Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

3D... SONY, SAMSUNG AND PANASONIC ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG...

I think it is safe to assume that there are lots of developments in 3D coming... active glasses are not one of the better ideas.

The fact that 3 big companies get together to try to force a bad idea just doesn't sit right with me... so we won't let that happen.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I think it is safe to assume that there are lots of developments in 3D coming... active glasses are not one of the better ideas.

The fact that 3 big companies get together to try to force a bad idea just doesn't sit right with me... so we won't let that happen.

Jim
Click to expand...

Are we going to hear some 3D news from Red in the next month?
 
Given how big 3D has become as a part of the allure of Epic, it makes sense that Jim would be pushing for better 3D presentations. Looking forward to the rest of this year as we really get a sense of where the puck is going with Red.
 
Brilliant Jim!! I totally agree.. As a consumer I don't want the current and known future 3D options.. I'd rather watch 2D. I don't want to use glasses and I don't want something that is so weird and wearing on the eyes/brain that I feel crazy after watching too much of it.

go RED! And good luck..:coolgleamA:
 
I hope this means that you will be partnering with LG and Vizio on this new adventure of yours since they are supporting passive 3D and are looking to go in a direction that is sensible and consumer-friendly.
 
Haven't Sony made a prototype consumer 3D display that doesn't need glasses? Aren't Sony pretty much the frontier in 3D for consumers?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
No glasses would be amazing, but I have yet to see a "no glasses" technology that doesn't suck.

Passive polarization is where it's at right now, but interlaced or checkerboard style polarization masks on HDTV displays sucks too. In some ways just as bad as active glasses. There are electronic switching polarization films/filters that can solve this -- hey, Kirk Melby just posted a link to one.. I honestly can't believe that the big HDTV makers did not jump on the passively-polarized DLP or the switching layer on LCD and plasma displays. Should've gone with passive glasses right from the start. On a DLP or LCOS system with a color wheel, adding polarization is stupid simple (relatively, anyway). It literally becomes another independent wheel component to swap polarizing filtration for alternating frames. ...Oh, wait, Samsung and Mitsubishi own patents on forms of this tech and concept. Nice to see they made good use of it.

Now, if I had to speculate about what RED is up to, I think we're getting an off the cuff and somewhat veiled update on the progress of the "4K LASER Projector" that RED is working on. You see, it makes perfect sense for them to be using LASERS... No spinning color wheels needed, only RGB (or multi-component) LASER sources and they can be used with DMD or LCOS, or even other means by which to build an image. In most situations, LASER light is polarized and the type/ order or direction of polarization can be controlled through states of emission within a LASER device. A rapid phase changing or state switching LASER device can alter polarization as needed without altering any visible (to the human eye) differences in light properties or output levels. No wave plates or switching filters needed in front of a LASER to induce the desired polarization. So no light loss, no interlaced or "checkerboard" polarization masks, no active shutter glasses that make me want to have an epileptic fit...

Of course, I've got my speculation hat pulled on tight... Whether or not I'm anywhere close to what RED is really working on here, I do know that Jim is absolutely right. Those other guys are half-asleep at the wheel and they're driving slowly on the wrong side of the highway.
Click to expand...

I agree, I have often wondered why they just didn't use a polarisation switching mechanism in a film form or light source (though not as reliable). But then again, deciding to go with an expensive active system using priority glasses at ten to 25 times what they could sell for and getting the customer to pay for it makes money. Still I have been involved in designing many leading edge technology concepts including many display mechanisms, and you have not seen nothing yet. So I look forward to these companies coming out with something designed long before.
 
Jannard said:
There is a no excuse passive system... coming soon.

Jim
Click to expand...

This is very significant.

If it really is a “no excuses” passive system, i.e. full resolution 3d system then that will most certainly deep six any active shutter system, even if there is moderate ghosting/cross talk.

I/we have been working in very high end stereo and VR application software and HW, where high quality and high res have been crucial (for almost twenty years). We own many pairs and generations of Crystal Eyes (active eyewear), that we used with CRTs, as well as linear dual passive polarized high res projection systems (my personal favorite). The more recent LCD displays/monitors that are stereo capable frankly produce a weak image (by comparison).

