My wild idea for glasses-less 3D system.

[Trekker4747]

Ok, see if you guys can follow me on this and let me know if this "could work" in theory.

Say you could have a tiny cube, using whatever technology one can think of, wired however this would possible but each cube can display a single color (illuminating on all six sides,) When the cube is "on" as a color it's opaque but otherwise it's transparent. Say we layred a sheet of these cubes ontop of one another say a stack of 50. The area of the screen being whatever we need.

So let's say we've got a 52" TV screen of this "cube sheet" and it's 50 layers thick.

Could it be possible to create a "true 3D" image with it? Because, in theory, the first 10 layers or so could make the person, the next couple layers would be off/transparent. and the next few layers "on" as the background.

I may need to work up some crude MSPaint "graphics" to properly illustrate what I'm talking about.

 

[Tiberius]

I get what you mean. Nifty idea. Each cube would be a pixel, and in addition to the height and width of a regular scree, there is also the depth. Like having several screens, one in front of the other.

 

[Trekker4747]

I get what you mean. Nifty idea. Each cube would be a pixel, and in addition to the height and width of a regular scree, there is also the depth. Like having several screens, one in front of the other.

Exactly!

 

[watermelony2k]

Ok, see if you guys can follow me on this and let me know if this "could work" in theory.

Say you could have a tiny cube, using whatever technology one can think of, wired however this would possible but each cube can display a single color (illuminating on all six sides,) When the cube is "on" as a color it's opaque but otherwise it's transparent. Say we layred a sheet of these cubes ontop of one another say a stack of 50. The area of the screen being whatever we need.

So let's say we've got a 52" TV screen of this "cube sheet" and it's 50 layers thick.

Could it be possible to create a "true 3D" image with it? Because, in theory, the first 10 layers or so could make the person, the next couple layers would be off/transparent. and the next few layers "on" as the background.

I may need to work up some crude MSPaint "graphics" to properly illustrate what I'm talking about.

Do it. I'd try it out.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You're basically talking about a voxel rendering system, but with real physical depth. Interesting idea. Problem is, the depth of the image can only be as deep as the TV itself. People are getting accustomed to relatively thin LCD/plasma screens. Would anyone really want to go back to big units that are 2-3 feet from front to back? And you could forget wall-mounting such a beast.

 

[Matthias]

There is something similar here:
http://www.framefactory.ch/index.php?option=com_content&id=53&catid=44&Itemid=72 (German)
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/nova_3d_the_worlds_largest_3d_display.php

It is much less interesting to see in person, but perhaps thats because they only have lightshows and no movies...

 

[Alpha_Geek]

As noted earlier, it would work, but with depth of field limited to the depth of your display.

The 3D technology with glasses fools your eyes by changing the amount of overlap between elements of the left and right eye images. The farther into the background an element is, the more overlap between the left and right image. Your eyes cross or uncross in order to integrate the left and right eye element that you're paying attention to into one image, and that data is fed back to help determine depth.

 

[Jadzia]

Just a few thoughts:

I see no reason to use glowing cubes when layers of transparent membrane would be adequate.

To increase the depth of field, you could use an optically dense material in between the layers. You could conceivably make a 6 inch panel appear 18 inches deep... or does it? (edit -- My mistake, it would have the opposite effect. )

Partial transparency would be a problem. The technology you describe renders either transparent or opaque with no intermediates. You would have to resort to "stippling the alpha" to mimic any degree of translucency. Either way, displaying objects like a glass of water, would not refract the light as expected.

While conventional television relies on perspective to give an impression of depth, the addition of 3D glasses gives you two things:

(1) an enhanced sense of depth through parallax,
(2) effects like refraction through water is possible, because you can control exactly what goes to each eye.

Focal depth is not possible with 3D glasses, but would become possible with the layers idea. This is a more subtle phenomenon.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Yeah, you might be able to play some diffraction games to get more apparent depth, but any system as the OP descrives would suffer from a relatively narrow viewing angle, as parallax would be an issue for off-center viewing.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

If the screen was built to the size of... I dunno... Jupiter? would you feel any better about it?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

If the screen was built to the size of... I dunno... Jupiter? would you feel any better about it?

And at that size, it could power itself... with giant magnets!

 

[Jadzia]

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

If the screen was built to the size of... I dunno... Jupiter? would you feel any better about it?

