Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

3d television

  1. Jan 5, 2010 #1
    I was reading this story on CNN about how ESPN is starting to develop and implement 3D programming.
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/05/espn.3d/index.html

    It seems like an obvious step with the 3D movies out. However, besides the fact you'll need to buy a new TV, you will also need those 3D glasses. Do industry leaders really think people will want to put on glasses every time they watch TV? What do you think? Is 3D the next big thing, or just a quarter step that will be frog leaped in 5-10 years?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 5, 2010 #2
    Will the government send me coupons for two free pair of 3D glasses?
     
  4. Jan 5, 2010 #3

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They have 3D monitors that don't require glasses. But you do have to be sitting in a 'sweet spot' for it to work.

    The ones that do require glasses don't require anything special about your monitor I don't think.
     
  5. Jan 5, 2010 #4
    Japan has been airing 3D transmission since 2008.

    3D TVs are capable to switch back and forth between 2D and 3D if needed, so it's pretty reasonable that they will take off.
     
  6. Jan 6, 2010 #5
    This morning HLN said that the NFL will be airing 3D games very soon. They said when but I don't remember. Sony is working on a 3d system for the PS3 that does not need a 3d screen or glasses but works on motion/tilt sensor.
     
  7. Jan 6, 2010 #6

    sas3

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    3D technology has been around for years.
    I have had 3D set up on my PC since about 2006.
    The new 3D uses 120 Hz, the one I have set up uses 60 Hz so I guess I will need to upgrade soon.
    I think same technology is used for the new TVs
    You will need to buy the glasses but any TV with 120Hz will work

    Here is a link to the http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Main.html" [Broken] site.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Jan 8, 2010 #7
    It's a half step. There are some serious limitations (there's only one point of view and your sense of 3D fades if you tilt your head). The future is with wearable VR displays. Back-end graphics hardware is getting fast enough to handle the load, all we need is cheap high resolution matchbox-sized LCD screens.
     
  9. Jan 8, 2010 #8
    I don't understand. How does this work? I know that each eye needs to receive a different signal, but how is color 3D obtained?
     
  10. Jan 8, 2010 #9
    The answer is circular polarization. Left and right glasses in 'Avatar'-like 3D glasses are designed to pass clockwise and counterclockwise polarized light (or possibly vice versa). The screen displays two pictures at the same time, one clockwise polarized, the other counterclockwise polarized, slightly offset with regard to each other, just enough that the viewer will get the sense of depth. Relatively easy to implement in hardware (especially in plasma screens): you simply send the picture in 120 fps instead of 60 fps, double the number of pixels, add some polaroids on top of each pixel, and add some simple logic that sends all odd frames to one set of pixels and all even frames to the other.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  11. Jan 8, 2010 #10
    Ohh... This mean that the screen has to double-up on RGB cells. Each one has to has a polarizing filter in front of it. Is this really done?
     
  12. Jan 8, 2010 #11
    RGB cell density follows the usual Moore's law. At some point, TV manufacturers inevitably had to start thinking that getting a whole new feature, 3D, at the cost of doubling the number of RGB cells and sticking a $10 polaroid screen on top of the whole thing, is a good idea. Modern HDTV encoding protocol (H.264) is flexible enough that you don't even have to design a whole new protocol to do 3D, you can piggy-back on the old one.
     
  13. Jan 8, 2010 #12
    At this point I can think of at least two ways to impliment this. How does a polaroid screen accomplish this?
     
  14. Jan 15, 2010 #13

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    A Google search didn't turn up anything interesting for me but, I would think that 3D contacts would be an interesting idea. Don't know how feasible it would be though.

    As far as the next big thing, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329140351.htm". Ever since I saw Avatar, I'm sure that it would be combined with 3D as well. Taking it a step further, you could paint an empty room floor to ceiling to play multiuser games or for a really different movie experience. Sounds a lot like a holodeck from Star Trek, eh?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  15. Jan 15, 2010 #14

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The aim is just to deliver a different image to the left and right eye.

    You can show alternate left/right images and have goggles with LCD shutters synced to the screen - the advantage is that you don't have to modify the screen, you get the full resolution and colour. But the goggles are expensive and heavy.

    Or you can put strips of polarizer on alternate columns on the screen, and have left/right polarised glasses. So odd columns are only visible to the left eye and even columns to the right eye.
    But the screen is expensive and you lose half the resolution.

    3D cinema is like this except it has a switching polariser filter in front of the projector so alternate frames are shown left/right. This only works with a projection system.

    There is another system that doesn't need glasses where a series of lenses on odd-even columns sends the left/right images in slightly different directions so you see only one set with each eye, But you have to keep your head still in exactly the right place.
     
  16. Jan 15, 2010 #15

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's called a cave - used a lot in 3d modelling, you just need a bunch of projectors. Combined with switching polarising filters and polarising cinema googles you get 3d.
    But it's becoming more popular to just use VR headsets
     
  17. Jan 15, 2010 #16

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    I'm not sure how Joe Homeowner is going to wear that while eating his TV dinner. :smile:
     
  18. Jan 16, 2010 #17

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You use sensors in the knife, fork and tray (like Wii controllers) - so the position of your hands and mouth appear in the VR environment.
    Another advantage is that the food can be made to look like anything you want in the image, so TV dinners could be made to look like real food.
     
  19. Jan 16, 2010 #18

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Good point! LMAO :rofl:
     
  20. Jan 29, 2010 #19

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually Marzena puts glasses every time she watches TV, so it is not completely off.

    OK, not every time, but to watch movies with subtitles.
     
  21. Jan 29, 2010 #20

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have to wear glasses every time I watch TV, otherwise all I see is a bright blurry rectangular blob. :rolleyes:
     
  22. Feb 2, 2010 #21
    Nvidia has 2 variants of their 3-d glasses. That's the future.
     
  23. Feb 2, 2010 #22
    I think it would be awesome. Not only could you have 3D, but high def. too. For those of us that already wear glasses, it wouldn't really be a big deal to have to place the 3D glasses on over the ones we already wear. Maybe, they will start to sell 3D visors, like they have for the sunglasses, that just fit over your glasses. I would so buy, me a pair, so that when I want to go to the theatre, I would have them already with me. It will be quite handy!
     
  24. Feb 2, 2010 #23
    I think it is a niche technology because of the lack of content, but it could really take off. There are not a lot of televisions that support 3D technology right now, but supposedly Samsung and Sony (and probably others) are going to start pushing it on the new sets they will be manufacturing (you still need a 3D ready graphics card, cable tuner, or blu-ray player to enjoy it).

    It is the kind of thing that is neat enough to look for, but not the sort of thing that I think I would pay more than about $150 extra for a 3-D ready television. I am in the market for a new TV, so I am waiting to see how much extra they are going to charge, because I would like the option of buying the glasses at some point in the future, when the content is more readily available.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook