3d TV in three years? - bit-tech.net Forums

Da Dego · 20th Sep 2006, 17:59

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/09...n_three_years/

Thanks, Jazzle!!!!

Enforcer · 20th Sep 2006, 18:01

OK we all know this would come, wheres the smellovision tho? i want smel-o-vizion

sam.g.taylor · 20th Sep 2006, 18:13

Great - like our generation needs another reason to watch TV.
3D video games would be cool, though!

SeBbY_007 · 20th Sep 2006, 18:14

Considering how long companies are taking to move to HD, some programs are still filmed in 4:3, I doubt this will be around in 3 years.

But we can always hope...

BioSniper · 20th Sep 2006, 18:24

Combine this with the Nintendo Wii and I think we have a winner

EQC · 20th Sep 2006, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeBbY_007

Considering how long companies are taking to move to HD, some programs are still filmed in 4:3, I doubt this will be around in 3 years.

But we can always hope...

Yeah...I think it was about 15 years ago when my parents went out to buy a new TV...and the sales guy was telling them *not* to invest too much because in a few years analog TV wouldn't work anymore and they'd need a digital set.

Yada yada yada, 15 years later, they've got the same TV, working with an aerial on the roof (ie: there's no cable box converting a digital signal to analog), and still getting every channel they used to. Using CheckHD/Antennaweb websites, they can't even get more than 1 digital channel in their area yet (and maybe they never will...while a digital signal doesn't get "degraded" like analog does, it has a lower useful transmission distance because you either get enough signal strength or you don't...CheckHD says that if they were a few miles closer to the broadcast site, they'd get just about every channel...but for now only analog reaches out to where they live...and this is in the Los Angeles/Orange County, CA area!!!).

While the advantages of a cheap-o TV lasting for 15-20 years are numerous, some of us would like technology to move forward a bit faster....but congress keeps pushing back the shut-off date for analog (what is it...2009 now?) and manufacturers keep producing analog-only TV sets.

Ramble · 20th Sep 2006, 18:39

I've been to Sharp labs and seen their holographic technology, it's pretty cool, but there's no way it'll become mainstream, especially in three years.

Quite good in games though.

bloodcar · 20th Sep 2006, 19:21

To be quite honest, I see no potential for holographic display units used as a television, gaming "screen," or anything of the such. You're going to be severely limited in the depth of the picture as to how big of a display you can actually purchase. Sure it'd work nice for sitcoms where there's almost always walls/and end to the backdrop but what about films or games where miles upon miles are shown in the background? What happens to the chick flicks that show a sunset/sun rise? There's potential in using the technology as a communication device and topographic mapping but beyond that, I really don't see anything else. My money is still on parabolic displays.

The_Gnu · 20th Sep 2006, 20:31

Actually they didn't claim holographic displays to be awailable in 3 years, they meant the Lower-end technologies, such as stereoscopic 3D that have been present for many years. But I have to agree that 3 years is a bit optimistic. I think there is to much of these optimistic thoughts , über hig-tech products that scientists claim to be awailable in a few years. For example,,I red in a sciencepaper 4 years ago that in a few years we would have OLED displays as big as the entire room and they would be super-cheap...I have a OLED display in my mp3 but its not big

gpw111 · 20th Sep 2006, 20:50

CSS in 3d! That would take wall hacking to a whole new level

Tyinsar · 20th Sep 2006, 23:19

I've been waiting for this (3D LCD) to become afordable since I read this (from May 2001 - 5.25 years ago). However, I just found this (3D lens add on (but only 15" & 17")) and would be really interested in reading a review by a website I trust. - hint hint

rembo666 · 20th Sep 2006, 23:47

I think the main thing about 3D TV (or computer games for that matter) is the content. The current cinematography is more than 100 years old. They would essentially have to reinvent the way to shoot the movie, present the sceene and all that to take advantage of the 3D. This is what's going to take a lot of time.

metarinka · 21st Sep 2006, 00:07

on the technology side, what ever happened to the rotary technology, as most of you have probably seen the rotating LED clocks like so http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/ca...uct/sku__WI701

