Last September, an English consortium predicted 3D TV could be ‘three years away‘. Home Theater Blog is following up on the evolution…
Home Theater Blog: We’ve spoken about 3D TV/Home Theater here before on occasion, and even though I’m not sufficiently convinced this is even something we’ll I’ll want, much less see in the next 10-15 years, it is interesting to follow the research and development end of things. Mitsubishi Electronics Research Labs have been quietly perfecting the technology of 3D TV but not just any old 3D TV, the kind that doesn’t require those ridiculous glasses.
The 3D technology can work with regular TV but according to Mitsubishi, their prototype 3D TV would offer a “richer, more immersive experience than regular TV”, and again, most importantly without those silly glasses. Mitsubishi envisions one or two specialty channels (possibly even a premium subscription channel early on) providing the 3D content and then others catching on, if the consumer demand is there.
Currently the system appears limited to a resolution of 1024×768 but of course as with any research and development the potential for increased resolution is always on the horizon. The system is further described as using “high-resolution (1024×768) stereoscopic color images for multiple viewpoints” with “scalable architecture to manage the high computation and bandwidth demands”.
“In our system image acquisition consists of an array of hardware-synchronized cameras that capture multiple views of the scene. In order to deal with the high processing and bandwidth requirements, the system uses a fully distributed architecture with clusters of PC’s.
A multi-projector 3D display with horizontal parallax achieves large, high-resolution output images. The system is scalable in the number of acquired, transmitted, and displayed real-time video streams.”
Mitsubishi has implemented the 3D systems with rear-projection and front-projection lenticular screens. Ok I have to admit I had to go and find out what “lenticular” meant. According to this Wiki entry “A lenticular lens is a single convex lens that magnifies light through a prism effect,” which would seem to give us a clue as to how their by-passing the 3D glasses.
top
Dr. Jordan | Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 12:43
I have seen several products that try to give 3D without glasses and they are very low in quality. In fact, the output is so uncomfortable that one can only view for a few minutes. Viewing angle is useless if more than 110 degrees, making it possible for only one or two people to watch. Also, one must distinguish between true stereoscopic 3D and the “simulated” 3D that such products offer. The difference is like night and day.
Perhaps your bias towards the glasses stems from the low quality outmoded blue-red glasses of the 50′s. If you see the modern polarized glasses, they are comfortable, stylish, pleasant to the eye, and give you an immersive experience that no lenticular technology can match, and I believe will not match for 20 to 30 more years. Just so people should know, if you use the high quality polarized glasses to see a true stereoscopic 3D film (like IMAX 3D movies – see Ant Bully, for example) then you will never want to see any renticular 3D output from any of the electronic giants. There is simply no comparison.
I hope people would compare and study first, before they make quick judgements. I am afraid no-glasses 3D TV will continue to be in R&D before any sensible consumer would spend a penny on it. If they do, they will quickly regret having spent any money on it.
Philbert | Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 22:34
I wish you people would get your info right about 3-D in the fifties. It was NOT those \”outmoded blue-red\” glasses of the 50\’s\”. The original 3-D craze took place in 1952-54 using two projectors and polarized glasses and, when projected correctly, gave a stunning 3-D effect. The red-blue glasses (called anaglyph 3-D) was used for 3-D comic books and a cheap way to publish 3-D pictures in print. It was adapted in the 1970\’s as a cheap way to show some of the 3-D films of the fifties. At best the process sucked, and at worst was unviewable. The 80\’s craze tried to push it off for 3-D TV and it was even worse than unviewable.