about a 100pt type or larger. Really lousy. Their primary target and ability would be for digital signage. Something to really attract a passerby to view. A big Mountain Dew can jumping off the screen as you pass by. It was cool to see, but worthless for viewing.

On the other hand...
These guys:
http://www.alioscopyusa.com/content/displays
had an entire corner dedicated to autostereoscopic 3D solutions and they were a significant cut above the rest. Their monitors were running a great deal of different and unique software and their viewing angles were about 5 times or more than what everyone else had. They had legible text down to smaller font sizes and generally looked bad. HUH? Yeah, no matter how you cut it the cross talk from the two images was pretty severe and while the 3D effect was real, it was still a very soft image that was fuzzy around the edges. I would imagine that it was at least half resolution, or less, but way better than the digital signage versions.

There were also 'sweet spots' for viewing on these things. Not just left/right, but distance related. As you got closer or further, the exactness of the 3D effect was dramatically improved or worsened. Hardly ideal for the typical family room setup - or any other 'home' setup.

Not sure why Toshiba is getting any press on this.
AND - after their HD DVD fiasco followed shortly by their SRT release, it is amazing that anyone cares about what Toshiba has to say anymore or even entertains their rumors.

Autostereoscopic is not even close with the way I have seen it so far.

I'm far more impressed with Sonys (and others) active 3D displays which can use passive glasses. It's half 1080p resolution (right now), but the lack of shutter glasses is far better I believe. They need to get those displays to drop in price significantly and people will be flocking to them I believe.
 
Ares

Ares

Audioholic Samurai
Sony has weighed in on the matter and it looks like we might have a repeat of the format wars, but this outcome is still unknown. According to an NPR news article Sony has announced they are working on glasses-free 3D. So I guess the next question is who's next to join the race?

I personally have no desire for a 3DTV, also it give's my wife a headache which is my job by the way.:D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Well, if it looks great, I'll support it.

That's the main thing.

I can't stand those 3D glasses.
 
Ares

Ares

Audioholic Samurai
This is EXACTLY how I feel.

But I still want a holodeck :)
If an when that happens I know what they will call it True 3D, I feel like the may be rushing things a bit since 3D TV's just hit the market and now here we are talking about 3D minus the glasses I think they need to slow down and workout all the bugs of the current tech before coming out with "the next big thing in tv tech". It's funny Tv's have been around for what 70-80 years and for most of that time we all had SD tube Tv's with out much change then within the last what 5 years we have gone from SD to HD to 3D and now 3D without glasses.
 
Warpdrv

Warpdrv

Audioholic Ninja
What a freakin Joke....

All these companies go full on to adopt the hyperbole of 3d and realize that more consumers then not wouldn't be interested in wearing 3D glasses so now they have to back peddle with even more cr@p....

Color me BUSY !!!!! 3D is just not going to take off like they hoped - hmmmm not much different then 20 years ago.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
What a freakin Joke....

All these companies go full on to adopt the hyperbole of 3d and realize that more consumers then not wouldn't be interested in wearing 3D glasses so now they have to back peddle with even more cr@p....

Color me BUSY !!!!! 3D is just not going to take off like they hoped - hmmmm not much different then 20 years ago.
I will never understand the general blunt hatred of people towards a new technology they don't ever have to use if they don't want to.

It's like pissing about an iPhone when you own a Android phone. Stop whining when nobody is going to force it down your throat and let those who actually DO enjoy 3D enjoy it without the whining. It almost seems like a religion or politics discussion with some people.

This is nothing like the 3D of a generation back. The active shutter glasses provide an image that is spectacular in combination with 1080p technology to deliver accurate color with HD resolution unlike anything that has ever been available to the home market - ever.

Yes, active glasses aren't like passive glasses, but glasses free solutions are lousy - read again: LOUSY! You don't get 3D without two images, and you can't deliver two image with any current technology that doesn't look really bad. If a $20,000 commercial display can't do it, nobody else is going to be doing it for consumers anytime soon.

But, if you do enjoy 3D, then there are finally some great home options available which nobody has seen ever before.

The best part is - if you don't like it, then you don't use it. Kind of a magical thing to be able to turn things off when you don't want to use them.
 
