3D New 3-D Technology Without Glasses (1 Viewer)

Richard--W · Aug 22, 2012

Reported on CNN Tech:

CNN -- Watching 3-D movies generally means suffering through two things: crappy plotlines that favor spectacle over substance and the need to wear some annoying, dorky glasses. Scientists may have solved one of these frustrations. (You might be able to guess which.)
Researchers in South Korea have created a new method that would allow moviegoers to simply sit down and start watching a 3-D movie with no extra gear necessary. The research was published Monday in Optics Express.
"This is essentially the next step that was required for 3-D display technology without glasses," said physicist John Koshel, who studies optical science at the University of Arizona and was not associated with the new work.
We see the world in three dimensions because our eyes are spaced slightly apart, each looking out at a different angle. Your brain combines the information from both eyes, determining where each object in your field of view is to generate depth perception.
To achieve 3-D movies or television, the trick is to send a slightly different, offset picture to each eye. Special glasses handle this task for most modern 3-D blockbuster movies, with each lens only letting in one polarization of light. Polarization describes the direction in which the electromagnetic waves in light oscillate, either up-down, left-right, or something in between.

The rest is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/tech/innovation/3d-movies-no-glasses/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Ronald Epstein · Aug 22, 2012

Richard,

Thank you for this.
Every time I hear the words "3D Without Glasses" I find myself shaking my head.

I believe it can and will be done, no doubt.

The problem is this...

I think glasses-free 3D for the home and theater will provide viewers with
the sense of depth they have become accustomed to.

However, without glasses, I don't see it possible for any objects to leap forward
from the screen. It just seems a complete impossibility. And THAT is one of
the things that makes 3D most appealing. Take it away, and it's no longer 3D that
is as good as what you get with glasses.

I am very close to seeing an actual glasses-free display for the home in about
two months. Going to see a demo with a group of HTF members during our meet.
Hopefully I can come back and let you guys know just how good this new technology
is. However, if it can't produce images that thrust forward, don't expect me to jump
on the glasses-free bandwagon.

TravisR · Aug 22, 2012

While I guess the idea of TV or movie 3-D without the glasses is appealing, I don't think it's that great of a hardship to wear them either. And that comes from someone who already wears regular prescription glasses.

Steve Tannehill · Aug 22, 2012

TravisR said:
While I guess the idea of TV or movie 3-D without the glasses is appealing, I don't think it's that great of a hardship to wear them either. And that comes from someone who already wears regular prescription glasses.

This. The RealD 3D glasses are a tight fit over my own, granted, but the active shutter DLP link 3D glasses I have at home are large enough to fit over my glasses comfortably. I don't have an issue with them.

smithb · Aug 22, 2012

Ronald Epstein said:
However, without glasses, I don't see it possible for any objects to leap forward from the screen. It just seems a complete impossibility. And THAT is one of the things that makes 3D most appealing. Take it away, and it's no longer 3D that is as good as what you get with glasses.

My experience is probably limited to most that would reply to this thread. I have seen a few movied many years ago, Terminator 3D and T-Rex in orlando quite a few years ago, Mickey Mouse 3D in Disney World more recently, and some TV demos with glasses at Costco. Personally, I'm also not big on transitioning my equipment or anything in the near future, so take that all in my reply.
I find the 3D concept interesting and fun to experience. I can see the possibility for a lot of value in the ability to add depth. It is the "coming out of the screen" that while it can be fun at the right times, I don't personally see it as appealing in a more submersive film unless the whole background can come with it. When i saw a fish demo and the fish popped out of the screen it was initially cool, but it looked like fish floating in air not swimming in the ocean. For a film that would take me out of the mood of what is going on. Added depth inward, no problem, but things popping out while the background stays behind is a no go for me in anything but a non-serious gimicky perpsective. Now if they can get around the background issue (or if they already have) then that is different.

