The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Spotlight on 3-D: Specialized cameras will be required to provide content for 3-D televisions.
ESPN
Glasses-free 3-D television is still a long way from the market.
Television manufacturers and content producers started out the year pushing 3-D television hard, hoping to ride the wave of success enjoyed by the 3-D movie Avatar. Though glasses-free 3-D is still some ways away, manufacturers hope to entice consumers with a flurry of products that make the best of the difficulties with bringing 3-D content to the small screen.
Producing a 3-D television that doesn't require glasses is "impractical for the foreseeable future," says Peter Fannon, vice president of corporate and government affairs for Panasonic.
Demos featuring glasses-free 3-D television technology have yet to pan out into real products. Two years ago, Mitsubishi attracted attention by showing off glasses-free 3-D research technology, but the company has no products based on the work.
Fannon says that a key trouble with glasses-free 3-D is that it would significantly raise production costs. Most glasses-free TV displays use a lenticular lens, which gives off light at different angles--so that a different image reaches each eye. Such a display requires images of the same object to be captured from many different angles, forcing content producers to film and process the same scene from a dozen or more angles at a once. "That's a production cost no one can bear," he says. Lenticular lenses can also distort a picture, and viewers often have to watch from a specific angle.
Instead, 3-D technologies in use today employ glasses to control the images. The most common technology, used in movie theaters, is made by RealD, a company based in Beverly Hills, CA. This technology uses a special screen to reflect polarized light to the audience when images are projected onto it. The glasses then filter the light so that images are directed correctly to each eye.
RealD has made deals with many of the major manufacturers, including Sony, JVC, Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, and DirecTV, to use its format to deliver 3-D content to televisions. However, the majority of 3-D televisions use "active eyewear" to process 3-D content for each eye, unlike the passive glasses used in movie theaters.
Active glasses for 3-D are battery-operated, and they have lenses that rapidly shutter open and closed. The television display--often an LCD or plasma screen--works double-time, cramming in twice as many pictures so that a each eye sees a continuous, high-quality image.
A RealD spokesman explained that the special screen technology used in movie theaters, where the display does most of the work, would be too expensive if translated to 3-D TVs for consumers. Active glasses, on the other hand, are too expensive for movie theaters to hand out in volume, but work well for home users.
Panasonic's Fannon adds that polarized glasses work best in a dark environment, where a large screen fills the audience's entire field of vision. Active shutters are better suited to the home environment, he says.
Why not make the transition from from active shutter goggles to headmounted displays? The images would be independently delivered to each eye with a much larger field of vision.
Laser projection to a variously opaque lens surface.
I enjoyed Avatar in 3D, but I'm not sure how effective it would be on a small screen. My real problem with 3D is that our visual sense is more sophisticated than the current gadgets. Although the primary source of our 3D view of the real world is the slightly different views from our left and right eyes, the brain is adept at using other cues as well (which is why people who have lost the sight in one eye can still judge depths with surprising accuracy).
These include the focal length of the adjutable lenses in our eyes and parallax generated when we move the position of our heads. These latter two features are not reproduced by our current TV or cinema 3D technologies, leading to a disconnect between the apparent 3D depth and the other cues. Perhaps holograms are the answer?
I have installed an RJ54 connection behind my left ear. My recliner has built-in plumbing with a 10mm intravenous drip. I may add the adult stimulous pkg but it is expensive. Life is good. Ahhh.
In movie theaters, 3-D requires a special screen? Does anyone know why? I thought it worked simply by projecting two images that are polarized 90 degress apart. The glasses are similarly polarized so that each eye sees only one of the images.
Why a special screen?
Ordinary screens "break" the polarization of reflected light. The orthogonally polarized light from the 2 projectors becomes (somewhat) randomized when it is reflected off a normal screen, so images from both the LH and RH views leak through both polarized lenses the audience is wearing. Not good. 3D screens are designed to preserve the polarization of reflected light.
Though you are right about 3D glasses are going to required, for the most part, it is a little concerning. I know I couldn't where these glasses over my own prescription glasses for a few hours a day - its just not in the cards.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
This document is part of the “How-To Guide for Most Common Measurements” centralized resource portal. This tutorial provides a detailed guide for measurement and device considerations to take temperature measurements using thermocouples. Get an introduction to thermocouples, which are inexpensive sensing devices widely used with PC-based data acquisition systems. Also review some specific thermocouple examples and learn how thermocouples work and ways to integrate them into a data acquisition measurement system.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
bildan
39 Comments
3D TV
I'm old enough to remember the first theater 3D movies using polarized glasses. They were purely a gimmick and audiences rejected them after seeing one 3D movie. I can't see enough improvement in the last 55 years to change that.
Reply
GeneralOreo
4 Comments
Re: 3D TV
Maybe you just haven't seen avatar yet?
Reply
MacLir
12 Comments
Re: 3D TV
Part of that may be the use of the technology, too.
The 3-D coming attractions before Avatar used the same old cheezy 3-D tricks like swords thrusting out of the screen, and looked as crummy as ever.
The feature did not resort to gee-whiz effects for their own sake, and came off MUCH better. (Not to mention that the CG animation was so good that the line between reality and creativity was effectively invisible.)
Reply