Glasses-free 3D gets a step closer to reality with Ultra-D

One CES press release that quietly landed in the inbox last week, in amongst all the fanfare from the likes of Sony, LG, Samsung, was an announcement that a small company known as Stream TV (and its ‘Ultra-D’ technology) had forged a alliance with BOE Technology Group, a Beijing-based flat-panel display innovator and supplier.

The idea is to bring a far more sophisticated glasses-free 3D technology to consumers. If any of you have already experienced glasses-free 3D demonstrations over the past few years, you might have found the results to be mixed, with several relying on the viewer to be seated within specific quadrant viewing angles from the display to get the full effect, while others lacked acceptable perceived image resolution. But there was never any doubt that R&D by various companies would eventually come up trumps, and it seems perhaps we are getting closer to that end goal.

Stream TV’s Ultra-D solution is considered by many to be the ‘world’s best’ glasses-free 3D technology, and the company claims that its ‘advanced optics and powerful rendering algorithms’ create a 140-degree viewing angle with a ‘crisp, clear and vibrant 3D experience’. The new deal means that this new technology should find its way into consumer televisions, with BOE shipping millions of panels to a number of manufacturers.

“4K TVs and PC monitors are obsolete now that 8K panels have arrived,” said Mathu Rajan, CEO of Stream TV. “Working with high-resolution panels from a partner like BOE allows us to gain significant traction in the global market. The human eye can’t tell the difference between 4K and 8K in flat 2D. Without using the third plane, you’re basically throwing away all those pixels. We use those extra pixels for pop and depth to create an immersive experience that brings real value to device makers and their customers.”

At CES last week, the collaboration between Stream TV and BOE was showcased with an 8K ‘Lite’ glasses-free Ultra-3D display, by appointment only. If you want to read more about the Ultra-D auto-stereoscopic technologies, which are destined to roll out in a number of device categories, there is plenty of information on the Ultra-D website. In the meantime, if any of you had a chance to witness the performance at CES, and were one of the lucky ones to get an appointment, please add a comment below.

 

 

 

 

 

Published by

Martin Dew

editor

66 Comments

  1. HarleyDog

    Sounds promising. Now, if my LG OLED 3D television will just hold out until the technology becomes affordable. . .

    I just can't imagine any glasses-free technology being able to provide us with the same quality 3D as we have been enjoying with glasses. How the hell would it work? Will we be watching a hologram? Could it possibly be even as good as what 3D displays give us when converting 2D images in the set? Is there a way to explain this process to a layperson?

  2. John Sparks

    noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I'm too old to start again collecting.

    Why would you have to start all over again? It seems to me that you will have a huge collection of 3D Blu-rays to watch on this new display technology.

  3. We saw a glasses free 3D prototype from Dolby several years ago at a National HTF Meet. It was using a 4K display and it worked very well with some of the limitations mentioned above. If Ultra-D is basing theirs on an 8K display and using the extra pixals to fill in some of those holes I image the real world performance is pretty impressive. Unfortunately I imagine the cost will make this targeted at the commercial market (electronic mini billboards, museum displays, etc.)

  4. I'd love to see a glasses-free technology just for the possibilities that it might open up with filmmaking.

    I think most people would be resistant to wearing glasses on a movie if there was only a 3D component in a single scene or single shot, or just select moments. And while there have been some mid-2000s IMAX releases that had sections of the movie in 3D but not the whole, the cues to put on and take off the glasses can be a little distracting – they alert you that something is about to happen in the movie, instead of it being a surprise.

    But just the way a movie can have a restrained sound design and then turn up the volume or use the surround channels at a key moment to heighten the impact, I think it would be exciting to see films that used "3D moments" unexpectedly to draw you in just as part of the movie's general design.

  5. At the end of the day though, you still have to use a lenticular lense to pull this off, which means the optimal viewing angle will be very small, unless they have made massive advances in the lenticular lense itself, which is pretty old tech.

  6. Dick

    I just can't imagine any glasses-free technology being able to provide us with the same quality 3D as we have been enjoying with glasses. How the hell would it work? Will we be watching a hologram? Could it possibly be even as good as what 3D displays give us when converting 2D images in the set? Is there a way to explain this process to a layperson?