We’ve been looking at the available LG sets to provide computers and “monitor’s/displays” to bundle with our software/production systems BUT there is the problem of the half vertical res, which does hurt our application; but never the less these LG sets seem VERY tempting in spite of a backwards step in visual quality. Dual passive driven projectors are not always very convenient for many hours of work station use. However, given that operators will have to spend many long hours at an s-3d based workstation I feel that it is rather inhuman to expect operators to have to be exposed to this constant flicker all day long. We have some of the best technology on the planet for re-sampling all of the ranges of parallax in a scene to within very comfortable viewing limits (without flattening fine 3d texture), however the residual effect of the flicker IS still very taxing on the user.

The bottom line here is that if the various corporations and advertisers NEED for people to “ingest” 3d content then they are going to have to embrace a system that allows people to watch 3d for extended periods of time. Active eyewear really doesn’t support this idea, as most sentient creatures will choose to wear the shutter glasses for the least amount of time possible. Passive on the other hand allows the user to watch 3d content for longer periods of time. Given that advertising pays for a lot of content, I think any system that allows the user to engage in 3d content for longer periods of time will ultimately win. [Sony Panasonic etc. will in the short term resist dual passive, given that right now they have to push high refresh rate (3d tweaked) TV sets that they have out there right now. Never the less, in the next two years or so they will have to “get with the program”… if these things are going to work together as commercially viable s-3d “ecosystem”. If the set/system that Jim speaks of is half competent at full res, then the future looks rather bleak for active eye wear... In such an instance why would anyone choose to use active eyewear when there is a perfectly good passive alternative, apparently "comming soon" (according to Jim)?

On a technical note, we built the majority of our software on quad buffered frame/page sequential (Open Gl) stereo. The software requires many/several stereo-in-window type display across two or more monitors. If there is a full res competent high quality dual passive system [AS INDICATED BY JIM] then we are ALL IN! However, this does raise the technical issue is there any sort of on-board capability to convert quad buffered frame sequential stereo to a dual passive signal? In the past we used a CYVIZ/Christie box for that, that cost $10,000.00 +. The Nvidia cards don’t really do stereo in-window frame sequential stereo conversion to virtual dual passive in-window (stereo) (as far as I undersand?). I wonder what sort of on-board signal processing capability these new sets/systems that Jim alludes to will have? This also raises the issue of production usefull monitor vs. TV set… as well.

Personally I prefer the idea of so called “TV sets” having a lot more on board signal processing and computational capability so that we are not forcibly locked into rigid proprietary formats in the first place. This approach would grant a lot more flexibility in the future to support much more advanced capabilities.


I have to admit I do get a little concerned about who it is that is on various boards and consortia to decide what the formats should be. We/I have been approached in the past to sit in on such boards, BUT the effective “load” fees are prohibitively expensive (unless you are Sony etc.) to have some sort of notional influence on a standards committee. To me this seems wrong somehow...

Fingers crossed for something that we can really run with.



Cheers for the heads up!

Eric
 
Eric,

I went into a shop to check out the LG displays. It is interesting that while they claim extra brightness, the Samsung monitor was extra bright to begin with, then you halve resolution. LG, shouldn't allow Samsung etc to dictate the market place to them they should give them heaps. The truth is, a full resolution high brightness sequential image passive display maybe far more doable and cheap than expected. Hopefully the technical people behind the Red comments have realised this, but we live in hope over the decades of genius with money compared to the dysfunctional business norm, genius without money, non genius with.
 
One of my most pleasant 3D viewing experiences at a theater was a dual projector IMAX screening passive. Definitely not the typical 3.5 foot-lambert showing. Brightness makes a ton of difference. Perhaps packed into a single projector/system.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Eric,

I went into a shop to check out the LG displays. It is interesting that while they claim extra brightness, the Samsung monitor was extra bright to begin with, then you halve resolution. LG, shouldn't allow Samsung etc to dictate the market place to them they should give them heaps. The truth is, a full resolution high brightness sequential image passive display maybe far more doable and cheap than expected. Hopefully the technical people behind the Red comments have realised this, but we live in hope over the decades of genius with money compared to the dysfunctional business norm, genius without money, non genius with.
Click to expand...


