3D - Why Have a Screen

[kinda]

Hello,

Been thinking about this and with the new 3D TVs, you buy a screen at a premium over 2D sets, pay about £100 - 150 for a pair of glasses, and then the glasses are tied to that make of TV.

I've seen previously some 'standalone' glasses that provide a large 2D screen experience that weren't that much more than the 3D glasses. Surely these will be updated to provide 3D, and provide a more immersive experience?

Is not the best way forward to have a cheaper 2D TV, that can be changed freely, and a separate pair of glasses for 3D stuff?

I'm wondering why things haven't gone this way? Is there something obvious I'm missing?

 

[Anonymous]

3dtvs (well , apart from the "passive" ones , made only by lg) , need to "sinc" with their relative "active shutter glasses" the glasses obscure ones vision momentarily , left eye right eye etc , rapidly , and the on screen image alternates at the same rate , so , your right eye may see image a , and then your left eye image b , both images are slightly offset , so your brain makes a kind of stereo 3d image , from the two rapidly changing images , this is how the active 3d system works , no other glasses that have came before can work with a 3dtv in this way , although there are reports of some cheaper , multi brand compatible , spurious 3d glasses being made available soon ..

 

[bigboss]

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/430520.aspx

 

[kinda]

Thanks.

I understand the system, but what I'm saying is why bother messing about with the screen? Why not project the left and right images direct to each eye within the glasses?

Surely it couldn't cost much more than the active shutter stuff and would make the 3D experience independent of the screen.

 

[Anonymous]

this may be of interest kinda ..

 

[kinda]

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining what I'm getting at.

3D delivers video that is or can be split into two different perspective images, one for each eye. The 3D TVs take the signal, put it on screen, and then use a polarising or mostly active shutter system to make sure just one of the images gets to each eye.

What I'm saying is why not have glasses that decode the signal, and present an image to each eye within the glasses? some sort of hub might be needed for multi-person viewing. No screen needed. Glasses that show video without the need for a screen already exist so surely it isn't a huge leap..

The current screen based 3D approach in cinemas I get, (one expensive 3D screen, and lots of cheap glasses). But the active shutter glasses at home aren't cheap, and on top of that then tie you in to a brand of TV.

 

[Anonymous]

I get it, and I think you have a point.

While you're right that there are video glasses out there, as far as I know they all have pretty low resolution. You would also have to connect your 3D player to the glasses somehow, and I don't think wireless would work with a bluray videostream. I see no reason why these minor problems couldn't be fixed with time though.

 

[Anonymous]

ah , now i get you

, good question , but isnt the idea another spin on virtual reality ? im not sure id enjoy that , it would be kind of anti social too ..

all youd see was the images , not anyone else in the room , etc . not my cup of tea , but im sure something like that will exist at some point ..