Charles Smith · Aug 22, 2012

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/323188/3-d-without-glasses#post_3965276
While I guess the idea of TV or movie 3-D without the glasses is appealing, I don't think it's that great of a hardship to wear them either. And that comes from someone who already wears regular prescription glasses.

Same here. It's not an issue, whether I'm wearing my glasses or contact lenses. The contacts, of course, make for a much more comfortable, and slightly better, viewing experience. But again, it's just not a big deal.

Ejanss · Aug 22, 2012

Ronald Epstein said:
Richard,
I am very close to seeing an actual glasses-free display for the home in about
two months. Going to see a demo with a group of HTF members during our meet.
Hopefully I can come back and let you guys know just how good this new technology
is. However, if it can't produce images that thrust forward, don't expect me to jump
on the glasses-free bandwagon.

I'm assuming they work on the same principle as those teeny lil' Nintendo games, and maybe it's the size or the right angle, but I can't get them to WORK!
Me, I've been spoiled by nice crisp, clear Active--because I don't mind glasses--so the idea of using some kind of similar dual-perspectived screen to the game consoles just seems like it'll be fuzzy or edgy, and more in love with the idea of "Look, we got it to work!" than any actual quality that doesn't interfere with the film.
But then, I'll also confess some bias, after hearing the hordes of anti-3D whiners saying "I won't buy a 3DTV until they're glasses-free!--I read they were working on one, in Wired!"
Which at the moment, is a bit like saying "I won't buy a new car until we can get one of those flying ones!--We were supposed to get them in 2000, I saw it in an old movie!"

smithb · Aug 22, 2012

Ejanss said:
But then, I'll also confess some bias, after hearing the hordes of anti-3D whiners saying "I won't buy a 3DTV until they're glasses-free!--I read they were working on one, in Wired!"
Which at the moment, is a bit like saying "I won't buy a new car until we can get one of those flying ones!--We were supposed to get them in 2000, I saw it in an old movie!"

While I'm not a 3D enthusiast, i can at least say I have nothing against wearing the glasses if it help the realism vs. trying force a no-glasses approach that may not really be feasible for some time.

Richard--W · Aug 22, 2012

The important part of the report is how the Koreans accomplished 3-D without glasses:

...The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they've always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.
The new method is less cumbersome than both the current two-projector and the behind-the-screen-projector methods. But because it blocks some of the light to your different eyes, the current image resolution is fairly low. Koshel expects that 3-D movie companies will be interested in upgrading the method's abilities and resolution to bring glasses-free 3-D to the masses.
"This technology is still in its infancy, but it's a new step that was hidden for a long time," Koshel said.

Personally, I wish Douglas Trumbull's 70mm stereoscopic system could be refined somehow so that it's doable and affordable. It's basic photography: photochemical, mechanical, and optically simple. Engineers who've seen it have assured me the depth is the deepest they've seen, and so keen and natural and easy on the brain no one who sees it would ever doubt the legitimacy of 3-D. My company will be shooting it's first stereoscopic feature soon and I wish we could go with Trumbull's system, but alas.

Paul Hillenbrand · Aug 22, 2012

Ronald Epstein said:
.........without glasses, I don't see it possible for any objects to leap forward
from the screen. It just seems a complete impossibility. And THAT is one of
the things that makes 3D most appealing. Take it away, and it's no longer 3D that
is as good as what you get with glasses.
...................However, if it can't produce images that thrust forward, don't expect me to jump
on the glasses-free bandwagon.

Never experienced a glasses-free 3D display, except when using a Sony HMZ-T1 where the discrete 3D drastically limits objects leaping forward. Always thought the reason behind not experiencing the break-out visual 3D illusion was because of an absence of visual external reference points, - not seeing a display frame and any objects in the peripheral vision the eyes would use for the brain to calculate and gauge negative parallax plains. It will be very interesting in following your 3D glasses free experience report.
Paul

RolandL · Aug 22, 2012

Watching something in 3D is fun once in while so wearing glasses just for 3D movies is no big deal. All the glass-free 3D systems I have heard of require that everything is in 3D, you can't turn it off. They are very expensive and you have to sit directly in front of the display to see the 3D. Our 3D experts - Greg and Bob probably know more about them then I.