He, he,

Technologically speaking it’s a small world; hopefully “we happy few”…we happy band of technologists together with others and like minded companies manage to turn that dynamic (you set out Wayne) completely on its head, (as much as anyone can) ;)

It does seem that the Koreans (and LG) etc. are going absolutely gangbusters with the s-3d; with also substantial government support, so one would imagine some sort of follow through on the “no excuses” technology that Jim alludes to. That would be a real bummer to be stuck for another decade with half baked technologies.


I understand the practical need for certain types of “format’; but I think that some of the thinking behind the s-3d type “formats” is still rooted in 1950’s style thinking, where the hardware, the format and the business model/intended monopoly go hand in hand (unfortunately). Sony is already trying to put greater DSP capability and computational power into their proposed next generation sets. I.e. something at very least that has the processing capability of a PS3. Rather than haggling over higher level “crude” formats, it would make more sense to agree on the implementation of a lower level more open format that developers can actually do something with; for example the binary version of XML.


I am 41, recently I spent a couple of weeks with undergrads and post docs etc. in a very remote location in NM digging Triassic fossils. In spite of this remote location, everybody had some kind of computational media linked device, all I-phones, the occasional I pad etc. Great stuff. Even at the dinner table you are having a conversation and they are looking up REAL TIME what it is you are talking about..their thumbs in a constant frenetic blur. The Thing that’s interesting is the ‘TV” as such takes people AWAY from this rich source of data access. At some point the “big companies” are going to have to wake up to that, and provide an open platform that software developers and media content developers can really run with. As it is 2d presentation of imagery is now starting to be processed as a subset of 3d rendering, a much deeper digital capability is being brought to bear for the simple presentation of imagery.


There are really amazing things that can happen in terms of media opportunities with a bit more physical horse power under the hood of a TV set, the S-3d paradigm and an open processing/computational platform that can be developed for. In this sense the hardware manufacturer’s do have a responsibility to show the way (for the future), and I’m sure that they allready recognize that if they continue with this same 1950’s type model that they are going to completely lose their audience. I.e. hardly anyone will watch TV whether its 2d or 3d or 4k (apart from sports events) and the occasional movie.

"TV’s" as such, are sitting on a hell of a lot bandwidth, at some point someone has to let the “Genie” out of the bottle.

I think the stuff that Jeff is going on about sounds freaking awesome, but really expensive...(a powerful blue laser alone costs an arm and a leg…). Can’t wait to see this stuff

Ta.

Eric



Would love to see (one day) “Stuck with Hacket” in s-3d + plus interactive media rich didactic “supplemental” materials and less dangerous "projects" you can carry out...
 
Eric Lange said:
He, he,..Rather than haggling over higher level “crude” formats, it would make more sense to agree on the implementation of a lower level more open format that developers can actually do something with; for example the binary version of XML.
Click to expand...

He, he, it is always good to find somebody else who thinks around here. I too had the same idea years ago. It is sort of like when bender met flexo the first time. Several years ago I had an idea for a description based media compression system that modeled the codec into the deliverable file, for use on TV and suitable for other streaming or file formats to allow a tv to run any or new formats, and content to be delivered in any and new formats. Sure the new format could be cached for reuse, but the station only need to declare once and a while, or on carrier, which format models used for the Tv to store and reference them at transmission. Maybe Xml like, maths modeling and a little z notation etc. I had this idea around the same time, and probably for my idea of using cineform raw on a large 720p channel when 720p was more significant, not what fhd is about to become. I think I also had pixel shifted predictive compression ideas as well. Pretty advanced concepts for those days, maybe I should not talk about it around here, but then again a number of things digital cinema camera designs use are just old ideas from those times long ago. I have more important things to worry about anyway, like getting finance together to sue for the odd $100m in lost income from a few other, industry leading, tecnologies stolen from private design concepts. But they pale into comparison to some of the stuff I have planned for compression codecs. There is the rub, most people just don't appreciate the value of a well founded worked out idea and direction. 90% of the hard work can be or is the process of trying to figure that out, and maybe 99% of the losses just failing to do so. Most people just think an idea is a fancy they get in their head.

