Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Technology

Toshiba To Launch No-Glasses 3D TV This Year 218

Posted by Soulskill
from the harder-to-hold-than-a-3ds dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Toshiba To Launch No-Glasses 3D TV This Year

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:04PM (#33790706)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If I want raisins, I buy Raisin Bran.

    • by mkiwi (585287) on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:39PM (#33790948)

      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:2, Insightful)

      by socsoc (1116769)

      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.

      • by causality (777677) on Monday October 04, 2010 @10:11PM (#33791158)

        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.

        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 ... 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.

        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.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) <[ten.3dlrow] [ta] [ojom]> on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @06:24AM (#33792822) Homepage

          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)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          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

    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:47PM (#33790998) Homepage

      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)

        by Belial6 (794905)
        Since the dawn of man there has been porn, and since the dawn of computers there has been computer porn. Computer porn was being produced on things that wouldn't even be called a coumputer today.

        http://asciiporn.us/ [asciiporn.us]
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Do you remember punch card porn?

          • by aevan (903814) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @01:08AM (#33791844)
            No but I remember being 10 and getting a floppy from a schoolmate that was filled with porn images. Porn on the commodore 64... was 'red-scale', heavily pixelated, and for some reason rotated 90 degrees... but dagnabbit thems was hooters I tells ya!
      • by delinear (991444)
        There's nothing wrong with technology for the sake of technology - hell, this is /. and I'm guessing a significant number of people here love technology for the sake of technology - however that doesn't mean we have to hail something like Avatar as the pinnacle of human achievement, or even human cinematic achievement, when in fact it's a tired old story with some pretty graphics. I can appreciate the technology for its own sake even if I realise the people using it are failing to explore the medium in any
    • by kurokame (1764228)
      Robot overlords don't need no stinkin' raisins.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nursie (632944)

      "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.

    • 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

    • You can really tell where they were using 3D for the sake of 3D.

      When I watched it, I only saw 3D for the sake of entertainment. What higher cause is there in mindless blockbuster entertainment?

  • ...wearing glasses or holdig your head still? I guess we'll get a good old fashioned vote-with-your-dollars verdict soon.

    (Of course given how much they are gouging per pair of glasses, there's a handicap built in there.)

    • by Nursie (632944)

      ... wearing glasses or paying 2500 dollars for a 20 inch screen???

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by quenda (644621)

      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?

      • by Peeteriz (821290)

        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?

        • by delinear (991444)
          Not to mention I can wear 3D glasses over my normal glasses. If I could wear contacts, I wouldn't wear normal glasses, and 3D contacts would be useless for anyone who already wears contacts, or who can't put things in their eyes. Other than that it's also completely obvious, I had the same thought myself over 20 years ago when 3D glasses were red and blue and made out of cardboard - that's the kind of thing they should never grant a patent on because I'm sure millions have had exactly the same idea, but of
  • Do not want (Score:2, Insightful)

    by youngone (975102)
    Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MichaelSmith (789609)

      Give me a decent script and acting I can believe.

      Me too but sometimes I want to watch the pretty pictures.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Movie trolls running wild? I can't say, but it sure seems like people only want...

      Michael Bay - XplosionsX! For their plots.

      • who cares what it's all about
        as long as the kids go

        -Roger Waters

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by causality (777677)

          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)

      by Animaether (411575) on Monday October 04, 2010 @10:02PM (#33791092) Journal

      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)

        by bloodhawk (813939) on Monday October 04, 2010 @11:06PM (#33791414)
        They shouldn't be, but hollywood certainly seems to be adamant that they are mutually exclusive.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
          They're not mutually exclusive, they just have a finite amount of money to throw at them both. More money on the script means less money on the effects.

          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
      • Yes.

        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.
        • by Nursie (632944)

          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?

      • 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.

  • 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.

    • by spitzak (4019)

      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

  • I'd absolutely have to try one of these before I'd even consider getting one.
    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.
    • by delinear (991444)
      I'll be interested to see how these are displayed in stores. If there are serious issues with viewing angles outside a limited area, I wonder if store displays will be gamed to force customers into the optimal position. At home my usual spot is at a right angle to the TV, I don't mind as I rarely watch it so it's good enough, but I wonder if this angle would be sufficiently offset to ruin the 3D effect on one of these sets and, perhaps more importantly, if you are outside the optimal viewining position, wha
  • I'd hate to buy one of these and have my kid grow up with borked eyes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Culture20 (968837)

      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.

    • by sznupi (719324)

      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)

    by NemoinSpace (1118137)

    They'll cost around ¥120,000 (US$1,430) and ¥240,000 respectively.

    and for the math challenged that works out to US$2,860 for the 20 inch model. :)

  • 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)

      by XaXXon (202882)

      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.

      • 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

        • by sznupi (719324)

          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

      • by Nursie (632944)

        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.

        • by XaXXon (202882)

          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?

          • by Nursie (632944)

            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

      • by Teancum (67324)

        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

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • by Smauler (915644)

      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)

    by Lucas123 (935744) on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:24PM (#33790854) Homepage
    I was at a Toshiba media event earlier this year and they were very clear that this generation of glassless screens have horrible fields of view and are only good for advertising in public places like airports where, by walking by them, you'll get the 3D effect. It's almost analogous to the old 3D baseball cards where you'd move them and get the illusion of depth.
  • 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)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Monday October 04, 2010 @09:56PM (#33791060)

    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.

  • Unless you can walk around it and see it from all sides, it's not 3D. What we're talking about is stereoscopic 2D.

    • by paul248 (536459)

      You're technically correct, but the mob has spoken. Just call your 3D "holographic" and get on with your life.

  • I was using Google Earth yesterday and I noticed that if I gave some spin to the landscape (i.e. make it "coast" in a given direction) I was getting a stunning 3d effect as the landscape (Arizona mountains) scrolled below my view...
    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.

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Working...