| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ggrobot
Elite Member
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 53605
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:55 am Post subject: 3D No glasses by Jonathan Post (video) [30234] |
 |
|
I thought it was real for a second ;-)
Read more...
Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sabot
Elite Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 2398
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ROFL!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
brilliant!
what are long term effects?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Elite Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 4289
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OMG that is hilarious. Tell me this is a joke! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it's not. Your eyelids are used as shutters (normally LCD shutter glasses). Pretty simple but I think that fatigue on the muscles around the eye would be to severe on the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Venom1
Senior Member
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 256
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One week later...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Elite Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 4289
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Humor aside, is this guy smoking crack or something? Who in their right F'ing mind would buy into that?! Maybe someone should let him know there are already 3D TV's without the need of glasses. Not to mention that holographic will soon be here.
Seriously though I thought was some fancy graphic editing. To think someone actually did that, this guy is a fucking nutjob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| #d TVs are cool but are VERY angle dependent, if you are not in center of it - no 3D + blurry image, at least that's what I have experienced. polarization glasses are a much better solution, shutters come second then 3D screen, then maybe this blinky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabot
Elite Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 2398
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, it's a FUCKING JOKE!!!
You would have a fucking seizure in REAL LIFE if you COULD do that, plus the eye damage would be absurd. Then of course it's running at 60fps PER eye (as if a fucking eyelid muscle could achieve THAT!) and has to be synced up to the 3D film at the same rate without a micro second lag, otherwise it loses 3D.
NO 3D tv's are useless, you need to sit within 90cm of the screen, not move off centre -absolutely GREAT for family viewing.....and watch it on a 2,000 buck 20" screen. do some research first.......
| Quote: | The demonstrations at Ceatec revealed a good-looking high-definition 3D picture, but like systems that require glasses, the technology is far from perfect.
To get the 3D image, you first have to find a sweet spot from which to view it. The lenses are firing off light in many directions, so the 3D effect is better in some positions than in others. The viewing distance from the screen is also important. Toshiba says the optimal viewing distance for its 20-inch screen is 90 centimeters from the display, but it will work at greater distances.
Once a good viewing position is found—and it’s only a matter of moving your head a little to one side—the 3D images are easy to see. A fish swimming past an underwater camera and a skier racing through the snow towards a camera produced easily discernible depth.
It was easier on my eyes than screens that require glasses. I’ve always found those to produce vivid 3D effects that were impressive but ultimately unnatural. A 3D demonstration at the Sony booth next door, which required glasses, showed a picture that appeared to consist of several layers of flat images, not a 3D picture with depth between the foreground and background.
The 3D effect on the Toshiba screen didn’t seem quite as pronounced or forced, but that could have been due to the images chosen for the demonstration.
There were also a few problems. I found it difficult to find a place where the entire picture appeared in focus. As I moved my head to bring the center of the picture into a sharp, 3D image, I found the edges looked a bit blurred.
It’s also worth pointing out that other people might literally see things differently. More than any other TV technology, 3D seems to create a wide range of reactions—some love it, some hate it, some get headaches.
Consumers in Japan will soon get a chance to decide if the televisions are enough to make them jump to 3D, although a comparatively high price tag and the early stage of the market will mean many will likely wait until prices come down and the technology matures.
|
| Quote: | Toshiba has come up with prototypes measuring 56 inches and 65 inches. Two models were on display at the CES, one over 40 inches and one over 50 inches in size. The most highlighting factor is that these TVs will not be sold only in Japan but also in the Americas, Europe and China. Toshiba has finally decided to reach out to people globally!!
|
Now this is the rub, i've bought a Panasonic 46" which has a 600Hz and displays damn near faultless 3D at 60fps/1080p per eye. It's comfortable and is mindblowing in high speed gaming or sport.
It even displays SD in near 24fps.
It's also the SAME price as my Sony Bravia 46" 50Hz was nearly 4YEARS ago. What's the problem? I've bought SUPERB technology in a 600Hz tv that even converts 2D to 3D through ANY source, be it SD/HD TV, DVD,Blu Ray and even pictures. Glasses were free along with Avatar 3D,Coraline 3D,Ice Age 3 3D and Paul Carrick 3D. I already have half a dozen PS3 titles in 3D.
Folks are talking out their asses. 3D is here and now, affordable, If you are into widescreen large TVs from reputable manufacturers -as in several years ago, then it's just a natural progression into 3D.
LED LCD is pretty crap for 3D as it suffers lag. (research the internet) only a FEW sets can even display FULL HD 3D through each eye (that's 1080p@60fpsx2) Having viewed a 55" Sony 200Hz 3,000 buck set it's a HEADACHE the flicker! and BAD cross talk!!!
A Panasonic plasma EATS 3D and because of the 600Hz technology it basicaly refreshes the screen at 60 times per second= no flicker or cross talk. It is slightly darker than an LED LCD but it displays the TRUEST flesh tones and richest, deeper blacks than any LCD.
Have a look at all the awards that Plasmas get over LCD? Plus of course a 55" 3D plasma is only 2,000 bucks You can even go 100+ inches with plasma
http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/plasma-vs-lcd-3d-tv/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"NO 3D tv's are useless, you need to sit within 90cm of the screen, not move off centre -absolutely GREAT for family viewing.....and watch it on a 2,000 buck 20" screen. do some research first.......
