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: Bret Cahill on 14 Jun 2010 16:51 > >>> Stereo vision should be easy with LCD monitors. Just polarize every > >>> other pixel one way and the remaining half 90 degrees. > > > No one seems to have pointed out, that that is VERY HARD. > > LCD monitors depend on a polarizer, and those are mass-produced > > in UNIFORM SHEETS not in the mosaic as described above. > > It takes two, one between the backlight and liquid crystal panel, > > and one between the panel and the viewer. > > Actually, it's not that hard. There are many 3D monitors being sold > today which use exactly this sort of patterned polarizer. (Not many > LCD panels, if any, are actually sold that way by their manufacturer, > however - very often, the original polarizer is removed by a third party > and replaced with a new patterned polarizer film to convert the panel > for "3D" use.) > > >> 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. > > > My SGI Indy has a shutter-glasses video output, but it wasn't for > > LCD imaging because few LCD displays can update fast enough: it was > > for CRT systems (at 60 Hz, each eye sees 30 flashes per minute; that's > > not too bad, motion pictures were flickery at 24 Hz and are commonly > > flashed at 48 Hz with few complaints). The shutter glasses > > were LCD items, but the lit screens were CRT, I believe. > > LCD-based (meaning LCD as the display device) shutter-glasses 3D is > also now on the market. It's much more common in LCD TVs than monitors > at present, due to the difficulty of driving smaller high-resolution > LCDs at the > requisite pixel rates, but it IS starting to come to the monitor market > as well. Yet another planned obsolescence scam. Bret Cahill
From: Bob Myers on 14 Jun 2010 18:55 On 6/14/2010 2:51 PM, Bret Cahill wrote: >> >> LCD-based (meaning LCD as the display device) shutter-glasses 3D is >> also now on the market. It's much more common in LCD TVs than monitors >> at present, due to the difficulty of driving smaller high-resolution >> LCDs at the >> requisite pixel rates, but it IS starting to come to the monitor market >> as well. >> > Yet another planned obsolescence scam. > I hesitate to ask - but I'm sure the answer will at least have some entertainment value: How so? Bob M.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Jun 2010 19:39 Bret Cahill wrote: > > Yet another planned obsolescence scam. Complain to your parents. Your birth was their scam. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Bret Cahill on 14 Jun 2010 23:27 > >> LCD-based (meaning LCD as the display device) shutter-glasses 3D is > >> also now on the market. It's much more common in LCD TVs than monitors > >> at present, due to the difficulty of driving smaller high-resolution > >> LCDs at the > >> requisite pixel rates, but it IS starting to come to the monitor market > >> as well. > > > Yet another planned obsolescence scam. > > I hesitate to ask You openly admit you are incurious? This is juicier fare than debating if designers knew how to set things up for a 3D stereo monitor market! Bret Cahill
From: Bob Myers on 15 Jun 2010 14:46
On 6/14/2010 9:27 PM, Bret Cahill wrote: > >>>> LCD-based (meaning LCD as the display device) shutter-glasses 3D is >>>> also now on the market. It's much more common in LCD TVs than monitors >>>> at present, due to the difficulty of driving smaller high-resolution >>>> LCDs at the >>>> requisite pixel rates, but it IS starting to come to the monitor market >>>> as well. >>>> >> >>> Yet another planned obsolescence scam. >>> >> I hesitate to ask >> > You openly admit you are incurious? > I hesitated, but I DID ask. And you didn't answer. Bob M. |