Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You say "a very clever and elaborate (read, "expensive") LCD technology. " but if anything, the Dolby system is by far the most clever (to me).  Using separate portions of the visible light spectrum has many interesting applications (for example, you could use a very narrow band projector and glasses and allow for watching films in daylight!)  Toggling LCDs on the other hand are fairly brute force and old tech.

(frequency multiplexing also allows for plain white screens)

by njh on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 12:32:41 AM EST
Sometimes the pioneers get the arrows, but sometimes being first to market gives one an edge that is hard to overcome. In this case, RealD has done OK by being first.

I suppose, before any details, that it should be noted that the cinema business is not the main target market for the 3D companies products. 3D simulation for product design, medical, military applications and the eventual home market (among others) are all huge or have huge potential.

RealD has also recently released upgrades that remove some of the problems with their system; one change is a device that is able to amplify the light in systems and another eliminates the need for special 'pre-ghost-busted' release print. (Ghosting is a cross-talk problem that showed up as light shadows in some images, particularly on the RealD system.)

Whether the Liquid Crystal method is inherently better or whether another technology has some future advantages, I can't say. Right now, it is making the most waves. But it is early yet. Less than 15% of market saturation for digital in general, and half capable of 3D...with a lot of market factors still to be seen...???

Daylight movies is actually something I haven't thought about. This makes me think about cell phone conversations on airplanes...more stimulus, all the time.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 04:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In research and design applications it's often one or two people at a work station. Simple double image red/green 3D or even vertical lenticular is possible. Sun had a system I saw demoed in the 90s for looking at and rotating molecule simulations in 3D.

I did some large (1.5m high) lenticulars a few years ago for a cruise ship that contained 8 separate static images. As the passengers walked past the image changed. No glasses needed. Lenticulars have a quite wide viewing angle, and I would guess that putting up two images (the stereo pair) on a lenticular screen is possible. Digital images are stable horizontally - but the vertical lenticular lens sheet would have to be almost directly on the surface of the screen image.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 11:53:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant putting two moving images up behind a lenticular screen. The images are vertically sliced to fit behind the lenses. That could be done by image processing.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 12:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed; the advertising display technology folks are wild about this. It catches the eye of people walking by, it doesn't have to be perfect to get the message across, and it grabs people from the walkways.

Here's last week's latest and greatest from Display Daily on an Autostereoscopic Cinema Display Proposal.

So, what you think? A few dozen straight lines, this Dremel Tool and my friend's iPad screen might lead to the next coolest thing?

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 02:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very interesting...

The guy I worked with on the lenticulars was David Burder in the UK - something of a 3D genius living in a leafy suburban street and doing 3D in his (large) garden shed. A true British eccentric - but he knows his stuff.

He was also involved in the Nimslo still camera concept.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 03:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh my. I have seen the David Burder site before. Now I have some back story.

So, you think I should be asking him about my iPad etching?  ;-)

Personally, I don't have a problem wearing glasses to watch 3D, as long as they have a comfortable nose piece and block out extraneous light. And these are now available...even clip-ons are available.

So the concept of going through all this trouble for TV 3D without glasses is madness to me. Skip all that, handle some other real problems with 3D TV (such as children not having 6.4cm eye spacing and the different sitting distances for TV making the big screen and TV experience different) and put all the future efforts into hologram technology.

There is a piece that I am working into the next series piece. Normally I blow by all the doom and gloom, eyeballs will be bleeding stuff. But I have attended presentations by Dr. Marty Banks in which he commented on this issue of TV 3D "problems". (Of course, just because I attended his presentation doesn't mean he is validated...but,) I don't think that he is someone who should be blown off.

EETimes.com - 3-D TV disparities said to cause physical, mental strain

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Tue Apr 27th, 2010 at 04:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series