Warpdrv

Warpdrv

Audioholic Ninja
I voiced my opinion, which is what this forum is all about, if you don't like my opinion there is no need to comment about it then either...

I didn't tell anyone not to use it.....
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
I voiced my opinion, which is what this forum is all about, if you don't like my opinion there is no need to comment about it then either...

I didn't tell anyone not to use it.....
Actually, you said it wasn't much different than 20 years ago, which is a long way from the truth and what the majority of my response was about.

The general b1tching by people who don't want to wear glasses and aren't interested is their choice, but excuse me for calling out their (and your) whining as extremely lame on a site dedicated to A/V technologies. Sure you are entitled, but seriously, its like complaining about someone elses car... sometimes it's just better not to.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
... It's funny Tv's have been around for what 70-80 years and for most of that time we all had SD tube Tv's with out much change then within the last what 5 years we have gone from SD to HD to 3D and now 3D without glasses.
There were quite a few changes in TV technology over the years. Aside from going from B&W to color (that is a dramatic change), they also went from round picture tubes to ones that more closely matched the actual broadcast format, with eventually flat fronts to the screens on high end models instead of rounded. They also went from being full of tubes and being terribly unreliable to being solid state (except for the picture tube). I remember having to turn on a TV about 10 minutes before wanting to watch it so that it would "warm up" and stabilize. During those first few minutes, it was pointless to adjust the set, as things were in a state of flux and constantly changing.

Also, people used to have to "fine tune" channels rather than just switching to them; the older people will know what this means. Vertical hold and horizontal hold controls were also necessary, which will probably be meaningless to the young whippersnappers reading this. Basically, in order to get a picture at all that you could watch, you would have to fiddle with several knobs. And after you got it right, you might have to get up again in the middle of your program to readjust them because you lost the picture. And, of course, you would have to get up, as there were no remote controls in the early days, and remotes were expensive in the 1970's (and didn't have those sorts of controls on the remotes anyway).

Thinking about this makes me really glad about all of the improvements in TVs that have taken place over the years. You really do not want a TV from the 1950's.

A couple of other changes: Early on, they got rid of channel 1, and later added UHF frequencies.

My brother went to electronics school in the 1970's, and for a project, he repaired a TV from the 1950's that was very high end (supposedly retailed for about $1000 in 1950's money!!!!), a color set that had a picture about the size of a modern 27" TV, but with severely rounded corners (it had a round picture tube), new enough to not have channel 1, but old enough not to have VHF. It was a huge thing, with two way speakers, one woofer and with two tweeters aimed at an angle to disperse the sound in the room (it was the best sounding TV I have ever heard). I don't know if it was because he never got it right, or was this way from the beginning, but B&W shows were more brown and white, giving a sepia tone to the picture, that I thought was very pleasant, particularly for westerns, as it made it look like old fashioned photographs. But of course it was not getting the B&W right.

Another change was adding stereo to TV broadcasts, which enabled people eventually to have Dolby Pro Logic from their broadcasts, instead of the original mono sound. So it is not just a change in picture that occurred before HD.

The more I think of it, the less significant a change HD seems to me. The difference between a modest TV just before HD and a 50 year old TV (even a high end model) is vast. If you were forced to live with one of each, you would instantly know that there was a night and day difference between two such TVs. Using an HDTV is very much like using a TV from just before HD. But you would be quite unprepared to deal with a 50 year old set if you practiced with a TV from just before HDTV and had no experience with what had come before.
 
H

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Format wars are fine if they occur before the products come to market but a lot of people end up with useless equipment when they buy the one that lost the battle, regardless of whether it's actually the better format. IMO, it's better to come up with the best format in terms of quality, lack of issues and ease of use without causing people to have seizures than rush things to market just to sell more boxes.

I went to an open house for an AV distributor last week and we were talking about what happens if someone invites a large number of people to a 3D movie night. Most likely, a good percentage will have the wrong glasses or the ones they have that may be correct, may not synch properly.

