Dimenco No Glasses 3D TV kickstarter

[SebC]

The current generation doesn't do it, but the future of 3D is dynamic adjustment of broadcast angle with head-tracking.

[dino7c]

I just watched the hobbit in 3d on my 60" sharp with active 3d and I can tell you it added to the movie

maybe not for everyone but gimmick or not I enjoy 3D

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Also, technology is a long ways away from glasses free 3D TVs that aren't limited in some way. I don't know how it even possible without using a completely different display technology than we have now, to show 3d that looks even close to real to more than one person sitting in a very specific spot.

Did you read the OP?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Did you read the OP?

I don't have to read the op to understand basic physics.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I watched the Bobbitt on my TV in 3D and thought it looked great.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There's a joke in there somewhere.

I think it has something to do with the severed penis looking like it's coming at you.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't have to read the op to understand basic physics.

If you're going to be that arrogant, back it up with a reasoned critique of the solutions that Dimenco is claiming to have for the problems you raised.

"Dimenco has solved the restricted freedom of movement and loss of resolution by applying an unique optical structure on top of the 4K (UD) resolution LCD panels", according to a press release.

One of the knocks against glasses-free 3D TVs is restricted viewing angles, but Dimenco says "the 3D can be perceived is 140 degrees so you will be able to enjoy from different angles."

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If you're going to be that arrogant, back it up with a reasoned critique of the solutions that Dimenco is claiming to have for the problems you raised.

"Dimenco has solved the restricted freedom of movement and loss of resolution by applying an unique optical structure on top of the 4K (UD) resolution LCD panels", according to a press release.

One of the knocks against glasses-free 3D TVs is restricted viewing angles, but Dimenco says "the 3D can be perceived is 140 degrees so you will be able to enjoy from different angles."

A glasses free 3D tv would have to ACTIVELY adjust the lenses precisely to the location of the viewers' eyes. Once you have more than one person watching, this task becomes greater and greater.

Let's say two people are sitting right beside each other, the tv would have to show the right eye image to both people's right eye but not to their left eye. The tv would also have to show the left eye image to both people's left eye, but not their right eyes. Not only that, but it would have to be able to adapt those angles when people would move their heads, which would require the tv to be able to sense where peoples faces are.

None of these TVs are even close to being able to do this, and until they can, glasses free 3d is simply a gimmick. It requires more than simply being able to show two slightly different pictures when viewed at slightly different angles.

It might be possible with today's technology, but it would probably be huge, and be rediculously expensive.

[You Need a Thneed]

I should say that a glasses free tv designed for one person sitting in a very specific spot, shouldn't be too hard.

Once you make the tv work for more than one person watching, or allowing the one person to move around, the task becomes much more difficult. Both together, would be very, very hard.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A glasses free 3D tv would have to ACTIVELY adjust the lenses precisely to the location of the viewers' eyes. Once you have more than one person watching, this task becomes greater and greater.

Let's say two people are sitting right beside each other, the tv would have to show the right eye image to both people's right eye but not to their left eye. The tv would also have to show the left eye image to both people's left eye, but not their right eyes. Not only that, but it would have to be able to adapt those angles when people would move their heads, which would require the tv to be able to sense where peoples faces are.

None of these TVs are even close to being able to do this, and until they can, glasses free 3d is simply a gimmick. It requires more than simply being able to show two slightly different pictures when viewed at slightly different angles.

It might be possible with today's technology, but it would probably be huge, and be rediculously expensive.

that's an explanation as to why it's hard, but doesn't even mention Dimenco's claimed solution let alone posit why it won't work as claimed.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I should say that a glasses free tv designed for one person sitting in a very specific spot, shouldn't be too hard.

Once you make the tv work for more than one person watching, or allowing the one person to move around, the task becomes much more difficult. Both together, would be very, very hard.

They have already done it on monitors throughout the world. It's been done man.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They have already done it on monitors throughout the world. It's been done man.

There's a huge difference between a monitor that you have to have your head in a precise spot and what I'm describing.

I'm not going to compromise my TV viewing experience for some gimmicky 3D effect.

I'd rather wear glasses than have to worry about keeping my head in an exact spot anyway. I wear glasses all the time anyway.

What I'm saying is that there is always going to be compromises in trying to get glasses free 3D from a TV. Compromises that cannot be eliminated, without a complete change in technology. I'm never going to buy a TV that has such compromises, and 3D TV will never become any kind of standard with such compromises.

I'd much rather have the 4k tv without the fancy lenses in front that bring the image back down to hd quality.

Again, in my mind, for a glasses free 3d tv to be acceptable it must meet these standards:

-Must be able to have your head wherever you want to see the effect.
-Picture quality must be as good as a regular 2d tv, for both 2d and 3d
-wherever you go, your left eye must only be able to see the intended left eye picture, and your right eye must only be able to see the intended right eye picture.

The physical limitations of what is possible without an active, adaptive system mean that current glasses free TVs cannot meet any of those three, though I suppose you could say that it meets the second if the tv compensates for the lost brightness, and you have your head in the correct spot.

[Hack&Lube]

I find the limiting factor to home 3D enjoyment is really that the image does that encompass your field of view.

Anything from a 40 to 80 inch TV still does not fill up your view and you can't sit right in front of it like a computer monitor because the pixel density on 1080p is too low.

Seeing the outside of the screen in my peripheral vision breaks the immersion and impact for me.