|
|
I apologize in advance for starting the new year off with a rant; I usually try to keep my posts upbeat and focused on the optimistic side of HDTV and home entertainment news and technology. But I want to start off the new year with a message for everyone who is waiting for a wonderful, big flat screen HDTV for their living room that will deliver great 3D images, and they won’t have to wear those “goofy glasses”. Here’s what I want you to know. It’s not going to happen any time soon, so please get over it. The reason for this is straightforward, but a full explanation takes more space than I have here. Here’s the problem in a nutshell. A 3DTV (or cinema or any other stereoscopic 3D image device) must deliver different images to the left and right eyes of the viewer. If there is just one viewer watching, it’s pretty simple. (3M has a very clever stereoscopic technology for single-viewer screens.) When you have multiple users, however, it is far more difficult to control how the left and right images are delivered. Obviously it can’t work if the left eye of one viewer is in the same line as the right eye of another viewer (which is a common situation when cuddling is involved). All the current technology that I know about requires that you sit in specific “sweet spots”, and all the screens of this sort that I have seen have fewer than 10 sweet spots. It is possible that there may be some technology over the horizon that can “steer” the images a bit using face-recognition and head-tracking technology, but that still has some severe limitations and still does not solve the “cuddle” scenario. Look, I understand that many people think that the glasses are goofy and they don’t want to wear them for one reason or another. But it’s not reasonable to expect an affordable autostereoscopic flat panel technology within the next five years that will provide a natural viewing experience. If there was a way to do this, don’t you think that the movie theaters would have jumped on it already? The problem is that others in the media persist on holding out the hope that there will be some solution coming soon. You can find lots of examples if you search the Web, but the one that set me off on this rant was a segment on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” in which “Popular Science” magazine’s editor-in-chief Mark Jannot said the following:
I don’t know what technology he expects to be here in “the next couple of years” that can do this affordably, if at all. And I believe that if the American consumers think that wearing glasses is goofy, they’re going to think that having to sit isolated in a specific location in their living room in order to watch 3DTV without glasses is just plain stupid at any price. I’m going to be at CES 2011 this week starting tomorrow, and you can be sure I’ll be asking the HDTV makers about their plans for autostereoscopic 3D features. If I find out anything that contradicts what I’ve said here, I’ll let you know. Posted by Alfred Poor, January 3, 2011 5:00 AM Reader Commentarystevekaden • Jan 3, 8:12am Didn't they use a head 'holder' for the original portrait picture (1800s) to be sure the person being photographed did not move their head? We could revive those so instead of goofy glasses, we can sit rigidly for 2 hours per movie. Yeah, I just love sitting in one precise position for hours at a time. More realistic is sometimes slouch a bit left, sometimes a bit right, sometimes leaning forward to grab a snack from the coffee table. This whole spin game of calling glasses goofy is the problem. They are glasses - not all that far from even the most basic wire frame. Just a little bigger, little heavier. But never have I seen any that are actually goofy. Unless of course I want to denegrate mindlessly, then all glasses are goofy - except trendy sunglasses of course.... alfredpoor • Jan 3, 8:29am You're right on the money, Steve. Just search for 3D and glasses and see how many times "goofy" comes up with those terms. I believe that the press has latched onto this association and just rides that pony without thinking. Why would people be perfectly willing to wear glasses in a public cinema, but not willing to wear them in the privacy of their own home? Which is likely to cause more embarrassment? I think that consumers are hesitant about glasses more because of the cost of the active glasses. As the prices for these come down (and passive glasses become a competitive alternative), and as more content that people want to watch comes available, then I expect that resistance to the "goofy glasses" will evaporate. Alfred... mhodges • Jan 4, 5:02pm ..Why would people be perfectly willing to wear glasses in a public cinema, but not willing to wear them in the privacy of their own home? Which is likely to cause more embarrassment?. ...Alfred I'm not willing to wear them in the theaters either. Its not because I want to see 3D without glasses (I understand that just isn't technically practical at this point) its just that I have always found the "goofy glasses" a distraction to the experience rather than an enhancement. It mostly has to do with fit. All the theatre glasses I've seen are absolutley perfect for both my wife and I, if you average our head size. She finds them annoying because they are too big, and I find them annoying because they are too small. As a non-glasses wearing person most of the time, I notice the frame of the glasses, the weight on my nose, and the tightness around my ears. Its a constant presence and reminds me I'm in the theatre rather ... Roger Halstead • Jan 4, 6:49pm
Unfortunately this also hurts the credibility of both NPR and Popular Science. Like many other sources they are going with the sensational and maybe a bit of cheerleading for what they *hope* will happen. In addition to the position specific problem there is also the fact that each image is only half the resolution of the total. Two half resolution images do not make one full resolution image. I happen to be one who doesn't like the glasses, be they active or passive, at home, or in a theater. However, IF some one comes up with a system with good enough resolution and dynamics I'd purchase one and wear the **** glasses. After all, I have to wear bifocals as it is, except for driving. Going back to the 3D without glasses. This 3D is very low tech on the receiving end, much like a Fresnel lens, or grid of tiny lenses placed directly over the the screen. It's physical and static. The effect is similar to watching two images through mirrors. They have to be positioned preci... More from Alfred Poor
More in Category: PC & Laptop Technology
About Alfred PoorAlfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets. |
advertisement
Authors
Categories
Other Recent Discussion
advertisement
|
||||||||