Is that a successful product? I don't think so. When people think LCD TVs look better and they still have all kinds of blur reproducing fast action scenes and need high refresh rate just to look similar to plasma, there's no way one 3D format will be agreed upon any time soon.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
Is that a successful product? I don't think so. When people think LCD TVs look better and they still have all kinds of blur reproducing fast action scenes and need high refresh rate just to look similar to plasma, there's no way one 3D format will be agreed upon any time soon.
There is a lot of confusion from people who are only getting part of the information on 3D at this time.

In the next year or two you are likely to see 'universal' glasses which will sync up with almost every display on the market. Xpand, the major glasses manufacturer for theaters, is working on this tech and actually expects it this year, but giving them an extra year or two to work out the bugs I think is 'polite'.

Likewise, there is only one BD 3D standard and there is a standard for cable/DSS 3D, and there is a standard for the nVidia card. There are basically 3 major 3D formats. For HD, we have 720p, 1080i, 1080p/60, and 1080p/24. That's FOUR different formats.

They aren't competing really, they are just different in much the same way that HD signal transmissions can be different. Do you really think the solution is going to be any different? Of course it won't be. Give it a year or so (if you are worried) and there will be processing on a single chip which will handle all the major 3D flavors that are out there and there will be universal glasses available.

Likewise, what I found to be one of the best looking presentations of 3D was the passive displays which are available from a number of manufacturers including Sony. It's half 1080p resolution at this time, but uses the same glasses you get in theaters. Cheap glasses... expensive display!
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
I will never understand the general blunt hatred of people towards a new technology they don't ever have to use if they don't want to.

It's like pissing about an iPhone when you own a Android phone. Stop whining when nobody is going to force it down your throat and let those who actually DO enjoy 3D enjoy it without the whining. It almost seems like a religion or politics discussion with some people.

This is nothing like the 3D of a generation back. The active shutter glasses provide an image that is spectacular in combination with 1080p technology to deliver accurate color with HD resolution unlike anything that has ever been available to the home market - ever.

Yes, active glasses aren't like passive glasses, but glasses free solutions are lousy - read again: LOUSY! You don't get 3D without two images, and you can't deliver two image with any current technology that doesn't look really bad. If a $20,000 commercial display can't do it, nobody else is going to be doing it for consumers anytime soon.

But, if you do enjoy 3D, then there are finally some great home options available which nobody has seen ever before.

The best part is - if you don't like it, then you don't use it. Kind of a magical thing to be able to turn things off when you don't want to use them.
i think 3D is cool, but i will not even contemplate a 3D TV until format wars are over.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
i think 3D is cool, but i will not even contemplate a 3D TV until format wars are over.
There is no format war. I don't know why you are saying that.

Blu-ray uses frame packing, DirecTV uses side-by-side, and nVidia outputs frame sequential.

There is no reason any TV you buy in the future can't support all three of these standards easily just as any TV you buy today supports all HD resolutions.

Yes, I would suggest people wait a year or two as 3D has JUST come to market as a product and has some bugs to deal with, but if anyone thinks this is much different than HDTV coming to market or Blu-ray coming to market, or almost any new tech, they are kidding themselves. Nope, it isn't perfect, and 3D has some very significant hurdles to deal with along the way.

The 3 major formats are not one of those issues really.

A good read: http://www.projectorcentral.com/what_does_3d_ready_mean.htm
 
Ares

Ares

Audioholic Samurai
There were quite a few changes in TV technology over the years. Aside from going from B&W to color (that is a dramatic change), they also went from round picture tubes to ones that more closely matched the actual broadcast format, with eventually flat fronts to the screens on high end models instead of rounded. They also went from being full of tubes and being terribly unreliable to being solid state (except for the picture tube). I remember having to turn on a TV about 10 minutes before wanting to watch it so that it would "warm up" and stabilize. During those first few minutes, it was pointless to adjust the set, as things were in a state of flux and constantly changing.

Also, people used to have to "fine tune" channels rather than just switching to them; the older people will know what this means. Vertical hold and horizontal hold controls were also necessary, which will probably be meaningless to the young whippersnappers reading this. Basically, in order to get a picture at all that you could watch, you would have to fiddle with several knobs. And after you got it right, you might have to get up again in the middle of your program to readjust them because you lost the picture. And, of course, you would have to get up, as there were no remote controls in the early days, and remotes were expensive in the 1970's (and didn't have those sorts of controls on the remotes anyway).