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

If the screen was built to the size of... I dunno... Jupiter? would you feel any better about it?

And at that size, it could power itself... with giant magnets!

C'mon, this isn't fair to keep making remarks like this. It could be interpreted as trolling.

 

[Trekker4747]

This invention/idea just wouldn't work IMHO and to be honest it's a lot easier to just stick some 3D glasses on your face.

For me the glasses are cumbersome -on top of the glasses I already wear- and I'm to aware of it.

I'm certain a non-glasses 3D system could be made and used, maybe not stemming from anything related to my idea, but a system to display true 3D without glasses would truly be a remarkable system.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

well, I was thinking about it and I was going to suggest some kind of projector.

The TV screen would be similar to your idea. It would be comprised of thousands of tiny little blocks, each block would be on one end connected to a motor and each block or 'cell' would be capable of breaking into other shapes. Now a projector would project an image onto the TV screen. Let's say a Human face was projected onto the screen, the screen would work in conjunction with the projector and the relevant cells upon where the face was projected would raise from the surface of the screen.

To expand on what I said earlier about the cell breaking into shape. If a square was needed in a particular section it would be square but if a circle was needed the corners of the cell could be brought back into the TV leaving a circular cell instead if you know what I mean.

It's complicated but that's my idea for a future 3D system.

Another thing I was thinking about is that magnetic liquid stuff they can make. They add iron filings to a fluid and use magnets to create fluid shapes. perhaps something similar could be utilised to create 3D shaped on a TV screen surface and the images from the projector could be projected into this particular surface.

LINK

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Jadz, you're right. I just find it ludicrous that the respondant shoots down an idea that's not so off the beam as some of his own grandiose "projects".

Large scale projects like this OP envisions will probably not become economically feasable, although technically possible. Manufacturing cost, transport to site, etc, etc will be far more than a viewer based set of glasses & a specialized projector for a flat screen... be it todays color or polarized ones, or tomorrows synchronized LCD shutter versions, or whetever comes next when it's cheap enough to make damn near disposable as the glasses are now.

I'll go about my business.

 

[Trekker4747]

Jadz, you're right. I just find it ludicrous that the respondant shoots down an idea that's not so off the beam as some of his own grandiose "projects".

Large scale projects like this OP envisions will probably not become economically feasable, although technically possible. Manufacturing cost, transport to site, etc, etc will be far more than a viewer based set of glasses & a specialized projector for a flat screen... be it todays color or polarized ones, or tomorrows synchronized LCD shutter versions, or whetever comes next when it's cheap enough to make damn near disposable as the glasses are now.

I'll go about my business.

Ummm, you realize the "OP" for this thread is me, and I'm not exactly known for grandeous impossible or economically unfeasable ideas. And I'd argue that this idea of mine has an ounce or two of "merit" to it while not being completely unrealistic.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Ummm, you realize the "OP" for this thread is me, and I'm not exactly known for grandeous impossible or economically unfeasable ideas. And I'd argue that this idea of mine has an ounce or two of "merit" to it while not being completely unrealistic.

Quite right, I should have said "respondant" again. My apologies!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The concept isn't bad (Jadzia might have the right idea for an improvement). The problem is that it strikes me as a bit gimmicky. The 3-D represents the real 3-D of the area. So, if a TV show has additional space that would be 3-D, that gets represented as 2-D (kinda defeating the point). Cool concept, though.

 

[Trekker4747]

The concept isn't bad (Jadzia might have the right idea for an improvement). The problem is that it strikes me as a bit gimmicky. The 3-D represents the real 3-D of the area. So, if a TV show has additional space that would be 3-D, that gets represented as 2-D (kinda defeating the point). Cool concept, though.

Right now, as it is 3D is a gimmick, even the effective way it's being used anymore in movies (for depth rather than "jam things into the camera and make it stick out over the first few rows of seats"), my thoughts are to make 3D more like "true 3D."

For example, the 3D in movies still isn't "all that" 3D as the image won't change depending on where you're looking, for example if you moved your seat further to the right you wouldn't see more of the background behind a character on the left-side of the screen. Sure it gives you "depth" but it's not a "true 3D" in the sense of "looking through a window."

I'm wondering if, and I'm sure it'll happen, we'll ever see 3D were a)we don't need glasses to see it and b)it'll be "truly" 3D in-that it'll be like looking though a window and the image will change depending on your POV.