Spotted one of these displays in operation the other day, anybody else
it, what did you think.

Based around Lenticular technology.

<http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/3dtechnology/index.html>

<http://alaninbelfast.blogspot.com/2007/03/multiview-lenticular-technology-or-3d.html>

<http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/Why3D/Index.html>

On Jan 23, 11:45 pm, "m.t6" <> wrote:
> Spotted one of these displays in operation the other day, anybody else
> it, what did you think.
>
> Based around Lenticular technology.
>
> <http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/3dtechnology/index....>
>
> <http://alaninbelfast.blogspot.com/2007/03/multiview-lenticular-techno...>
>
> <http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/Why3D/Index.html>

I saw one at work yesterday, I have to admit I didn't see any 3D. The
screen went blurry when not standing at one of the 4 marked points on
the floor, but having said that I recently saw Beowulf in 3D at the
IMAX in London which might have spoilt it.

Saw a 4K rugby match too, but nothing got my attention like the 7K
"ultra HD" I saw at IBC 2006.

m.t6 wrote:
> Spotted one of these displays in operation the other day, anybody else
> it, what did you think.
>
> Based around Lenticular technology.
>
> <http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/3dtechnology/index.html>
>
> <http://alaninbelfast.blogspot.com/2007/03/multiview-lenticular-technology-or-3d.html>
>
> <http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/Why3D/Index.html>

(Can't see the middle link but from the other two ...) Still seems to be 
based on the different-image-to-each-eye idea. This sort of thing, even if 
perfect, doesn't work for me - I don't have binocular vision. (Both eyes 
work fine, just not together - though I can't point them in different 
directions like Marty Feldman could, which seems a pity!) As such, _no_ 
so-called 3-D effect (at least not one that relies on such a principle, as 
virtually all do) works for me. (Stereoscopic [dotty] pictures? Nah ...)

I believe something was done with fast-oscillating mirrors, about 15 years 
ago (which probably means it was 25 or 30), that actually had a monitor 
which had volume rather than area, or appeared to by some means other than 
using binocular; however, how you make a camera to drive such a thing, I 
don't know.

I wonder what proportion of the population _doesn't_ have binocular vision 
(either like me, or because of a problem with - or loss etc. of - one eye). 
It would be interesting to know ...

Also, one wonders why 3-D has never really caught on: even using the 
binocular principle, it has always been thought of as mostly a gimmick - but 
other "gimmicks" like colour, widescreen, HD, and for that matter television 
itself (and before that radio) did catch on; 3D in contrast never seems to 
have, and you'd have thought enough people _would_ be able to see it for it 
to.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver                  |  Tel. +44 1634 203298

Essex home for sale, £59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

J. P. Gilliver schrieb:

> Also, one wonders why 3-D has never really caught on: even using the 
> binocular principle, it has always been thought of as mostly a gimmick - but 
> other "gimmicks" like colour, widescreen, HD, and for that matter television 
> itself (and before that radio) did catch on; 3D in contrast never seems to 
> have, and you'd have thought enough people _would_ be able to see it for it 
> to.

3D-TV wasn´t an option until HDTV was emerging - without resolution of 
details there is no stereoscopic 3D. Now even Hollywood is producing 3D 
content in 2K for the expanding row of digital cinemas, mostly capable 
of 3D projection (spectators are wearing lightwheighted LCD-shutter 
glasses). "Beowulf 3D" is an excellent view for people with binocular 
vision...

regards

Klaus

>
> 3D-TV wasn´t an option until HDTV was emerging - without resolution of 
> details there is no stereoscopic 3D.

I don't understand that assertion, please explain.

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

I have thought 3D holographic displays would be available now.

Graham. schrieb:
>> 3D-TV wasn´t an option until HDTV was emerging - without resolution of 
>> details there is no stereoscopic 3D.
> 
> I don't understand that assertion, please explain.
> 

Early cinema and TV productions in stereoscopic 3-D were using red and 
blue filters for left and right eye views, and with PAL TV you have only 
about 1 MHz bandwidth for colour information. That is giving very bad 
resolution on the receiver screen, but your brain needs two highly 
detailed pictures for recalculation of a 3-D space illusion - the brain 
combines the two perspectives into a 3-D image...
Now with HDTV and MPEG-4 compression standards there is no compromise 
needed, sharply detailed edges are on the screen with red/blue 
separation or with sequential 3-D. Sharp pulled off glasses-free 3-D by 
layering a gratelike sheet of liquid crystal on top of a regular LCD 
screen. Much like a picket fence, this grate splits an image into two 
views, separated by four or five degrees, so that the left eye sees a 
slightly different image than the right eye. Philips is working on 
similar glasses-free HDTV 3-D displays (42 inch LCD) too.

Mars images in 3-D for red/blue glasses: 
www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/themes/STEREO.html

concerning
"I have thought 3D holographic displays would be available now."

There is an essential difference between holographic and stereoscopic 
3D: holographic pictures made with laser beams are containing every 
perspective possible (looking "behind" the object is possible), but
stereoscopic 3D has only 2 perspectives, mostly set by normal eyes´ 
distance. So only 2 photographic or video cameras side by side are used 
for record...

Klaus

Klaus Kramer wrote:
> Sharp pulled off glasses-free 3-D by 
> layering a gratelike sheet of liquid crystal on top of a regular LCD 
> screen. Much like a picket fence, this grate splits an image into two 
> views, separated by four or five degrees, so that the left eye sees a 
> slightly different image than the right eye. 

Does this mean that if you move your head 5 degrees to one side the 
image turns inside out?

Andy

In article <fni81o$i5g$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Klaus Kramer wrote:
> Early cinema and TV productions in stereoscopic 3-D were using red and 
> blue filters for left and right eye views, and with PAL TV you have only 
> about 1 MHz bandwidth for colour information. That is giving very bad 
> resolution on the receiver screen, but your brain needs two highly 
> detailed pictures for recalculation of a 3-D space illusion - the brain 
> combines the two perspectives into a 3-D image...

Not true. The stereoscopic effect can work with quite fuzzy images, and can 
certainly use the colour information in a standard PAL encoded signal. I 
remember experimenting by feeding the luminance signals from two cameras to 
the red and green inputs of an encoder, looking at the result through 
coloured gels, and seeing superb stereo images, though monochrome of 
course. They've even tried broadcasting 3D in colour just by tinting the 
two colour images, and that works too - you see 3D images in colour if you 
look through coloured gels, though it looks like a badly misregistered 
coloured image if you don't, so it's not really compatible.

Rod.

Andy Champ schrieb:
> Klaus Kramer wrote:
>> Sharp pulled off glasses-free 3-D by layering a gratelike sheet of 
>> liquid crystal on top of a regular LCD screen. Much like a picket 
>> fence, this grate splits an image into two views, separated by four or 
>> five degrees, so that the left eye sees a slightly different image 
>> than the right eye. 
> 
> Does this mean that if you move your head 5 degrees to one side the 
> image turns inside out?
> 
> Andy

That is really a downside, but there is a solution: following the single 
viewer´s position with ultra high sound waves and adjusting the 
gratelike sheet of liquid crystal accordingly (Heinrich-Hertz-Institut 
Berlin)...

regards
Klaus