    I saw the demo a few years ago, and it was very impressive, it reminded me of a lenticular Image, it moves as you move, it was also very important to be at the right distance to the screen, but remember what I saw was a prototype, so it may have improved since then.

  7. I remember watching Toshiba’s prototype 3D glasses free display back in 2008 @ CES. Giving that half the resolution was for the stereo image, the resolution wasn’t HD and wasn’t interesting. With an 8K display creating a 4K stereo image things could be interested if they really have a 140 degree viewing angle.

  8. Last month Natgeo had a show about how the Titanic actually sank. While telling the story, they used old photographs that showed the launch of the ship. Not sure how they did it, but you saw the launch in 3D and it looked pretty damn good.

  9. What’s StreamTV’s strategy? Consumer 3D is effectively dead. UHD doesn’t support it. TV makers are leaving it out.

    Are they trying to get the UHD format revised to support their flavor of 3D? Are they working towards getting 3D put into a spec for UUHD or whatever 8K is called?

    What’s the game plan to come in with 3D technology a year after everyone has quit the game?

  10. Is this new technology still suposed to work with two, three or four people watching at the same time ?
    How could it track and project images direct to the eayes of more than one person ?

  11. It's not a tracking technology. Go read the article and research it. This looks to be the real deal with a 140° viewing angle.

    And as for "their strategy", clearly it is to sell tv's. Recall this tech will convert 2D into 3D and obviously there are a multitude of 3D Bluray so that could take advantage of this tech so there is no shortage of content….and if it takes off then perhaps the majority of 3D Blurays will no longer be excluded in North America.

  12. Dick

    I just can't imagine any glasses-free technology being able to provide us with the same quality 3D as we have been enjoying with glasses. How the hell would it work? Will we be watching a hologram? Could it possibly be even as good as what 3D displays give us when converting 2D images in the set? Is there a way to explain this process to a layperson?

    It doesn't and I am vehemently against the technology.

    I have seen glasses-free TV from Dolby. It's okay. There is some depth, but there is absolutely no forward projection and you can't even hope for something like that without eyewear.

    Stay away!

  13. Ronald Epstein

    It doesn't and I am vehemently against the technology.

    I have seen glasses-free TV from Dolby. It's okay. There is some depth, but there is absolutely no forward projection and you can't even hope for something like that without eyewear.

    Stay away!

    This isn't Dolby and saying "it doesn't [work]" is an unfounded statement since you haven't actually been invited to see the technology be demonstrated.

    It works.

    And it is very impressive.

  14. Freakyguy666

    This isn't Dolby and saying "it doesn't [work]" is an unfounded statement since you haven't actually been invited to see the technology be demonstrated.

    It works.

    And it is very impressive.

    Does it do forward projection? I think I already know the answer to that so basically no improvement.

  15. Freakyguy666

    Yes it does. And no, you don't.

    Impossible. Forward projection like "in your face" projection?

    I have to see it to believe it and I am not taking the word of one person at this point.

    If I do see it, and I truly believe it, I'll promote this technology from the hilltops. However, basically, from what I have been told, it can't be done.

  16. I think any tech that gets us closer to glasses-free 3D projection is a benefit for all of us. I'm assuming this tech is just for TVs now, but hopefully it'll make it's way into projectors.

    FWIW, I rarely get the feeling that my current active 3D projection setup pops out at me. I remember the 3D of the '80s, and what I got ain't that. So I really can't see how this would be a step in the wrong direction.

  17. It's a step in the wrong direction depending on whom you are talking to.

    For many die-hard 3D film fans like myself, this is only dumbing down the format further.

    There is just no way that, without eyewear, a manufacturer can claim that they can provide the same 3D realism of the 1950s that current technology can. For that kind of blatant pop-out, you need to give the appearance of a holographic-like image in front of your eyes, coming inches from your nose.

    I talked to one of the engineers at Dolby a few years back. I was told that it could not be accomplished without eyewear.

    Furthermore, when an unnamed executive backing the format says to me, "I don't think pop-out is important," then for many us on this forum, the future of this technology is already dead news.

    I went to the Ultra-D webpage and read their press release. Nowhere does it talk about this technology able to achieve the same kind of forward projection that you would get with eyewear. If that technology actually did exist, it would be headline news — and I mean news you would be reading about everywhere. It would be revolutionary. Alas, the press release only mentions the word "pop" as a reference to its picture quality.