Matt Hough · Aug 22, 2012

I agree about today's active 3D glasses. I wear them over my regular glasses (when I'm not wearing contacts), and they've never been a problem. I find them quite comfortable, in fact, and forget they're there.

Chuck Anstey · Aug 22, 2012

Paul Hillenbrand said:
.........without glasses, I don't see it possible for any objects to leap forward
from the screen. It just seems a complete impossibility. And THAT is one of
the things that makes 3D most appealing. Take it away, and it's no longer 3D that
is as good as what you get with glasses.
...................However, if it can't produce images that thrust forward, don't expect me to jump
on the glasses-free bandwagon.

Click to expand...

Never experienced a glasses-free 3D display, except when using a Sony HMZ-T1 where the discrete 3D drastically limits objects leaping forward. Always thought the reason behind not experiencing the break-out visual 3D illusion was because of an absence of visual external reference points, - not seeing a display frame and any objects in the peripheral vision the eyes would use for the brain to calculate and gauge negative parallax plains. It will be very interesting in following your 3D glasses free experience report.
Paul

I don't understand why glasses free 3D wouldn't have the identical appearance as glasses 3D except for the resolution loss. The goal of 3D is to get the left image to the left eye and right image to the right eye and the separation determines the location. As long as that is accomplished, why does it matter how it is achieved?
Now I have the same experience as Paul with his Sony HMZ-T1 with my Sony 95ES projector when there are no physical objects visible and I wrote about it. In my bat cave where I cannot see the screen edges or any other physical object between myself and the screen, I cannot tell where an object is relative to the screen plane when it is in front. I know where objects are relative to other movie objects on the screen but the "pop off the screen" is only apparent if you can see something real in front of the screen so you can compare depth.

Stephen_J_H · Aug 22, 2012

As the father of an avid gamer who just purchased a Nintendo 3DS XL after owning the original 3DS for a year, the first thing that popped into my head was, "this sounds exactly like a large scale 3DS." Check out this Wikipedia article on parallax barrier technology and you'll get the idea. Parallax barrier creates really good depth, but is limited in terms of "in your face" effects or objects floating out in front of the screen. The viewing angle is very limited; less so on the XL, but if you move more than 2-3 degrees off centre, the effect is lost and further angles induce double vision. As much as glasses-free 3D is considered the Holy Grail, I think for any application larger than an audience of one, glasses are necessary and the limitations of glasses-free are such that I take a very hesitant and cautious approach.

Ejanss · Aug 22, 2012

RolandL said:
Watching something in 3D is fun once in while so wearing glasses just for 3D movies is no big deal. All the glass-free 3D systems I have heard of require that everything is in 3D, you can't turn it off. They are very expensive and you have to sit directly in front of the display to see the 3D. Our 3D experts - Greg and Bob probably know more about them then I.

That's probably one thing that gets the anti-3D whiners: Most of them literally--LITERALLY--aren't aware that not all your programming on a 3DTV will be in 3D.
(Just like not all your HDTV programming was in HD when you first bought the set, but when it was, yowza. And even back then, we were using the "Birth of Color TV in the 60's" metaphor.)
So, most of them fear that under the current systems, they'll have to wear "big heavy glasses" just to watch the evening news, which at this point, is just....silly. Most fears are, which they seem to specialize in.
Instead, they want a system they imagine they "won't be bothered" in having to watch, only to find they can't watch most of their old programming on it. Here endeth the lesson.