I happened to get that particular one as a christmas gift. I remember hearing way back that they were going to use the same principle but instead have the led's be on a sort of propeller design so that at any given rotation there would be a set of led's at any depth (if you see what I'm saying) multiply this by 2 or so blades and on every rotation the picture would be giving a good refresh rate. The only problem I remember is that there would always be a blank spot where the shaft would be.
This seemed like the most econimically feasible way to make a holographic display with a decent picture using off the shelf components that could be viewed from every angle by mulitple viewers

anyone know what the technical terminology for this technology is called and why I haven't heard about it recently? or is it around. there's already kits around to build the rotating LEd clocks. If you had some math and eletrical engineering smarts it wouldn't be hard to one of an propeller design

wharrad · 21st Sep 2006, 03:38

Didn't/Don't Samsung laptops already use this technology? Sure I saw it somewhere...

Aankhen · 21st Sep 2006, 05:37

3D games!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeBbY_007

Considering how long companies are taking to move to HD, some programs are still filmed in 4:3, I doubt this will be around in 3 years.

The delay in the release of HD titles is a delay in transfer from the original to the new media. The originals are (usually) on 35mm film, which has a resolution of 4,096 x 4,096.

I'm not sure what the 4:3 aspect ratio has to do with 3D films.

Captain Slug · 21st Sep 2006, 07:47

Having played games in 3D for the past 5 years I'm always amused by articles such as this. There are many many ways to make 3D displays, most of which are not very cost effective.

Lenticular splitting involves sandwiching two displays together then adjusting their position by using active cameras to figure out where the user's eyes are. This unfortunately limits the usable sitting area for the display and makes display for crowds and issue.

Display systems that require glasses are much cheaper, but also depend on which type you choose and how you implement them. Polarized stereoscopic setups provide the best picture quality and are the easiest to setup.

No matter how you slice it there is ALWAYS a downside to 3D. It's not beneficial for every kind of video or every kind of game. I don't see how 3Dimensional displays could become commonplace or even supported by the broadcast industry because they have remained a novelty for more than a century.

will. · 21st Sep 2006, 12:47

yaaaaay kitty!

Tyinsar · 21st Sep 2006, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Slug

... I don't see how 3Dimensional displays could become commonplace or even supported by the broadcast industry because they have remained a novelty for more than a century.

True but if the costs involved at all stages (production, transmission, display) were close then... I suspect it will happen eventually but not soon.

[Off Topic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Slug

Having played games in 3D for the past 5 years...

What system are you using? I keep looking into it but the costs are too high for me... (I'm most interested in lenticular splitting at the moment)
[/Off Topic]

20th Sep 2006, 17:59	#1
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	3d TV in three years? http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/09...n_three_years/ Thanks, Jazzle!!!! __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

20th Sep 2006, 18:13	#3
sam.g.taylor Apparently I'm Greg Kinnear Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 378	Great - like our generation needs another reason to watch TV. 3D video games would be cool, though! __________________ In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

20th Sep 2006, 18:24	#5
BioSniper I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere in the south Posts: 3,454	Combine this with the Nintendo Wii and I think we have a winner __________________ My Flickr :: Bit-tech Flickr Wii: 1792 1527 2926 7945 :: Xbox Live: BioSnipr :: PSN: Biosnipr

20th Sep 2006, 18:39	#7
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,233	I've been to Sharp labs and seen their holographic technology, it's pretty cool, but there's no way it'll become mainstream, especially in three years. Quite good in games though. __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

20th Sep 2006, 19:21	#8
bloodcar Mod Master Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mentor, OH Posts: 2,133	To be quite honest, I see no potential for holographic display units used as a television, gaming "screen," or anything of the such. You're going to be severely limited in the depth of the picture as to how big of a display you can actually purchase. Sure it'd work nice for sitcoms where there's almost always walls/and end to the backdrop but what about films or games where miles upon miles are shown in the background? What happens to the chick flicks that show a sunset/sun rise? There's potential in using the technology as a communication device and topographic mapping but beyond that, I really don't see anything else. My money is still on parabolic displays. __________________ <+DougEdey> you getting PGR4 mitmit? <mitmit> not me, Geoff is probably wanking like a lepper at the thought of it though

20th Sep 2006, 18:01	#2
Enforcer Multimodder Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Stroggos Posts: 87	OK we all know this would come, wheres the smellovision tho? i want smel-o-vizion

20th Sep 2006, 18:14	#4
SeBbY_007 Supermodder Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 289	Considering how long companies are taking to move to HD, some programs are still filmed in 4:3, I doubt this will be around in 3 years. But we can always hope...