    However, all that being said….

    The normal consumer will think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I am certain the level of depth that these new displays provide will be quite enjoyable for most people. After all, Hollywood movies don't have blatant pop-out. They have killed the thrill of what the format was all about.

    But please don't try to fool those of us that know better and cherish what the 3D format is really all about.

    Once again, I'll be the first to apologize and spend a lot of time promoting this product if it is as truly revolutionary as is being suggested. I just don't believe for a second that technology has evolved to the point that we can do honest-to-goodness 50s style 3D without the need for glasses.

  18. Ronald Epstein

    Impossible. Forward projection like "in your face" projection?

    I have to see it to believe it and I am not taking the word of one person at this point.

    If I do see it, and I truly believe it, I'll promote this technology from the hilltops. However, basically, from what I have been told, it can't be done.

    What you've been told by whom? A Dolby employee using a completely different technology.

    The 3D on this display is adjustable and at max setting the pop-out is "in your face". But just as with glasses 3D, this level of pop out is not for everyone so they typically have the demo set at a medium setting. But yes, at max setting it does seem to pop out–50s style.

    Your admitted ignorance of the technology is not a valid reason to make statements such as "this is impossible" and "it cannot be done".

  19. I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”, mind you I only have a 65” Sony LCD tv with active glasses. This has not stopped me from collecting 100s of 3D discs.

    If a new technology has arrived which lets me play my library, I am all for it, even if it is not perfect. What is the alternative, unless manufacturers come to their senses and turn back the clock to 2016?

  20. TJPC

    I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”, mind you I only have a 65” Sony LCD tv with active glasses. This has not stopped me from collecting 100s of 3D discs.

    If a new technology has arrived which lets me play my library, I am all for it, even if it is not perfect. What is the alternative, unless manufacturers come to their senses and turn back the clock to 2016?

    I had my Mit 3D DLP 65" and Panny 3D player for 3 years before I bought glasses. We are so accustomed to 2D, that seeing the picture in 3D was very odd, just didn't look right.

    Last year projector going bad along with the screen and hence, a new Epson 6040 3D/4K, Sammy 3D/4K player and new screen.

    Screen size has everything to do with viewing 3D. At the theater, it envelopes you, at home it has to try to equal that.

    My 110" screen in my dedicated HT comes close. I was sitting 12' back from the screen viewing regular BDs, but then I got into 3D and I moved the chairs forward towards the screen 2'…watch out!!!

    Now, the 3D picture really envelopes you…from train cowcatchers smashing over your head to huge knives sticking you in the forehead…3D has finally arrived for me…7 years late and I'm enjoying every single frame!!! :3dglasses: :dance:

  21. TJPC

    I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”, mind you I only have a 65” Sony LCD tv with active glasses. This has not stopped me from collecting 100s of 3D discs.

    If a new technology has arrived which lets me play my library, I am all for it, even if it is not perfect. What is the alternative, unless manufacturers come to their senses and turn back the clock to 2016?

    I had my Mit 3D DLP 65" and Panny 3D player for 3 years before I bought glasses. We are so accustomed to 2D, that seeing the picture in 3D was very odd, just didn't look right.

    Last year projector going bad along with the screen and hence, a new Epson 6040 3D/4K, Sammy 3D/4K player and new screen.

    Screen size has everything to do with viewing 3D. At the theater, it envelopes you, at home it has to try to equal that.

    My 110" screen in my dedicated HT comes close. I was sitting 12' back from the screen viewing regular BDs, but then I got into 3D and I moved the chairs forward towards the screen 2'…watch out!!!

    Now, the 3D picture really envelopes you…from train cowcatchers smashing over your head to huge knives sticking you in the forehead…3D has finally arrived for me…7 years late and I'm enjoying every single frame!!! :3dglasses: :dance:

  22. John Sparks

    I had my Mit 3D DLP 65" and Panny 3D player for 3 years before I bought glasses. We are so accustomed to 2D, that seeing the picture in 3D was very odd, just didn't look right.

    Last year projector going bad along with the screen and hence, a new Epson 6040 3D/4K, Sammy 3D/4K player and new screen.

    Screen size has everything to do with viewing 3D. At the theater, it envelopes you, at home it has to try to equal that.

