Toshiba To Launch No-Glasses 3D TV This Year 218
angry tapir writes "Toshiba is readying two 3D televisions that can produce images with the illusion of depth but don't require the user to wear glasses, the company said Monday. It will launch the televisions in Japan in December. Toshiba will offer a 12-inch model and a 20-inch model. They'll cost around ¥120,000 (US$1,430) and ¥240,000 respectively. Toshiba's new TVs have a thin sheet of small lenses in front of the display. This splits light from the screen and sends it to nine points in front of the TV."
I saw Avatar the other day (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's really late, but I finally saw Avatar the other day. Of course, I had to watch it in 2D since my home TV is not 3D enabled. You can really tell where they were using 3D for the sake of 3D.
If we use technology only to show off technology, we can't expect anything interesting to come of it.
It must have a raisin detre.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I want raisins, I buy Raisin Bran.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds raisinable to me.
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:4, Funny)
Now I leave Slashdot forever, for no raisin!
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes I like raisins, usually inside a cookie. Of course, in French raisin means grape, so you could also somehow be referring to wine.
Or maybe you meant "raison d'être."
For the record, I'm fine with either interpretation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Raisin Daters" is so damned stupid it's hilarious, as it is always is when someone tries to look smart and fucks it up.
Agreed, but look at his name: BadAnalogyGuy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only that, I was just reading a story at Ars about how Jon Landau believes everything should be 3D [arstechnica.com]. He calls out studios on hasty 3D conversions. I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black. His film had plenty of problems.
"Converting a movie from 2D to 3D is not a technical process. It is a creative process,"
You know what? After watching your flick at IMAX in 3D and halfway through wanting to leave with my headache, you're doing it wrong. As has been brought up before in previous Slashdot discussions, you can't get a proper 3D effect that will fool the brain with current technology.
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that, I was just reading a story at Ars about how Jon Landau believes everything should be 3D [arstechnica.com]. He calls out studios on hasty 3D conversions. I'd say the pot is calling the kettle black. His film had plenty of problems.
"Converting a movie from 2D to 3D is not a technical process. It is a creative process,"
You know what? After watching your flick at IMAX in 3D and halfway through wanting to leave with my headache, you're doing it wrong. As has been brought up before in previous Slashdot discussions, you can't get a proper 3D effect that will fool the brain with current technology. Stop trying to convert 2D films to 3D, especially for the point of being "OMG 3D" like parent mentioned.
The 3D effect worked decently well for me, better than I expected. There was one part of it that screwed with me though.
... until my eyes reached the actual boundary of the screen. Then the entire image would suddenly collapse back into a 2D picture until I again was looking more directly at the screen.
If I was looking more or less at the center of the screen, to the periphery it would appear (fairly convincingly) that certain objects were jutting out, past the boundary of the screen. Then I would sometimes attempt to follow those objects with my eyes and the illusion would continue
The 3D was far better than I was expecting, which wasn't much. It's still nothing like a true hologram where you could walk all the way around it and see it from many different angles. I couldn't even remain in my seat and move my eyes very far around it without dispelling the illusion. The headaches are something I did not experience but have heard often. I think that could be remedied by becoming conscious of whether you are straining your eyes in order to force a certain perception, as a setup like that might tempt you to do.
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the problems with current 3D. A lot of it could be solved by simply having all objects appear behind the screen (like looking out of a window) instead of trying to present them in front of it, but even then the temptation to move your head to see something just out of shot would not go away completely.
The other major issue is focus. In 3D if something is out of focus your eyes assume it is because they are not focusing on it and try to adjust. Of course because it is recorded that way they can't ever bring it into focus but keep straining to anyway, which is what gives you a headache.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The headaches come from the fact that your vision percieves depth more than just stereoscopically. The eye (at least in younger folks whose focusing lenses haven't hardened) also perceives depth by focus. Your brain can tell how far away an object is by how much effort the focusing muscles are exerting.