I am 41, recently I spent a couple of weeks with undergrads and post docs etc. in a very remote location in NM digging Triassic fossils. In spite of this remote location, everybody had some kind of computational media linked device, all I-phones, the occasional I pad etc. Great stuff. Even at the dinner table you are having a conversation and they are looking up REAL TIME what it is you are talking about..their thumbs in a constant frenetic blur. The Thing that’s interesting is the ‘TV” as such takes people AWAY from this rich source of data access. At some point the “big companies” are going to have to wake up to that, and provide an open platform that software developers and media content developers can really run with. As it is 2d presentation of imagery is now starting to be processed as a subset of 3d rendering, a much deeper digital capability is being brought to bear for the simple presentation of imagery.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I am working towards aswell. Pretty amazing, I get into more seriouse stuff at another venue where we have a pretty high level group, some world class or leaders in the field and you learn a lot off of them, but it is amazing how a lot of the others, ussually intelligent high end professionals, will not "get" a concept like what your saying, and bodly, feebly, even argue against it, like many around the forums. People just don't get design concepts (in how to do it, or how to be dedicated to doing it). Like this tablet I'm using to write this, the keyboard and the programs, it just is mind boggling and irritating how poor the desgins can be and this used to be a leading design last year that I got cheap. The software browser I use is another example, I use it because it is the best flatout, but there are over an hundred different things in it all over the place that are improvements and features that came from requests I personally put in, and this is supposed to be the best. But I notice one of the requests it looks like they haven't implemented is a succesfull testing system to get rid of all the, previously often enough, many irritating bugs before release. So the world seems stuck with bronze heads over brains for now.

I like to look into many of the design challenges of the whole ecosystem of the problem space, but with my health without financial backing it is most difficult to do anything with them. Even most of my effort promoting low end pro solutions might only turn out to be community service, as I may not be able to benefit out of the camera when it comes.

In this sense the hardware manufacturer’s do have a responsibility to show the way (for the future), and I’m sure that they allready recognize that if they continue with this same 1950’s type model that they are going to completely lose their audience. I.e. hardly anyone will watch TV whether its 2d or 3d or 4k (apart from sports events) and the occasional movie.
Click to expand...

I wish they'd do something to summarise infotainment programming. As a person that gets disabled, I like my infornation simply, but not with an hours worth of waffle.

I think the stuff that Jeff is going on about sounds freaking awesome, but really expensive...(a powerful blue laser alone costs an arm and a leg…). Can’t wait to see this stuff
Click to expand...

Not nessacsrily, there maybe a solution.

Thanks for the compliment Eric.


Wayne.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
No glasses would be amazing, but I have yet to see a "no glasses" technology that doesn't suck.
Click to expand...
I would be quite confident in predicting that that ain't gonna happen, at least with any current technology I know about. None of the people predicting this seem up to the task of explaining exactly how this would work in any practical sense. Sure, it you want to watch movies with your head immobilized in a 19th century photographer's clamp, well go for it, otherwise....


Jeff Kilgroe said:
Now, if I had to speculate about what RED is up to, I think we're getting an off the cuff and somewhat veiled update on the progress of the "4K LASER Projector" that RED is working on. You see, it makes perfect sense for them to be using LASERS... No spinning color wheels needed, only RGB (or multi-component) LASER sources and they can be used with DMD or LCOS, or even other means by which to build an image. In most situations, LASER light is polarized and the type/ order or direction of polarization can be controlled through states of emission within a LASER device. A rapid phase changing or state switching LASER device can alter polarization as needed without altering any visible (to the human eye) differences in light properties or output levels. No wave plates or switching filters needed in front of a LASER to induce the desired polarization. So no light loss, no interlaced or "checkerboard" polarization masks, no active shutter glasses that make me want to have an epileptic fit...