    My 110" screen in my dedicated HT comes close. I was sitting 12' back from the screen viewing regular BDs, but then I got into 3D and I moved the chairs forward towards the screen 2'…watch out!!!

    Now, the 3D picture really envelopes you…from train cowcatchers smashing over your head to huge knives sticking you in the forehead…3D has finally arrived for me…7 years late and I'm enjoying every single frame!!! :3dglasses: :dance:

    Yes screen size and viewing distance go hand-in-hand. I sit at 1.5x screen Height. How about you?

  23. John Sparks

    I know that may be the right distance from 3D, but what does that do to 2D? I have a shit load of BD/SDs that I watch?

    Surprisingly it's fine. But you could always move the seating position depending on 2D vs 3D.

  24. Freakyguy666

    Yes screen size and viewing distance go hand-in-hand. I sit at 1.5x screen Height. How about you?

    John Sparks

    I think I'll stay at 11' from the screen for now. Thanks for the help! :3dglasses:

    My 2.35:1 screen is 45" X 105". I sit 10' back which is 1.1x screen width or 2.6x screen height. Lordy if I were to sit 1.5x screen height I would only be 5 1/2 feet from the screen. My peripheral vision wouldn't even be able to see the far sides of the screen that close!

  25. Freakyguy666

    Yes screen size and viewing distance go hand-in-hand. I sit at 1.5x screen Height. How about you?

    John Sparks

    I think I'll stay at 11' from the screen for now. Thanks for the help! :3dglasses:

    My 2.35:1 screen is 45" X 105". I sit 10' back which is 1.1x screen width or 2.6x screen height. Lordy if I were to sit 1.5x screen height I would only be 5 1/2 feet from the screen. My peripheral vision wouldn't even be able to see the far sides of the screen that close!

  26. If this technology helps resurrect 3D in the US, then I'm all for it. We can't even buy most new-release 3D titles now without importing them, and how long will the overseas market sustain 3D? Making 3D possible without the use of glasses is the only way I see the format surviving long-term. And extreme pop-out isn't important to me. Realistic depth is what I want to see.

  27. If this technology helps resurrect 3D in the US, then I'm all for it. We can't even buy most new-release 3D titles now without importing them, and how long will the overseas market sustain 3D? Making 3D possible without the use of glasses is the only way I see the format surviving long-term. And extreme pop-out isn't important to me. Realistic depth is what I want to see.

  28. ScottPlant

    If this technology helps resurrect 3D in the US, then I'm all for it. We can't even buy most new-release 3D titles now without importing them, and how long will the overseas market sustain 3D? Making 3D possible without the use of glasses is the only way I see the format surviving long-term. And extreme pop-out isn't important to me. Realistic depth is what I want to see.

    All of us want 3D, at least in this thread, no matter the effects. Pop-outs, to me, are the icing on the cake. If it's not there, that's okay, as long as the rest shows some depth.

    STAND TALL AND DO ANYTHING TO KEEP 3D!!!

  29. ScottPlant

    If this technology helps resurrect 3D in the US, then I'm all for it. We can't even buy most new-release 3D titles now without importing them, and how long will the overseas market sustain 3D? Making 3D possible without the use of glasses is the only way I see the format surviving long-term. And extreme pop-out isn't important to me. Realistic depth is what I want to see.

    All of us want 3D, at least in this thread, no matter the effects. Pop-outs, to me, are the icing on the cake. If it's not there, that's okay, as long as the rest shows some depth.

    STAND TALL AND DO ANYTHING TO KEEP 3D!!!

  30. If you've been to Las Vegas lately, you may have seen 3D video slot machines. I played a few and the 3D effects are impressive. Hit a jackpot and gold coins fly out at your face! The pop-out effect is very good. Resolution is good, if not 4K good. I believe it relies on the same eye-tracking technology that the Nintendo 3DS does, and because it's one person sitting in a fixed position directly in front of the screen the effects are tailor made for that perspective (slot reels, for example, look quite real because they are rendered from the exact point of view you are sitting at). Obviously this is quite different from a display that can accommodate numerous viewers at various angles, but "never say never" may be the best philosophy at this point.