RolandL · Aug 23, 2012

Ejanss said:
That's probably one thing that gets the anti-3D whiners: Most of them literally--LITERALLY--aren't aware that not all your programming on a 3DTV will be in 3D.
(Just like not all your HDTV programming was in HD when you first bought the set, but when it was, yowza. And even back then, we were using the "Birth of Color TV in the 60's" metaphor.)
So, most of them fear that under the current systems, they'll have to wear "big heavy glasses" just to watch the evening news, which at this point, is just....silly. Most fears are, which they seem to specialize in.
Instead, they want a system they imagine they "won't be bothered" in having to watch, only to find they can't watch most of their old programming on it. Here endeth the lesson.

When I worked at a retail store, customers would say "I don't want one of those 3D TV's. You have to wear 3D glasses all the time." Once I explained it's only for 3D Blu-ray's and a few TV channels they were interested.
Another funny thing is that after they buy a 3D TV they come back to complain that nothing is coming out of the screen when they watch a 3D movie. Since they see a 3D demo at the store, which shows objects coming out the screen, they think all movies will look that way.

SAM33 · Aug 23, 2012

I recently saw a fairly large glasses free projection system at Siggraph.
While it had decent depth and SOME projection, it was plagued by a kind of "lenticular" artifacting, linear vertical segments showing at the edge of some moving objects.
Also had a somewhat limited viewing angle, and was using MANY small projectors to achieve the effect. IF this is anywhere near 'state of the art", then there's still a ways to go.
SAM33

Paul Hillenbrand · Aug 23, 2012

SAM33 said:
I recently saw a fairly large glasses free projection system at Siggraph.
While it had decent depth and SOME projection, it was plagued by a kind of "lenticular" artifacting, linear vertical segments showing at the edge of some moving objects.
Also had a somewhat limited viewing angle, and was using MANY small projectors to achieve the effect. IF this is anywhere near 'state of the art", then there's still a ways to go.
SAM33

SAM33,
Thanks for sharing a rare experience with Glasses-Free 3D.

"Still a ways to go" would also describe the essence of a Sony L series 24" Glasses-Free 3D TV/PC Review

Everything is managed through the simple VAIO 3D Portal, but we found it was largely a novelty experience. You have to sit between 60 and 80cm from the screen for the webcam to track your face and for the 3D to work, which means no lying down or leaning back. You also can’t use the system with more than one face, so you’ll be watching 3D movies on your own.
If you’re happy to sit up and close to watch a movie, though, the 3D effect is generally pretty good. We’d definitely rate passive 3D and active 3D higher than glasses-free at the moment, but there is a definite extra depth to 3D Blu-ray content when viewed on the VAIO L.

Paul

Ryan-G · Aug 23, 2012

I'm really not fond of the glasses. I feel the images generated by them tend to be blurry, and less well defined than a 2D movie. I find they appear darker to me than a 2D movie. I also generally have to concentrate to perceive depth in the images, if I'm not actively attempting to perceive depth it just looks like a 2D presentation to me. I've never experienced the whole "Object flying out of the screen" phenomenae.
I've read that there's some people 3D doesn't work on, perhaps I'm one of them. I'm just not convinced that my issue isn't due to the glasses. My visual accuity is excellent, so I don't think it's eye trouble.

Richard--W · Aug 24, 2012

Ryan-G said:
I'm really not fond of the glasses. I feel the images generated by them tend to be blurry, and less well defined than a 2D movie. I find they appear darker to me than a 2D movie.

It's the medium, not the glasses. Digital-generated images are softer, dimmer and not as well defined as photochemical film.

Ryan-G said:
I also generally have to concentrate to perceive depth in the images, if I'm not actively attempting to perceive depth it just looks like a 2D presentation to me. I've never experienced the whole "Object flying out of the screen" phenomenae.
I've read that there's some people 3D doesn't work on, perhaps I'm one of them. I'm just not convinced that my issue isn't due to the glasses. My visual accuity is excellent, so I don't think it's eye trouble.

Possibly.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

3D New 3-D Technology Without Glasses (1 Viewer)

Founder

R.I.P - 4.28.2015

Screenwriter

Extremely Talented Member

Screenwriter

Screenwriter

All Things Film Junkie

Stunt Coordinator

Supporting Actor

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics