That's the thing - these 3d technologies just make me nauseous, and there are plenty of others that have the same issue. Add in the fact that if you wear glasses already, how do you add extra glasses on top? It just doesn't work well for me.
Actually many DLP projectors are already capable of displaying 3D in this new way.
They just need to be able to run at 120Hz, this also is the same for your TV/Monitor?graphics card.
Its just one of those things - they like you to think you need to buy new stuff.
Last year ZeroHour and I had a nice chat with a man from Nvidia and another from Toshiba who walked us through the tech - the Toshiba man showed us that a middle of the line 120HZ projector is capable of doing this by showing us a projected video, that when you had a pair of specs where polarization was switchable, was actually showing two completely separate video's at once.
It's impressive - but wait for it to become more mainstream before going for it.
Also the stone stand had a 3d LCD without requiring glasses - great as long as didn't change your viewing angle. Also the depth of field was slightly less than with specs
That said, £150 is still pretty high when students are involved. I'd like to see if you can recreate the effect with some modified polaroids.
The way with the cheap glasses uses polarization with one lense polarized verticaly and the other horizontaly. This is the type used in modern 3D movie projection. As far as I am aware it requires two seporate projectors with polarizing lenses on them so that the projection from each projector is only visible through the propperly polarized lense.
The other way can use any high refresh rate display, over 100Hz or there abouts. This method requires the expencive glases that have high speed shutters in each lense (LCD in general). This blocks off one eye at a time in sync with the display refresh rate. The display projects alternating images first for one eye and then the other which the glasses helpfully limit to the intended eye. This is the type the NVIDIA system uses.
The glasesless way relies on two seporate LCD pannels one on top of the other with rigid viewing angles meaning that if you are in the right place in front of it one eye sees one pannel and the other sees the other.
Hopefully that clears it up a bit.
Last edited by SYNACK; 20th January 2010 at 09:03 PM.
vikpaw (26th January 2010)
Synack has it pretty much spot on but what you need to think about as well is the overall cost.
The cheap glasses (passive) seems better value but the hardware required is much more expensive as this is where all the processing is done.
The expensive glasses (active) can use much cheaper hardware but then obviously the glasses are vastly more expensive.
The active version gives far better 3D imaging, this is where things appear to truly float in mid air in front of you rather than passive which is much more about giving a depth of field to the picture (lke at the cinema).
The big issue surrounding 3D at the moment is useable content of which there is very little. You will probably have seen the heart beating and a motor engine which are the staple images used for demo's. And although the content is increasing it is a costly and time consuming process, which is no where near up to the level most schools would want yet.
Given another year or two the content level may get there but at the moment I would say it is a cool toy rather than an effective teaching tool.
The glassesless LCD screens use a totally different system and as such there is virtually no content available for it.
The moral here is if you are going to invest in 3D then you should take into account the fact that you may need to create an amount of content yourselves for the applications you want it for.
Why? What systems do you need available to create your own 3D content? Can I render 3D sequences from Blender? There was mention of a 3D camera for around £600 earlier in this thread, is that useable / practical?The big issue surrounding 3D at the moment is useable content of which there is very little.
As much as 3D is about showing movies which you can do for a reasonable cost, the main point is surely around teaching. How much benefit does being able to show a movie in 3D bring?
The applications I have seen that are exciting are things like 3D models of an engine, which have been built up from a huge number of layers so you can look at cross sections of the model. Or interactive 3D content that can be manipulated to move blocks, rotate shapes etc to really engage the learners. There are some really exciting opportunities for 3D I just dont think anyone is really there with it yet.
Watching videos in 3D is not really a leap forward and would not engage learners after they have seen it a couple of times.
Soon 3D won't require the use of glasses! just wait until then and it'll all be fine. Toshiba have just released a laptop that doesn't require glasses so it aint gonna be long
Toshiba Qosmio using high end processor and Nvidia Graphics
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)