  31. If you've been to Las Vegas lately, you may have seen 3D video slot machines. I played a few and the 3D effects are impressive. Hit a jackpot and gold coins fly out at your face! The pop-out effect is very good. Resolution is good, if not 4K good. I believe it relies on the same eye-tracking technology that the Nintendo 3DS does, and because it's one person sitting in a fixed position directly in front of the screen the effects are tailor made for that perspective (slot reels, for example, look quite real because they are rendered from the exact point of view you are sitting at). Obviously this is quite different from a display that can accommodate numerous viewers at various angles, but "never say never" may be the best philosophy at this point.

  32. Freakyguy666

    What you've been told by whom? A Dolby employee using a completely different technology.

    The 3D on this display is adjustable and at max setting the pop-out is "in your face". But just as with glasses 3D, this level of pop out is not for everyone so they typically have the demo set at a medium setting. But yes, at max setting it does seem to pop out–50s style.

    Your admitted ignorance of the technology is not a valid reason to make statements such as "this is impossible" and "it cannot be done".

    I would slow down a bit, Sir, with your remarks.

    Until there is a real recognition that the technology is there — not just from one individual who has offered no substantial proof — then we can agree to disagree. However, it will be done respectfully.

    Consider this a warning.

  33. TJPC

    I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”, mind you I only have a 65” Sony LCD tv with active glasses. This has not stopped me from collecting 100s of 3D discs.

    If a new technology has arrived which lets me play my library, I am all for it, even if it is not perfect. What is the alternative, unless manufacturers come to their senses and turn back the clock to 2016?

    You should check out The Bubble, the "pop out" effect or "forward projection" effect (whichever term you like to use) is OUTSTANDING. There are moments in the film where objects seem to be literally "floating" just a few inches from your eyes. Just Amazing. Better than Avatar, IMHO.

  34. Richard V

    You should check out The Bubble, the "pop out" effect or "forward projection" effect (whichever term you like to use) is OUTSTANDING. There are moments in the film where objects seem to be literally "floating" just a few inches from your eyes. Just Amazing. Better than Avatar, IMHO.

    Good suggestions. Additionally…

    Cease Fire, 3-D Rarities, A Turtle's Tale, and Imax Under The Sea

    All those films offer pop-out moments that are truly spectacular and unless proven otherwise, whose intensity cannot be duplicated on a glasses-free display without eyewear.

  35. Ronald Epstein

    Good suggestions. Additionally…

    Cease Fire, 3-D Rarities, A Turtle's Tale, and Imax Under The Sea

    All those films offer pop-out moments that are truly spectacular and unless proven otherwise, whose intensity cannot be duplicated on a glasses-free display without eyewear.

    You are wrong. I suggest you contact those who have witnessed it first hand starting with the link I provided to the other site.

    There are at least 3 people just within that site vouching for the tech.

    You sir have admitted to not seeing it or speaking with the manufacturers so I would slow down your "impossible" rhetoric until you have spent some time with this tech.

    Consider this sound advice.

  36. Freakyguy666

    You are wrong. I suggest you contact those who have witnessed it first hand starting with the link I provided to the other site.

    There are at least 3 people just within that site vouching for the tech.

    You sir have admitted to not seeing it or speaking with the manufacturers so I would slow down your "impossible" rhetoric until you have spent some time with this tech.

    Consider this sound advice.

    Dude, where are your manners? People here should be treated with respect and civility.

  37. Freakyguy666

    You are wrong. I suggest you contact those who have witnessed it first hand starting with the link I provided to the other site.

    There are at least 3 people just within that site vouching for the tech.

    You sir have admitted to not seeing it or speaking with the manufacturers so I would slow down your "impossible" rhetoric until you have spent some time with this tech.

    Consider this sound advice.

    troll

  38. Richard V

    Dude, where are your manners? People here should be treated with respect and civility.

    Does respect mean that you should dismiss someone's views as "impossible" and give them a "warning" for saying that you are wrong?

  39. Freakyguy666

    Does respect mean that you should dismiss someone's views as "impossible" and give them a "warning" for saying that you are wrong?

    I believe the warning was more for your attitude more than the disagreement about the tech. Just a suggestion, but members here disagree all the time, but disagreements are treated with respect for the most part. His opinion is that the technology for pop out is impossible without glasses. Your response smacked more of, "you're wrong, I'm right, end of discussion".

  40. Richard V

    I believe the warning was more for your attitude more than the disagreement about the tech. Just a suggestion, but members here disagree all the time, but disagreements are treated with respect for the most part. His opinion is that the technology for pop out is impossible without glasses. Your response smacked more of, "you're wrong, I'm right, end of discussion".

