Display Taiwan 2010 took place recently in Taipei, China. The event entailed a very busy couple of days for me. The reason why I travelled so far from Washington D.C. was because I wanted to witness firsthand what Taiwan was actually doing in the area of large screens 3D auto-stereoscopic (no-glasses 3D). I saw prototypes, commercially available displays, and new developments of advanced technology that made the trip and effort worthwhile.
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2010/09/autostereoscopic-3dtv-3d-without-glasses-display-taiwan-2010-hinted-sooner-than-you-think-part-1.php]Read Article[/url]
Auto-stereoscopic 3DTV (3D Without Glasses) - Display Taiwan 2010 Hinted: “Sooner than you think” (Part 1)
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
-
videograbber
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:10 am
The "cost" of 3D
Thanks, Rodolfo, for an excellent and highly informative report.
I can see that a lot of ingenuity is going into the glasses-free 3D alternatives. In one sense, some amazing stuff, and I can see it being used well in certain specific contexts. However, as you laid it out, the apparently unavoidable reductions in resolution and image brightness as you add more viewers, no matter how technologically sophisticated and impressive, start to make glasses-based 3D viewing in home theaters (with many of their own negatives, which you enumerated) actually look attractive again! Being restricted to sitting in prescribed zones, and limited in head movements, while watching PQ deteriorate as more viewers join the group doesn't sound acceptable to me, even if the (likely very expensive) 3840-capable display with one or two viewers does work out as well as could possibly be hoped.
The major problem that I see is that the pivotal problem that glasses-free displays are targeted to solve, namely viewing by larger groups and not wanting to provide additional glasses for each, is exactly the area where it starts breaking down. If it's only going to look reasonably good for 1 or 2 viewers, that's a scenario that glasses can already handle reasonably well. When you start needing 4, or 6, or 8 pairs of glasses is when that option starts looking much less desirable, but also when these new glasses-free options degrade significantly in PQ.
My own opinion is that 3D, no matter what technology or methodology is used to present it, involves significant compromises to visual quality. And after having waited this long to finally get excellent quality full 1920x1080 HD content into the home, I'm not willing to sacrifice that, and I suspect some others will not be either... once the initial "newness" and novelty of 3D wears off. I believe that the market for 3D in general is only a portion of the total HD display buyers, even under the best conditions, and while some subset of the mainstream WILL be willing to sacrifice PQ for image depth, many of those willing to pay a premium for their HD viewing will NOT. That, of course, remains to be seen.
Thanks again for keeping us updated on the latest developments behind the scenes.
- Tim
I can see that a lot of ingenuity is going into the glasses-free 3D alternatives. In one sense, some amazing stuff, and I can see it being used well in certain specific contexts. However, as you laid it out, the apparently unavoidable reductions in resolution and image brightness as you add more viewers, no matter how technologically sophisticated and impressive, start to make glasses-based 3D viewing in home theaters (with many of their own negatives, which you enumerated) actually look attractive again! Being restricted to sitting in prescribed zones, and limited in head movements, while watching PQ deteriorate as more viewers join the group doesn't sound acceptable to me, even if the (likely very expensive) 3840-capable display with one or two viewers does work out as well as could possibly be hoped.
The major problem that I see is that the pivotal problem that glasses-free displays are targeted to solve, namely viewing by larger groups and not wanting to provide additional glasses for each, is exactly the area where it starts breaking down. If it's only going to look reasonably good for 1 or 2 viewers, that's a scenario that glasses can already handle reasonably well. When you start needing 4, or 6, or 8 pairs of glasses is when that option starts looking much less desirable, but also when these new glasses-free options degrade significantly in PQ.
My own opinion is that 3D, no matter what technology or methodology is used to present it, involves significant compromises to visual quality. And after having waited this long to finally get excellent quality full 1920x1080 HD content into the home, I'm not willing to sacrifice that, and I suspect some others will not be either... once the initial "newness" and novelty of 3D wears off. I believe that the market for 3D in general is only a portion of the total HD display buyers, even under the best conditions, and while some subset of the mainstream WILL be willing to sacrifice PQ for image depth, many of those willing to pay a premium for their HD viewing will NOT. That, of course, remains to be seen.
Thanks again for keeping us updated on the latest developments behind the scenes.
- Tim
-
BuddAdams
- Member
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:53 am
You said it! Qualiuty aces 3D so far!
We came to 3D too late for Avitar and do I regret it, as I judge the 2D version I saw at a discount theater the most spell binding film ever! This was after seeing a 3D Samsung 55" that knocked my sox off to the extent that I almost bought it on the spot. Then we went to the 2D Avitar, then to a succession of 3D movies ending with an Imax double feature of Toy Story 3 and some Ocean documentry, the latter being absolutely the lousiest picture quality I have ever seen! TS3 has a great story as usual, but the 3D was weak, and the picture so dim, that both my wife and I agreed the bright, sharp 2D versions of TS2 & TS1were hands winners! In our view, the shutter glasses and the Samsung were hits but the movie theater polarized glasses are a too-poor-to-conside, distant 2nd. Amen for Quality!