There is a good design for a three dimensional television set at this link:
Not exactly a TV, Madame Leota, at Disneyland's Haunted Mansion, boggles the mind. I approached the babbling monstrosity, and it looked me right in the eye.
Google "Hatsune miku live"
-- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology
Rather disturbing! Look at the thighs on her.
Problem with 3D TV is the content. Current systems use two images constructed based on one viewer position. If you move, you don't get relative motion between the near and far parts. To do so requires a complete model of the entire scene, not just two images. HUGE increase in bandwidth and computing power required. Possible today for still image, but not for a typical "movie"...yet... Improving the display technology doesn't solve the bandwidth problem.
On a sunny day (Mon, 16 May 2011 04:13:59 -0700) it happened mike wrote in :
No way will that ever do color.
Maybe holographic. OTOH many people hang in front of the TV one the sofa with a beer in a sort of permanently fixed position :-)
Now, it is crystal clear what the problems I saw in your previous posts were due to.
Not really. Moreso with the method by which the imagery is collected.
Yes, it mimics our stereo set of eyes. A feature of many mammals.
Probably because it isn't a video game. There are such devices, however. The PS3 demonstrated exactly that four years ago. Long before their current locating device was produced.
A movie is not ever going to give you any perspective other than that which the director wishes for you to see. You are a bit thick.
Have you even looked at the current 3D display/playback technology?
It is a lot better than the red/blue, Mars Lander and NASA LaserDisc had.
It is about as good as it gets for the locked perspective method, which you noted, but improperly denigrated.
A proper, true 3D system would involve spherically shaped balls on your "3D" "glasses". The "glasses" would be the display, and the inside of the spheres would be where the playback data would appear.
The data collection (camera) would have to evolve as well.
In the olden days they actually used two cameras. And I think you've got the presentation thing backwards. With the current two-image system, when the actor looks directly at the camera, he's looking directly at you no matter where in the theater you're sitting. If it was true 3-D like you seem to be touting, then there'd be only one seat that the actor was looking directly at; the rest of them would be sitting off-axis to the actor's sight line. ("Hey! Howcome she's looking at that guy, and not at ME!!!!???")
Cheers! Rich
.
ts.
not
Nobody commented on the 3d tv in that link. It makes plasma in the air, like the ufo in Jerusalem this year.
Well... I have to agree for movie theaters. BUT! The link provided showed a TRUE 3D display in 3-space. My comment was ON TOPIC...rare as that is here...
They use TWO now, idiot.
Why do you even reply, since you do not KNOW?
"olden"? The alcohol has poisoned your brain. Wait... it was already that way!
Not only are you a stupid, gang boy retard, but you did not even read the response to your own thread!
PLENTY of people spoke about the stupid holo-air-display that will go nowhere for at least the next decade, and even after it gets 'perfected', it will still never be mainstream imagery.
It is also old. Holos have been around for decades. I don't expect you to know that, as you were more oblivious then than now, or you would have remembered.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.