To varying degrees, depending on person, most vision is pretty much automatic, and your eyes' focus is tied to the parallax. In a 3D movie, the parallax is there, but not focus -- your eye is focused on the s
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology for the sake of technology has eventually lead to some really great things. How many people used computers for the sake of computers? Then, eventually, we slung together the Internet and flash video porn. That wouldn't have happened if people weren't using computers long before there was porn to be had.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://asciiporn.us/ [asciiporn.us]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you remember punch card porn?
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that all Commodore users had 5,25 inch floppies.
Jealous much?
And TRS80 [oldcomputers.net] had an 8 inch floppy.
But that's not a reason to be jealous, after-all there were all floppies - not hards, thus the size doesn't matter that much, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Of course, I had to watch it in 2D since my home TV is not 3D enabled.
Yo, you can't actually get 3D avatard for home use yet. For some reason the movie that was supposed to drive the 3D revolution hasn't had a 3D bluray outing. I think they probably figure they can re-release as 3D later on and cash in again.
Maybe it's not a fad but some practical joke? (Score:2)
What's really telling - Avatar had some in-setting "analogue print" photos. On a fridge (a better one, sure - one with a window, I'd like to see some consumer ones like that - but still a fridge). And the only screen really utilising 3D, in the setting of the film, never displayed recorded images, just (in setting) CGI imagery. Almost a parody of itself.
Would be hilarious if Cameron largely tries to push cheap 3D tech for some other purpose (doesn't he have physics background? Many research disciplines shou
Re: (Score:2)
When I watched it, I only saw 3D for the sake of entertainment. What higher cause is there in mindless blockbuster entertainment?
Re:I saw Avatar the other day (Score:4, Insightful)
When they film the scenes correctly your mind can easily reconstruct it to give you that 3D feel to it, without a lot of expensive technology.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't give the same feel of depth.
Sure, yes, you can perceive the third dimension in a 2D representation. If you couldn't then it would likely be painful or pointless to watch tv, look at photographs, anything like this. Stereoscopy is just one more trick (and not in any way a new one) that can suspend disbelief and make the images seem just a little bit more real and present.
If it doesn't work for you or if you just don't like it then fine, but the effect is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what about still photos? IMHO, they have far more to gain from stereoscopy, as they lack the motion cues.
The last consumer '3D' camera I saw was far back in the film days.
Why are there none here now? You don't need to worry about expensive processing, just view the photos on any 3D-ready TV or monitor.
Maybe one day still photography will be a bigger driver of 3D TV sales than Hollywood is.
Re: (Score:2)
What's more annoying... (Score:2)
(Of course given how much they are gouging per pair of glasses, there's a handicap built in there.)
Re: (Score:2)
... wearing glasses or paying 2500 dollars for a 20 inch screen???
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a third alternative: contact lenses.
You need a circular-polarising projector system, as used in cinemas, and matching contact lenses.
It does not matter if the lens rotates.
Now how do I get a patent for this?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.televisions.com/tv-news/No-joke-3D-contact-lenses.php [televisions.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly feel that the annoyance of putting in/taking out contact lenses is even comparable to just putting on a set of glasses?
Re: (Score:2)
Do not want (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.
Me too but sometimes I want to watch the pretty pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Movie trolls running wild? I can't say, but it sure seems like people only want...
Michael Bay - XplosionsX! For their plots.
Re: (Score:2)
who cares what it's all about
as long as the kids go
-Roger Waters
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
who cares what it's all about as long as the kids go
-Roger Waters
Sounds like every pointless Vietnam-style war we've fought over the last ten years.
Sorry, for a moment I forgot we were talking about movies and box office sales.
Re:Do not want (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?
Re:Do not want (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that by making a script complex, you limit your audience to those who are capable of surmising by themselves, instead of having opinions smashed into their face repeatedly with small words and diagrams. Yet, that's the type of people who would spend the money to sit with 300 people of questionable cleanliness eating overpriced popcorn and drinking
Re: (Score:2)
The TV manufacturers that are so desperate to sell us TVs that they push technology we don't really need or want, should also invest in TV production and distribution--by improving the quality of the shows, I might be inclined to upgrade my viewing device. As it is, I don't really need a 3D TV to watch Big Bang Theory.
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, I don't really need a 3D TV to watch Big Bang Theory.
Sure about that?
3D Penny right in your basement?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?
What 'Citizen Kane' really needed was some CGI. Then Welles could have made the movie he was really dreaming of, where Rosebud was shark with a frickin' laser on its head! What a let down.
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of having to wear glasses... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to pin point one of the 9 optimal viewing angles within a small margin of error and never move?
The inconvenience has simply shifted. Makes sense in the handheld world, but this seems a bit ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the design is such that 8/9 of the possible viewing positions show the right image. For a certain angle of positions you see images 1&2, then 2&3, then 3&4, etc. Eventually you see images 9&1 (which would be backwards) but as you continue moving your head you are back to 1&2.
The big problem with this design is that you need 9 different images, not just 2. Interpolating an existing pair will not work as the resulting image pairs will be with 1/8 the stereo effect between an adjac
Try it or Toss it... (Score:2)
There's all those issues about viewing angles, movement, and so many others.
At those prices, they'll probably sell out their initial stock in Japan, but that doesn't mean it's good, just that it's new status worthy hi-tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Child depth perception and development (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd hate to buy one of these and have my kid grow up with borked eyes.
Just don't watch the Swedish Chef and your child will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it won't matter to a lot of people; they already don't mind relegating large part of raising their kids to one/few of those black boxes...
¥240,000 (Score:2, Informative)
and for the math challenged that works out to US$2,860 for the 20 inch model. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe x/y = 2x/2y got a +4 informative mod!
+5. Learn to count.
Great, if it scales up. (Score:2)
3D TV will not take off until people don't need special glasses. Otherwise it'll be a niche for watching the occasional movie. Fortunately there are several that are no-glasses - here's hoping they're not 5-years away, like all cool tech seems to be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand how people expect to see 3d without glasses in any useful way. In order to see 3d, a different picture needs to get to each eye. There are a limited number of ways of making that happen. You either emit the pictures in different directions resulting in a very small area in which they can be seen properly, or you emit them in all directions and wear glasses to only pick up on the correct one for the corresponding eye.
There's no magic way to make 3d happen.
Re: (Score:2)
No magic way, no.. but there's certainly other forms of 3D display.
From stacking a bunch of LCDs behind eachother to projecting images onto a rapidly spinning disc.
Or, even, drop the stereoscopic aspect and exploit other 3D visual cues - such as parallax when changing the observing angle ( remember that youtube wiimote headtracking vid? )
Thing is.. they all have problems of their own. Stereoscopic 3D with glasses is simply the most efficient with the least problems at this point in time; but as people have
Re: (Score:2)
I was kinda hoping for those 3D glasses to become a fashion accessory soon, would be slightly fun ;p
Would there be much use for the parallax approach? Except in handheld devices perhaps, people wouldn't really like to change their position in relation to the screen to see something "nice" (the other plausible scenario would be screens with ads, etc. in public space, but only when/if it can deal with many pairs of eyes). And even there it translates much better to CGI generated on the fly than to displaying
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically -
You could use a screen that can change it's target zones by some form of facial recognition/eye targeting and some sort of dynamic direction grid thingy...It would have to scan constantly and readjust itself any time someone entered the room.
Yeah I know, a bit light on details. Possible though, IMHO. May even be easier to use some sort of lasers + mirrors thing and target people's eyes directly.
Re: (Score:2)
hypothetically this is covered by what I originally said about displaying the images in specific directions - just that doing any type of facial recognition would be a long ways away. Also, can you imagine having to tell people they can't watch TV at your place because your tv only supports 2 simultaneous viewers?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's a pretty weird idea, to have a limited number of viewers or viewing positions available for a screen. If they could make it display in 2D mode (rather than headache mode) for anyone off the sweet spot that would go some way to mitigate it. But not that far.
I wasn't disagreeing with your point - 3D stereoscopy cannot just happen by magic. Somehow your left and right eyes need to pick up different images, and short of having polaroid lens implants, your going to need some sort of external technolog
Re: (Score:2)
You can always set up a true holographic projector... like the stuff imagined in Star Wars.
