3d at bett

[glennda]

Hiya,

 

i saw all the dlp projectors and stuff at bett they where constantly mentioning the price of the projector and it being not that much more than a normal projector. but what they didnt seem to mention is 1. can you use any 3d glasses i.e the ones like c4 gave away when they had 3d week? and 2. if not how much where the glasses each pair.

 

Toby

[tmcd35]

I missed this but I did see someone had a 3D TV that didn't need glasses. I walked past the thing and immediatly wanted to vomit. I think it was refreshing at something silly like 2hz.

[rad]

It was amazing but kids would get bored after a while of 3d I reckon

[glennda]

o yeah after the first couple of lessons it will be out the window!

[dhicks]

1. can you use any 3d glasses i.e the ones like c4 gave away when they had 3d week? and 2. if not how much where the glasses each pair.

 

I think that newer 3D technology is based on polarised light instead of different coloured light - so you simply project two images, one vertically polarised and one horizontally polarised. To view this you should only need glasses with two bits of polaroid in them, which should be just as cheap as the old coloured gel 3D glasses (i.e. cheap enough to be given away free on magazine and similar).

 

I actually remember seeing several 3D stands at BETT last year, all of which seemed to have the same content this year (mostly 3D tours of the inside of the body, for some reason). I get the impressions 3D is a technology waiting for some interesting/useful/educational content to come along.

 

--

David Hicks

[AWicher]

Can’t see this 3D thing doing well.

 

I was at an ex-colleague school who has had a 3D projector rigged up for a few years now. From what he was saying it was way over priced (I guess it would have been back then) and really under used.

[glennda]

o thats good, but they free glasses will get broken so quickly i can see the bills for glasses stacking up already! its a nice idea but never going to work in reality

 

Toby

[frosty]

Did you see the 3Ducation 3D Stand? Their glasses were £600 a pair with an 800 hour life!

[glennda]

where they the red glasses tied down? with the button to turn them on? if so thats the ones i ment!

[frosty]

No actually on this stand they weren't! They were black but the staff didn't stray far from you when you had them on!

[tmcd35]

Did you see the 3Ducation 3D Stand? Their glasses were £600 a pair with an 800 hour life!

 

:roflmao: - are they serious?

[frosty]

Yes! Compared to the passive version on the Amazing Interactive stand at 60p a pair!

[vikpaw]

I saw a 3d demo on the cdec / 3ducation stand, it was pretty good. nice way to move around an object for learning purposes e.g. mechanics, surgery etc.

 

watching a bee fly around and going on a roller coaster however are fun, but not great unless the object is rushing towards you, it's nothing special.

 

they showed me the camera they use to capture images, it was quite a compact and sturdy bit of kit, ~£600 with option to shoot in 2d or 3d, if you shoot in 3d the image on the screen looks similar to as it might with 3d glasses on, so you can move around it, much like a hologram. quite cool.

 

also, there was a 3d lcd screen they had (not sure of price), but that is also a nice option to get the technology with out a massive costly projector, as it can still double up as a regular screen.

[frosty]

also, there was a 3d lcd screen they had (not sure of price), but that is also a nice option to get the technology with out a massive costly projector, as it can still double up as a regular screen.

 

Didn't see their screen but Amazing Interactive had one (Panasonic I think?) for £6500 on it's own and 10K if bought with their software - gulp!

[tmcd35]

also, there was a 3d lcd screen they had (not sure of price), but that is also a nice option to get the technology with out a massive costly projector, as it can still double up as a regular screen.

 

Was that the vomit inducing screen I walked past? I'd get an headache 5 minutes into watching any movie/presentation on that.

[frosty]

Was that the vomit inducing screen I walked past? I'd get an headache 5 minutes into watching any movie/presentation on that.

 

Sounds like the one!

[localzuk]

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.

[frosty]

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.

 

I wondered about that...you know how they make prescription goggles for swimming now...do you think they will ever make prescription 3d glasses? I too wear glasses and it is not a very comfortable experience wearing two pairs!

[Domino]

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

[SteveBentley]

I wondered about that...you know how they make prescription goggles for swimming now...do you think they will ever make prescription 3d glasses? I too wear glasses and it is not a very comfortable experience wearing two pairs!

 

The prescription goggles are only a very approximate prescription. I'd have thought the prescription polaroid sunglasses would be more likely, just polarise each lens at 90 degrees to the other.

[vikpaw]

Did you see the 3Ducation 3D Stand? Their glasses were £600 a pair with an 800 hour life!

 

I checked the glasses are only supposed to be £150 each, plus you get a set if you buy the whole package. You sure you're not confusing the price of glasses with that of the 3D camera?

 

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.

[frosty]

I checked the glasses are only supposed to be £150 each.

 

Hum...that maybe right but as previously covered in this thread I did get an instant headache soon after leaving the tented area and could possibly have misheard the rep with his quotes...

[SYNACK]

Hiya,

 

i saw all the dlp projectors and stuff at bett they where constantly mentioning the price of the projector and it being not that much more than a normal projector. but what they didnt seem to mention is 1. can you use any 3d glasses i.e the ones like c4 gave away when they had 3d week? and 2. if not how much where the glasses each pair.

 

Toby

 

If it was using a single DLP projector then the cheaper givaway polarized glases will not work. There are two main ways of doing 3D at the moment both of which rely on each eye viewing a slightly different image but this is accomplished in different ways.

 

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.

Edited January 20, 2010 by SYNACK

[DarrenC]

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.

[dhicks]

The expensive glasses (active) can use much cheaper hardware but then obviously the glasses are vastly more expensive.

 

Which, for a school, might prove completly inpractical - children tend to destroy / loose / eat / etc things like mice and headphones, I'm sure 3D glasses would be pretty much the same.

 

The big issue surrounding 3D at the moment is useable content of which there is very little.

 

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?

 

--

David Hicks