3D TV -- Without the Glasses (w/ Video)

October 29, 2009 by Miranda Marquit

Enlarge

Image source: Wittkowsky via Wikimedia Commons

(PhysOrg.com) -- Even with "active shutter" 3D technology for television sets, the wearing of special glasses is still required in order to get the proper experience. They aren't those red and blue or red and green 3D glasses that we are used to seeing from the 50s and 60s, but you still have to wear glasses. Now, though, efforts are being made for a 3D television viewing experience without the glasses: the Full Parallax 3D TV.

The idea behind Hitachi's Full Parallex 3D TV is called integral photography with overlaid projection. Tech-On! describes the set up for this 3D television:

Specifically, it consists of 16 projectors and a lens array sheet to cover them. The lens array sheet ensures parallax in any direction (not only in the horizontal direction). Because of parallax, the 3D image seen by the user differs in accordance with the angle from which the screen is viewed.

In order to get a display that doesn't require special glasses of some kind, the total pixel count requires the multiplication of the pixel count in the 3D image by the number of viewpoints showing different images. The 3D effect requires different viewpoints, but as the number of viewpoints increases, the resolution decreases.

Adding more projectors could solve the problem, and that is why the Parallax has so many projectors. There are also efforts underway to increase the pixel count by using micro-projectors based on lasers, increasing the projector count by even more.

It is clear that efforts are being made to bring a more realistic experience to television viewers. And, as technology advances, it becomes even more possible.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

• Birthmark - Oct 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  That's really neat, I want to know what we'll have 10 years from now, or what this will turn in to. Maybe virtual reality or maybe holograms? That would be amazing! You're whole room is the movie!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Jayman - Oct 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  This is amazing! The holy grail of 3D!! How I wish I was born 50 years later!! Imagine watching sports on a wall-sized 3D TV! That's the life.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• EdMazza - Oct 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  For today's market, this solution sounds pretty expensive. Sure sounds like they are on the right track. I sure hope that I can still see when this becomes marketable for the home. Of course with the rate of change, it is probably not as far off as you might think.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• SmartK8 - Oct 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I probably mentioned it before, but HoloVizio already is the answer. No need for projectors.
  
  http://www.holografika.com/
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• dirk_bruere - Oct 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Google "Nimslo camera".
  An old idea and one which is not very effective in real life.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Sonhouse - Oct 30, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  I probably mentioned it before, but HoloVizio already is the answer. No need for projectors.
  
  http://www.holografika.com/

  
  
  Of course it only cost's $200,000 US, right?
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• SmartK8 - Oct 30, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Sonhouse: Actually, about $50,000 (for 32" screen), but it's there, it's true 3D and the price will eventually go down.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• TheBigYin - Oct 30, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  The '3d' element of this appears to come from moving around, while I prefer to sit on my bahookie when watching TV.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• worlduser - Oct 30, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  check out the video on this page for what I think is the future of display tech.
  http://www.heaven.../111.htm
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• SmartK8 - Dec 10, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  TheBigYin: A camera constitutes just for a single 'eye'. So the 3D effect cannot be shot on camera. You've to see it for yourself (with both eyes). It's like looking thru a window vs a flat screen. Even if you're still, your eyes flutter a bit (catching the details). It really is an improvement; you almost feel compulsion to stretch your hand and touch the object behind the glass. Combined with HDTV, it will be a killer for the (food) ads.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• TheBigYin - Dec 11, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I do get your point, and we're actually in agreement here. True '3d' TV needs to involve an element of steroscopic vision - the 3d'ness of the techbnology in this article appears to only manifest as you move around the image - great for art gallies and advertising, but not for TV, where the viewers are sitting in the one place.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5