What's the Holdup With 3-D Monitors?
in [Basics]
|
Prev: NEC 870 for Lighting on the Web?
Next: Strange behavior driving a relay from a 555 time in monostable mode
From: Chazwin on 11 Jun 2010 05:02 On Jun 10, 4:23 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > If the orientation of each pixel could be changed back and forth > quickly enough then both images could come from the same set of > pixels. > > It should also be easy to make stereo compatible with mono vision, if > only by just giving them one image. > > In addition to the large video market you spend 75% of your time on > Sketchup changing views to "see" the thing in "3D." > > The patents of inventions on 3D monitors seem to be making it more > complicated than what it needs to be. > > Bret Cahill 3D monitors are already here. Try and google it sometimes.
From: Giga2 on 11 Jun 2010 05:33 On 10 June, 21:07, Nicolas Bonneel <nbonn...(a)cs.ubc.ca> wrote: > Bret Cahill wrote: > > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > > If the orientation of each pixel could be changed back and forth > > quickly enough then both images could come from the same set of > > pixels. > > That's basically done : a lot of samsung LCD monitors are already > "stereo compatible" and use this polarization fact. It's not even > advertised. > I'm not sure though what is the pattern of pixels and what polarization > is used (vertical/horizontal, diagonals, circular...). > > And to answer Giga2, there are indeed passive 3d monitors. Still > expensive and not very high resolution though. > > Cheers > Yes I was told it was pretty good though, but cost I think about £100,000 and used a lot of kit (wouldn't fit in your average living room even if you could pay for it). They reckoned in a few years though..
From: Giga2 on 11 Jun 2010 05:38 On 11 June, 10:02, Chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 4:23 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > > If the orientation of each pixel could be changed back and forth > > quickly enough then both images could come from the same set of > > pixels. > > > It should also be easy to make stereo compatible with mono vision, if > > only by just giving them one image. > > > In addition to the large video market you spend 75% of your time on > > Sketchup changing views to "see" the thing in "3D." > > > The patents of inventions on 3D monitors seem to be making it more > > complicated than what it needs to be. > > > Bret Cahill > > 3D monitors are already here. > Try and google it sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy
From: Bob Myers on 11 Jun 2010 18:57 On 6/10/2010 9:23 AM, Bret Cahill wrote: > Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > And that's exactly how some current "3D" (stereoscopic) monitors work; a patterned polarizer (generally, patterned such that alternating rows of pixels are used for the L- and R-eye images) on the LCD, plus passive glasses with matching polarization for each eye. The other major type currently in use is the "shutter glasses" type, in which the LCD is operated at twice the normal frame rate and the stereo image pair is presented in field-sequential fashion, with LCD "shutters" in the glasses synced with this presentation so as to prevent each eye from seeing the other eye's image. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. There's also a hybrid type, usually referred to as the "active retarder" type, which uses an additional LC layer to alter the polarization of the entire image at once, and again the L- and R-eye images are presented in field-sequential fashion. I don't believe this has been commercialized yet, but several LCD makers have shown demos of this method. The problem with both of the field-sequential types is that it is relatively difficult (as compared with doing the same thing on a larger TV panel) to get monitor-sized, high-resolution panels to run at the pixel rates required for the 120 Hz operation. Bob M.
From: Zerkon on 12 Jun 2010 10:23
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:23:45 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > What's the Holdup With 3-D Monitors? http://www.iz3d.com/ http://www.guru3d.com/news/asus-pg276hworlds-largest-full-hd-3d-monitor-/ |