SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Back in 2010 Sony Australia's Paul Colley forecasted that a large percentage of Australian viewers would have 3-D televisions by 2014.
In the same year, industry pundits such as Simon Murray predicted that sales of 3-D TVs were set to increase in the years to come.
But others were heralding the death of 3-D TVs and this year the remaining major manufacturers, LG and Sony, have said they will no longer produce 3-D-capable televisions.
So despite all the repeated push and positive predictions, what went wrong with 3-D TV?
Tim Alessi, LG's director of new product development, acknowledged this year that:
[...] 3-D capability was never really universally embraced in the industry for home use, and it's just not a key buying factor when selecting a new TV.
Sales of 3-D TVs have been in decline for several years, according to data from analysts NPD. In 2013, 3-D TVs accounted for 23% of TV purchases in the United States, but this dropped to just 8% in 2016.
Is 3-D TV dead, or will it rise again?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:31PM
"Now imagine a really good, glasses free, 3D"
By the by, have you gotten your hands on a "New Nintendo 3DS"? The 3D effect and eye-tracking compensation is truly phenomenal.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:38PM
I'm thinking more along the lines of watching a 60 inch screen in my living room without glasses. :-)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday February 10 2017, @02:51AM
That would be a hologram. I don't think we have high enough definition LCDs for them. Doing it in color would be problematic, as well, but I'm sure that could be gotten around. The actual filming would be the hard part, because the light has to be coherent (laser light). It would probably have to be done in a computer.
I thing the younger of folks here will own a holographic television some day.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday February 09 2017, @10:40PM
What games take advantage of eye tracking? Many?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday February 10 2017, @07:08PM
It's actually tied to the hardware itself, and it works for all of the console's new and previously released 3D-supporting games and applications.
A bit of explanation:
The 3D effect (sans glasses) at 60Hz is achieved by switching between each offset frame of the combined 3D image at 120Hz. On the old 3DS, the distance between each image was fixed - you had to keep your eyes at the precise focal point to get the effect - which was difficult in practice. On the N3DS, there is an innocuous infrared LED (which means the effect works in low-light, too) that works in conjunction with a front-facing camera to detect the angle of your face relative to the screen, and depending on their position, offset the distance between the 2 images that comprise the 3D image in realtime so the 3D effect proves much more difficult to break.
It really is best seen in person if you are actually interested in the existence of the technology. If you happen to have a big-box store nearby with a display model, check it out! Sure, it is possible to easily break the 3D effect intentionally with unnaturally massive swings of your head, but in realistic playing situations it is more than sufficiently stable to keep it steady; Laying down in bed, sitting on a bumpy bus, in the backseat of a car, etc. it works very well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:41PM
I own a 3DS and think Nintendo got it right for another reason also. The parallax vs focal distance of the 3D effect remains reasonable.
Parallax is how much your eyes have to look inward towards each other. Focal distance is how your eyes adjust to focus depending on distance. Normally these two do not deviate from each other. On a 3D screen, they can change the parallax but not the focal distance. This can cause eye strain and headaches. This is also why I prefer 2D tv over 3D tv.
Nintendo allows you to set how much parallax there is...you can select a value you're comfortable with. Also, nothing comes out of the screen towards you. Closer to your eye, the parallax the focal distance change much more with distance.
Nintendo does it right. It isn't annoying or distracting, it is immersive. It makes up for the low resolution. I like my 3DS, and I have a 4k tv hooked up to my gaming computer.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 10 2017, @09:48PM
So how does it make each image only visible to one eye? Is still a static parallax barrier, but the software in the newer model now knows when to switch left/right around, or something like that?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:25AM
It doesn't block one image - the images switch quickly enough that they combine in your head. This is not possible with the 24fps in movies, but that's not the only reason it wouldn't work in theatres. The 3D effect with glasses uses polarized light only because it needs to be visible from multiple locations at once (as in a theatre) With a handheld console, only one person needs to see what's on the screen. Hence, no need for glasses, and their ability to accomplish the neat trick using a single (and now variable) focal point.
Just check it out already! :)
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:43PM
A 3DS can't work that way - there'd be nothing to stop each eye seeing both images. You'd just see a flat image flicking between two slightly different perspectives. While this can be enough to give some 3D information, it won't look 3D any more than a photo with narrow depth of field.
It seems both old and new 3DS use an LCD parallax barrier, which the new version able to move the barrier to accommodate head movement, though details are sketchy and hard to come by.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @03:08PM
Guess I was wrong in not checking my sources, then. Maybe you can find the patent? In any case, the technology is effective.