"
you are joking right? I mean, that passage there is THE definition of useless as far as I am concerned...Maybe you were being sarcastic? 
as for your TV, well, I once saw 2 720p LCD projectors (one above the other) with polarization lenses on each one, attached to a 3D converter box, putting out a 5 meter diagonal of images on the wall that you watch trough simple 5$ polarization glasses. Whole system cost was around 7000$ back in 2005. You could get for half the price now. Does your 42" 3D TV seem cool now?  Oh yes, guys played F.E.A.R on it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabot
Elite Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 2398
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gx-x wrote: | "NO 3D tv's are useless, you need to sit within 90cm of the screen, not move off centre -absolutely GREAT for family viewing.....and watch it on a 2,000 buck 20" screen. do some research first.......
"
you are joking right? I mean, that passage there is THE definition of useless as far as I am concerned...Maybe you were being sarcastic?
as for your TV, well, I once saw 2 720p LCD projectors (one above the other) with polarization lenses on each one, attached to a 3D converter box, putting out a 5 meter diagonal of images on the wall that you watch trough simple 5$ polarization glasses. Whole system cost was around 7000$ back in 2005. You could get for half the price now. Does your 42" 3D TV seem cool now? Oh yes, guys played F.E.A.R on it |
Yes i WAS being sarcastic
| Quote: | | Toshiba says the optimal viewing distance for its 20-inch screen is 90 centimeters from the display, but it will work at greater distances |
http://www.macworld.com/article/154599/2010/10/glassfree_3dtv.html
As for your 5 meter diagonal projectors...come on please.
This is REALITY land, not buy a film theatre to view your latest and greatest. Try a NORMAL house.
Like here is the largest Plasma 3D at 152"!!!
http://gizmodo.com/5442012/panasonics-152+inch-3d-plasma-the-biggest-tv-yet
If money was no object, i WOULD have a film theatre and the best IMAX 3D projected onto like a 72ft across x 52ft depth screen like i watched Avatar on!
Btw, my tv is 46" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well you don't have to go 5m diagonal, you can shrink picture, those are projectors, not fixed TVs You get even better picture if you shrink it. something like 1.2~1.5m wide is still ok even for small room. You can get decent 1080p projectors today for ~1500$, 720P are even less.
and yes, the example I gave was extreme, even more so in 2005.
Plasma - I wouldn't touch it, sorry. 152" :O that's a heater not a TV You need a standalone AC just to cool it down 
anyway, as far as the whole 3D goes, from what I have seen, conversion from regular movie to 3D movie (as a postprocess done in TV / hardware box of some sort) is not very good. You probably noticed that yourself. Equivalent to that would be something like virtual surround sound if you know what I mean.
besides, I am no where "rich" enough to own any of those TVs or LCD projectors, I just get in touch with that sort of things because my friends mostly work in IT so I get to demo stuff, or rather, get invited sometimes to droll over the place.
Only 3D I have at the moment is cross-eyed technique And it bloody hurts hahahaha
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabot
Elite Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 2398
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gx-x wrote: | well you don't have to go 5m diagonal, you can shrink picture, those are projectors, not fixed TVs You get even better picture if you shrink it. something like 1.2~1.5m wide is still ok even for small room. You can get decent 1080p projectors today for ~1500$, 720P are even less.
and yes, the example I gave was extreme, even more so in 2005.
Plasma - I wouldn't touch it, sorry. 152" :O that's a heater not a TV You need a standalone AC just to cool it down :P
anyway, as far as the whole 3D goes, from what I have seen, conversion from regular movie to 3D movie (as a postprocess done in TV / hardware box of some sort) is not very good. You probably noticed that yourself. Equivalent to that would be something like virtual surround sound if you know what I mean.
besides, I am no where "rich" enough to own any of those TVs or LCD projectors, I just get in touch with that sort of things because my friends mostly work in IT so I get to demo stuff, or rather, get invited sometimes to droll over the place.
Only 3D I have at the moment is cross-eyed technique And it bloody hurts hahahaha
:wave: |
projectors are cool, just that with a 3D tv..you've well....got a tv combined. the idea of watching seperates or, god forbid, running sd through thousands of bucks of projector. Aint my cup of tea. Besides the projector would be sitting idle most of the time, i wont be playing more 3D than watching HD. Plasma's are no longer like the old 'boilers' They now only consume a third more energy than an equivalent LCD and are very thin. The 2D-3D is very good in sports and CGI blu ray. it can't be perfect but due to being able to adjust the strength of the conversion 'mild to deep' it is never the less a freebie part of the tv and can be quite a laugh!
Try putting a lenticular screen over your tv and drool over that jaw droppind depth of feild
Anyway, i've basicaly got the same priced tv that i got 4 years ago, with tons more features that i can shake a stick at ~ that's superb in my book. frreesat HD,card reader,USBs,Ethernet,wirelless, 600Hz,3D,2D-3D,Full HD 3D, 24p, and a 3D fullHD blu ray player@1000W RMS 7.1 home cinema system thrown in for free AND Avatar 3D,Coraline 3D,Ice Age 3 3D and Paul Carrick 3D. Yep, i'm a happy bunny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