Thinking about this makes me really glad about all of the improvements in TVs that have taken place over the years. You really do not want a TV from the 1950's.

A couple of other changes: Early on, they got rid of channel 1, and later added UHF frequencies.

My brother went to electronics school in the 1970's, and for a project, he repaired a TV from the 1950's that was very high end (supposedly retailed for about $1000 in 1950's money!!!!), a color set that had a picture about the size of a modern 27" TV, but with severely rounded corners (it had a round picture tube), new enough to not have channel 1, but old enough not to have VHF. It was a huge thing, with two way speakers, one woofer and with two tweeters aimed at an angle to disperse the sound in the room (it was the best sounding TV I have ever heard). I don't know if it was because he never got it right, or was this way from the beginning, but B&W shows were more brown and white, giving a sepia tone to the picture, that I thought was very pleasant, particularly for westerns, as it made it look like old fashioned photographs. But of course it was not getting the B&W right.

Another change was adding stereo to TV broadcasts, which enabled people eventually to have Dolby Pro Logic from their broadcasts, instead of the original mono sound. So it is not just a change in picture that occurred before HD.

The more I think of it, the less significant a change HD seems to me. The difference between a modest TV just before HD and a 50 year old TV (even a high end model) is vast. If you were forced to live with one of each, you would instantly know that there was a night and day difference between two such TVs. Using an HDTV is very much like using a TV from just before HD. But you would be quite unprepared to deal with a 50 year old set if you practiced with a TV from just before HDTV and had no experience with what had come before.
I will admit I never had to deal with a TV from the 50's but have experienced models from the 70's which is an experience I don't wish to go through again. I know there has been changes over the years to the sets but I should have been clear about what I was trying to say. Since the transition from SD to HD and with the arrival of 3D many of the average consumers feel "look I just bought a new TV I'm not going to buy a new 3D just because you offer it".

Many not all are still upset at the fact they where forced to switch from good old SD to HD, I know they could have bought a converter box for $60 but many feel they shouldn't have to pay for something they may have never wanted in the first place.

I talked with some of my family and they ask is this 3DTV thing going to mandatory my response was no it's an option if you want it you can get it if not don't worry about. The response I got caught me by surprise "They said the same thing about HDTV too and look where we are at now" I can't say this is what all of the average consumers are thinking but I wonder what is the percentage of them that have this same thought.
 
Last edited:
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
I'm thinking that all my TV's work great. When one breaks, or I find a need for another, I'll see what's available then. Till then, I'll just keep reading about all the updates.
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
I'm thinking that all my TV's work great. When one breaks, or I find a need for another, I'll see what's available then. Till then, I'll just keep reading about all the updates.
This is the mentality that I wish more people would convey. 3D certainly is 'nifty', but it's not at all like the huge quality jump that HDTV delivered, or the revolution from CRTs to flat panels. This is just like a new Widget for your TV. It may be nifty to some, it may be stupid to others, but eventually it is likely to be on almost all TVs sold.

One of the best parts of the BD specification as I understand it, is that 3D Blu-ray Discs are encoded in such a way that you get the full (and perfect) 2D film as well as the 3D extension to that film. The disc will play in a 2D player fine and then can be used in 3D players as well. This means that if someone is interested, they can just buy a 3D Blu-ray title and enjoy it in their 2D player until they decide to upgrade or something breaks.

There seem to be a lot of people who get enough information to be dangerous, but not enough people who just take the attitude - "I'm not buying yet, I don't have to, I don't want to... I'll wait and see what happens."

I'm in that category, and if I buy anything it is likely to be a 3D capable projector to pair with my PS3. But, I will buy it to replace my current projector, not to just get a simple upgrade. It won't be a price hit really unless glasses start going way UP in price. Not likely!

Really, people can get the Samsung 46" TV, with 2 pairs of glasses and a 3D Blu-ray player for under $2,000 pretty easily. This is a good looking flat panel for day-to-day viewing and a 'bonus' of 3D. Not exactly cheap, but a long way from the prices that 46" flat panels were just 10 years ago.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top