    Warning for things someone infers is a slippery slope.

  41. Richard V

    You are really not making any friends here. If you feel offended or hurt, I suggest you just lay low here for a while, let the storm pass. Friendly advice.

    No I've actually made quite a few friends thank you….

    Now back OT…

    THE TECH WORKS.

    You don't have to take my word for it…you can refer to others including Scott Wilkinson at avsforum and others on the site who will corroborate this.

  42. I personally haven't formed an opinion, but if I was cornered into giving one, I would lean towards it being very difficult to produce the pop out without glasses. The depth, I believe could probably be done. i would certainly be open to seeing for myself.

  43. Richard V

    I personally haven't formed an opinion, but if I was cornered into giving one, I would lean towards it being very difficult to produce the pop out without glasses. The depth, I believe could probably be done. i would certainly be open to seeing for myself.

    It's not really a matter of opinion when the tech was already demonstrated. This isn't theory–it's real. It's like you telling someone that true RGB laser projection is impossible because you haven't seen it. Yet it exists and is being demonstrated by Sony.

  44. Okay, but still, people will always be skeptical until they get a chance to see it for themselves. You speak in absolutes, as if people are not allowed to form opinions. Impossibility exists until it doesn't. Give people some leeway here.

  45. Bryan^H

    troll

    Bryan, please report post instead of engaging with people who can't follow our rules.

    Everyone else: Same. And understand that while I cannot comment on the status of other users, this particular conversation should be good for at least another week without incident.

    /whistlesquietlyandwalksonby….

  46. Sam Posten

    Bryan, please report post instead of engaging with people who can't follow our rules.

    Everyone else: Same. And understand that while I cannot comment on the status of other users, this particular conversation should be good for at least another week without incident.

    /whistlesquietlyandwalksonby….

    LOL;)

  47. TJPC

    I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”, mind you I only have a 65” Sony LCD tv with active glasses. This has not stopped me from collecting 100s of 3D discs.

    I have to admit, there hasn't been as much "in your face" pop-outs as I expected with 3D movies, mostly depth. However, besides the train cow catcher scene in The Polar Express, in The Creature from the Black Lagoon, the scene where they discover the fossilized webbed claw of the Creature, it literally pops out of the screen at you. Also, in Kiss Me Kate, there are a few scenes that pop out at you. There may be other movies that have "pop outs" but I don't own them.

  48. Bob_S.

    I have to admit, there hasn't been as much "in your face" pop-outs as I expected with 3D movies, mostly depth. However, besides the train cow catcher scene in The Polar Express, in The Creature from the Black Lagoon, the scene where they discover the fossilized webbed claw of the Creature, it literally pops out of the screen at you. Also, in Kiss Me Kate, there are a few scenes that pop out at you. There may be other movies that have "pop outs" but I don't own them.

    See my previous post. Find The Bubble

  49. Josh Steinberg

    Star Wars: The Force Awakens has a great shot of a star destroyer popping out so far, it looks like the First Order parked it in my living room.

    Also the final shot of Rey offering Luke the lightsaber. I could have reached up and taken it myself.

  50. Mark-P

    Also the final shot of Rey offering Luke the lightsaber. I could have reached up and taken it myself.

    There are some similar shots in The Last Jedi during the various Rey/Ren scenes, when one reaches out, it's as if they're reaching out to you. I thought it was a very effective touch for putting us between their mental connection.

  51. Ronald Epstein

    Good suggestions. Additionally…

    Cease Fire, 3-D Rarities, A Turtle's Tale, and Imax Under The Sea

    All those films offer pop-out moments that are truly spectacular and unless proven otherwise, whose intensity cannot be duplicated on a glasses-free display without eyewear.

    Also, Thunder and the House of Magic (which I just watched again last night… Incredible depth and pop-out moments!) and any of the Final Destination 3D films (if you aren't squeamish).

  52. I have only seen one autostereoscopic television, and that was ten or more years ago. It was not from Dolby or Ultra-D.

    I am not in any position to question the know-how of top engineers at these or other companies.