The problem with true 3-D of this nature is that it takes a completely different filming process, and of course the bandwidth on such a system is simply insane. And you thought HD video was bandwidth intensive.
How you accomplish a system like that is not trivial either but it can be done. Some of the systems that have been explored are found with various kinds of volumetric displays [wikipedia.org]. Bandwidth really has been the b
Re: (Score:2)
You've never heard of a lenticular "hologram?" The effect is dramatic, and even a decade ago was far superior to "9 points".
And it's cheap, too. Cheap enough to put on a greeting card or DVD box. Or a dramatic 4x3 poster.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it won't really take off until it's the only option. I'm certain people still bought black and white TVs as long as they were for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but those people are as boring as the people who put cream and sugar in their coffee. You could buy a B&W TV for a while after color came out, but once they stopped taping in the higher fidelity of true black and white, there wasn't a point to getting one except to demonstrate that you don't really like tv,
In which case, why own one? Why not just get "people" magazine to keep up with all the stars and shows you've never heard of?
A big element of the objection to 3D, it seems, is for people to be
Re: (Score:2)
From the first line of the summary : "Toshiba is readying two 3D televisions that can produce images with the illusion of depth but don't require the user to wear glasses". This story has nothing to do with 3D that requires glasses... they've already priced these models, so it seems a little unlikely they're 5 years off. Seriously, I don't quite understand your point...
Don't get excited (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, like the Jaws add in Back to the Future....?
Great for 3D modelers (Score:2)
These will be great for those whose job it is to create 3D models for games, movies, ads, etc. A perfect tool for easily visualizing your creation without having to put on glasses to have a good look. Great for engineers and architects as well.
3D Parallax Barriers (Score:3, Informative)
Like the Nintendo 3DS, this will require that you look directly at the screen to see the 3D effect. Anyone looking at the screen from an angle will not see the effect.
This of course makes it kind of useless as a TV, but I think it's perfect as a computer monitor. Just a bit too expensive.
Re:3D Parallax Barriers (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, so if I look at my feet instead of the screen, I won't see the 3D effect? What a rip-off!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Stereoscopic, Not 3D (Score:2)
Unless you can walk around it and see it from all sides, it's not 3D. What we're talking about is stereoscopic 2D.
Re: (Score:2)
You're technically correct, but the mob has spoken. Just call your 3D "holographic" and get on with your life.
So? (Score:2)
Start at Lat. 35 2'37.26"N Long. 11419'6.20"W, Eye Alt. just under 8000 ft.
Give Google Earth just the slightest "nudge" upwards so you scroll slowly south. The model has to coast on it's own to see the 3D.
For just using photos it's an amazing effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you also know not to watch "Transformer" movies too, but so what? I thought Avatar was a pretty good, very visual, film. Better than most of the popcorn crap out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will do my best. I don't see a point arguing about personal preference.
Incidentally if this sort of TV is a success I can see applications in human machine interfaces. I work in ATC and I definitely think a 3D UI would be worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers? (shouldn't we move away from subjectivity of single human operators in this field, away from the model that's half a century old and didn't really shift to what technology could allow already?)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really sure it's a good idea to rely in ATC on an effect which is so subtle and not terribly accurate between viewers?
Possibly. ATC operators in many markets are selected for the quality of their vision so the variation between individuals might be smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, a year later that's still the most used example by far...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is allowing studios to hide really poorly written and acted scripts from kiddies that are more impressed with shiny 3d. It is now at the stage where if I see the movie is being advertised as being 3D I write it off as garbage without even bothering to see it now.
It does accomplish one useful thing. 3D and other experiences you currently can't get at home are the right way to fight piracy. I like that a damn sight better than taking old grandmas, dead people, and children to court. I also like it better than bribing politicians for increasingly draconian laws just to prop up an industry that refuses to learn how to deal with the information age. For that matter, it's better than ACTA and other secret treaties that threaten the integrity of our entire political p
Re: (Score:2)
"It is allowing studios to hide really poorly written and acted scripts from kiddies that are more impressed with shiny 3d. It is now at the stage where if I see the movie is being advertised as being 3D I write it off as garbage without even bothering to see it now."
Alternatively, Toy Story 3.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you believe that the sides do not switch between arguements?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't get the hype lately for 3d that requires glasses, I seem to recall 3d movies being around since The Three Stooges, let alone Jaws 3d and the like. I know it's not exactly the same as modern movies, but how is it so very different? A 3d display that doesn't require glasses, that's finally something worth getting interested in.
Those old movies used "complementary color anaglyphs" to simulate 3D which resulted in distorted color. Modern 3D glasses use polarized light or timed shutters so there is no color distortion (just headaches for some).
The glasses-less technology for Nintendo 3DS uses "autostereograms". I heard there was a study done by Sega 15 years ago that stated children with extended exposure to autostereograms developed vision problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, did we somehow get back to the Roaring Twenties [wikipedia.org]? (note how the title "The Man From M.A.R.S." suggests something stranegly similar to...). Or if one insists on something widely used, for a time... [wikipedia.org] (note what was used during the "golden era" and later Stereovision - w00t, the disco will soon return?)
Besides, the stereographic sister of photography is only a few years younger than the latter; easily done for a long, long time to a satisfactory level of quality. And for one and a half of a century...still
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect for it to be a long time from now, if ever, there's a huge number of people that have been watching TV and movies for years and decades that already
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they make 3D porn it'll finally stick.
They've already done [wikipedia.org] it: seems that it was indeed the most profitable movie ever.
40 years later and, amazingly, they didn't learn their lesson...the TV manufacturers would need to "get in bed" with the porn industry, not with Hollywood.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's called playing sports.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's really not.
But I understand you're just trying to make a witty comment. Good try! With practice you'll get it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called playing sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has come up with a prototype of 3D displays with head tracking technology, and a lens that can shift exactly which direction the light is seen from.
Yup - it's called a hat.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. I have "strabismic amblyopia" - a lazy eye that was not corrected in time. It means my eyes are straight (well, most of the time). Unfortunately, by the time it was correctly fixed, my brain had decided that one eye would be the "correct" eye, and the other not-so-correct. As such, even though my eyesight is corrected to 20/20 in both eyes, perception in the right is not good.
The best way to explain it is that my right eye is "dumb" - If I close my right eye and drive, everything is hunky-do
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my first sentence was kind of wrong. My eyes are now straight. They were not so for a few years after my birth, caused by a muscular or neurological defect, and by the time it was fully corrected, my brain had decided that my right eye's image was wrong, thus giving me clear, non-doubled vision. Like I said, that eye functions just fine now, there's just a lot of, well "packet loss" on that eye. I get a clear, crisp image in that eye. It's hard to explain, but it's like looking at an image through a
Re: (Score:2)
Stop focusing on the 3D wishwash and please manufacture cheap and affordable low latency screens. And no the advertised 2(0)ms 5(0)ms now mainstream products are not good, they still blur/ghost the image very much.
The loss of crisp and details on the image is still absurd, you cant play a simple sidescrolling game or scroll text without the image turning into an agravating and stressfull eye exposure in a short to long term use.
And the more detailed the image is, the worse and more easily apparent how poor quality your products are.
Untill then, i won't bother even considering buying anything 3D. Actually, even after that.
Maybe you should actually do some research. Then you would discover that such products actually exist.
On my PC I have a 24" Benq LCD. It's colour reproduction is not up to publishing/pro-photographer standards, but as to your requirements it was "cheap and affordable" (a couple of hundred bucks from memory) and very, very low latency. I play plenty of games, including action games and even side-scrollers (via emulators) and they look fantastic. I have never noticed any ghosting/blur whatsoever.
As a TV I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for you, I really value and care about your lack of interest in my opinion. Please keep posting your deep insights in this comments section where one usually posts comments with opinions and/or facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess it depends on how 'close' [imdb.com] the family is. ;-)
Ahem...anyway, I don't see a 12" display being useful beyond a personal/portable media device.
At 20", it's finally entering the desktop monitor range. It will have to get bigger and cheaper before most people will invest in one these for the home TV.