20th Sep 2006, 20:31	#9
The_Gnu paper clip, tyre, gum....done Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 198	Actually they didn't claim holographic displays to be awailable in 3 years, they meant the Lower-end technologies, such as stereoscopic 3D that have been present for many years. But I have to agree that 3 years is a bit optimistic. I think there is to much of these optimistic thoughts , über hig-tech products that scientists claim to be awailable in a few years. For example,,I red in a sciencepaper 4 years ago that in a few years we would have OLED displays as big as the entire room and they would be super-cheap...I have a OLED display in my mp3 but its not big __________________ Project: ProtoHype Project: Widescreen Projector Guide: How to brush Aluminum "To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." -- Thomas Edison

20th Sep 2006, 20:50	#10
gpw111 Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 92	CSS in 3d! That would take wall hacking to a whole new level

20th Sep 2006, 23:19	#11
Tyinsar 6 screens / 1 card Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: AB.CA Posts: 2,005	I've been waiting for this (3D LCD) to become afordable since I read this (from May 2001 - 5.25 years ago). However, I just found this (3D lens add on (but only 15" & 17")) and would be really interested in reading a review by a website I trust. - hint hint __________________ It's not about how life treats you, it's about how you treat life.

20th Sep 2006, 23:47	#12
rembo666 Minimodder Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Korea Posts: 36	I think the main thing about 3D TV (or computer games for that matter) is the content. The current cinematography is more than 100 years old. They would essentially have to reinvent the way to shoot the movie, present the sceene and all that to take advantage of the 3D. This is what's going to take a lot of time.

21st Sep 2006, 00:07	#13
metarinka I am a Dremel Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,619	on the technology side, what ever happened to the rotary technology, as most of you have probably seen the rotating LED clocks like so http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/ca...uct/sku__WI701 I happened to get that particular one as a christmas gift. I remember hearing way back that they were going to use the same principle but instead have the led's be on a sort of propeller design so that at any given rotation there would be a set of led's at any depth (if you see what I'm saying) multiply this by 2 or so blades and on every rotation the picture would be giving a good refresh rate. The only problem I remember is that there would always be a blank spot where the shaft would be. This seemed like the most econimically feasible way to make a holographic display with a decent picture using off the shelf components that could be viewed from every angle by mulitple viewers anyone know what the technical terminology for this technology is called and why I haven't heard about it recently? or is it around. there's already kits around to build the rotating LEd clocks. If you had some math and eletrical engineering smarts it wouldn't be hard to one of an propeller design __________________ project: Orbitoid project: Orbitoid discussion Project: Angry-9 the WWII radio

21st Sep 2006, 03:38	#14
wharrad Hypermodder Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Burford, Oxfordshire Posts: 866	Didn't/Don't Samsung laptops already use this technology? Sure I saw it somewhere... __________________ Jimmy Carr - "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission"

21st Sep 2006, 07:47	#16
Captain Slug Infinite Patience Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,404	Having played games in 3D for the past 5 years I'm always amused by articles such as this. There are many many ways to make 3D displays, most of which are not very cost effective. Lenticular splitting involves sandwiching two displays together then adjusting their position by using active cameras to figure out where the user's eyes are. This unfortunately limits the usable sitting area for the display and makes display for crowds and issue. Display systems that require glasses are much cheaper, but also depend on which type you choose and how you implement them. Polarized stereoscopic setups provide the best picture quality and are the easiest to setup. No matter how you slice it there is ALWAYS a downside to 3D. It's not beneficial for every kind of video or every kind of game. I don't see how 3Dimensional displays could become commonplace or even supported by the broadcast industry because they have remained a novelty for more than a century. __________________ Past Project: Baby Mk.V \| Current Project: Metal Slug \| My Guide To Machining Plastics

21st Sep 2006, 12:47	#17
will. A motorbike of jealousy! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Yorkshire! Posts: 4,403	yaaaaay kitty! __________________ work \| play \| blog PS3 & 360: willblack Flickr my twitter. Last.FM Check out my Last.FM & iToggle & Nav-o-Matic jQuery plugins.