    But I do know that the Soviets had an autostereoscopic projection system as early as the 1940s. Their stereo feature Robinzon Kruzo (1947) was meant to be shown this way. I grant you that their technique was nowhere near as sophisticated as the systems of today, but I can tell you for sure, having seen the film myself, that Robinzon Kruzo makes delightful use of negative parallax throughout. No less a personage than Sergei Eisenstein remarks upon this, in his essay "On Stereocinema" (1946):

    "Either the image remains within the boundaries of the ordinary cinema as a kind of flat haut-relief, poised somewhere within the plane of the reflecting screen.

    Or the image plunges deep inside the screen, drawing the spectator along into unprecedented depths.

    Or, lastly (and this is the most astonishing effect)—the image, palpably three-dimensional, 'tumbles out' of the screen into the auditorium." *​

    Arguing from lesser to greater, then, if the Soviets, with their innovative yet primitive scheme, were able to achieve off-the-screen effects that impressed Eisenstein and others, is there serious reason to doubt that something similar could be achieved by the engineers of today?

    To come at it another way, the only reason to foreclose on the possibility of negative parallax in a modern-day autostereoscopic system is that the designers simply do not wish to cope with twice as much parallax in a stereo effigy (i.e., the full sum of positive parallax + the full sum of negative parallax = ~twice as much parallax as positive alone).

    As for whether or not a protruding image could "touch you on the nose," that will be owing to factors like screen size, proximity to the screen, and the amount of negative parallax in the image.

    * Translation by Sergey Levchin

  53. John Sparks

    Immersion is the key word…nose to screen!!! 🙂

    You've got that right Sparky!!
    We sit 12 feet exactly from our screen which is 144X60. Using Dolby 3D glasses the screen is "almost" too wide (@2:35) but we love it. I find myself moving my head a little left and right to follow some of the action.

  54. Assuming Ultra-D works as well as some here have described, one negative about it, unless I'm mistaken, is that it sounds like it would not be applicable to projector technology. It works only with direct-view displays, so immersion like those of us with large, wide screens might not be practical.

  55. Just to let you guys know, I have reached out to find a definitive answer — from those who have allegedly seen the technology — to whether images can actually be projected forward, like a hologram, without needed eyewear.

    So far I have received no responses.

  56. The more I read about this on their website, the more doubtful I become. First of all it sounds like some kind of conversion gizmo that turns any program into 3D. All the testimonials talk about the conversion process. I don't know if this process can even reproduce native 3D content! The following information gives me this impression:

    The Ultra-D system does not generate discrete views but generates something similar to a light-field. As the result, it allows the viewer to perceive the scene from different directions within this field. This enables the background of a scene to appear to move with respect to an object in front of it and vice versa. This allows experience of more complete 3D. Also in this respect Ultra-D is very different to 3D display technologies with glasses, which can project only two views of a scene.

  57. TJPC

    I have actually never seen the extreme pop out talked about here on 3D Blu ray, even in the paddle ball sequence in “House of Wax”,

    Another good one is Madagascar 3. All kinds of paws and muzzles comin' at ya!

  58. I’m unable to reply directly to comments for some reason so I’m going to address two of them here:

    1. I emailed StreamTV about Ultra-D and no, it isn’t compatible with projectors. I asked if they were working on a version they could be used with projectors and I never got a response.

    2. Mark-P is a little confused about what this product is. It is a glasses-free 3D display and it also converts 2D content to 3D.

    I hope this clears things up.

  59. I was at a casino in Reno NV a couple weeks ago and saw a few slot machines that used glasses-free 3D displays. I gambled $5 on one just to get a good look at it (didn't win anything.) The main screen during play isn't a whole lot to write home about, it's basically a big board where the numbers spin- there's a background with decent depth effect and the game board has a rotating coin graphic that pops out slightly. The game's demo screen had the best use of 3D, with a big "True 3D" logo formed by flying letters that created a genuinely good effect at least comparable to what I've seen with glasses.

    The screen was probably about 30-something inches, and the 3D wasn't entirely perfect. Even sitting in front of it, I saw a bit of crosstalk during the demo screen especially near the bottom. Looking at it from far away, you had to be in just the right position or you'd see a double image, from other angles it simply looked like a 2D image which was at least better than a double image. Not quite ready for prime time, but does show promise if improvements can be made. I was most impressed with the proof that it CAN do good out-of-screen effects.

    Here's a video of one machine, though it doesn't show the demo logo:

Leave a Reply