Of course, I've got my speculation hat pulled on tight... Whether or not I'm anywhere close to what RED is really working on here, I do know that Jim is absolutely right. Those other guys are half-asleep at the wheel and they're driving slowly on the wrong side of the highway.
Click to expand...

There is no question that 3D cinema still has a long way to go, but on the other hand, it's also come a long way in a very short time.

It's interesting that lasers offer major potential benefits to all current 3-D projection systems, despite their entirely different modes of operation.

As you say, because the polarization of the lasers can be switched electrically, there is no need for a rotating polarizer filter wheel in front of the lens. This actually has a two big advantages:

A. A polarizing filter works by simply discarding the half of the light, whereas with a laser source, all the light energy is directly generated with the correct polarization. Therefore the image will be twice as bright for the same light output.

B. A polarizing filter actually allows a wide range of optical phase angles through; the output is only centred on the desired polarization. This makes the left-right separation problematic. Stronger polarizers on the glasses will give better 3-D separation, but only by throwing away more light at the undesired phase angles, giving a dimmer perceived image. On the other hand, because the laser source only produces a single polarization, even low-cost glasses will produce excellent results.

In the alternative "Super Anaglyph" system used by Dolby, Panavision and others, the rotating filter wheel is designed to alternately pass two slightly different wavelengths each of red, green and blue light. When the left image is being shown, the projected image passes through a filter section with the same filter spectrum as the lens covering the left eye, then when the right image is being shown the light passes through the other filter section, which matches the filter spectrum as the lens covering the right eye.

As with the polarization system, a major problem is that most of the light gets discarded by the filter wheel and glasses.
The intriguing thing is that this system could also be greatly improved by having a laser light source, but this time by having two sets of lasers, that directly produce the slightly different wavelengths of red, green, and blue. The two laser banks would simply be alternated to generated the left and right images.

Also, because lasers normally only produce a single wavelength, the glasses can use optical "notch" absoption filters, precisely tuned to the wavelengths used. The left eyeglass lens would be precisely tuned to "notch out" the wavelengths coming from the right channel's lasers, and vice versa.

Precision single-wavelength stop filters like that are much easier to fabricate, and because they reject such a tiny part of the spectrum, in ordinary light they will simply look like ordinary clear glass or plastic. This means they could be incorporated into normal prescription eyeglasses. which for everyday use would be indistinguishable from ordinary glasses, but which could also be used in the 3D cinema. The new type cinema "over glasses" would also simply look like clear glass or plastic.

There's actually no reason why the same laser light source couldn’t be used for either type of 3D projector either. With the polarizing type, both sets of lasers would be simply run at the same time, the presence to two slightly different wavelengths being of no consequence

The only problem at the moment is cost. At first glance it might sound odd to even use lasers, since modern high-power LEDs are considerably more efficient at converting electrical Watts into optical Watts than lasers. However lasers have the massive advantage that all the light they produce is beamed in the same direction.

In the case of a 2 kilowatt Xenon discharge lamp, you'd be very lucky to get much over 100 Watts of useful visible light out of one of those when it's brand new; and it's all downhill from there. The vast majority of the electrical power consumed by the lamp gets turned into useless infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths.

Then after that comes the not inconsiderable problem of directing what miserable amount of usable light you do get onto the DLP/LCD/Film etc. Most of it winds up getting absorbed by the optics and the lens housing.

Kodak's new laser system uses 3 banks of 12 = 36 semiconductor lasers, each with a 3 Watt output. Current green and blue semiconductor lasers aren't up to this task, so the Blue and Green wavelengths are produced by infrared laser beams passed through harmonic generator crystals which halve the wavelengths, giving visible blue and green, while the Red component is produced directly by 12 x red-emitting lasers.

The 96W or so of light generated is tightly collimated, so it can be made to strike the DLP modulators and virtually nowhere else, greatly improving the optical efficiency of the system. Also, most of the modulated light then goes straight into the rear element of the projection lens, which means a much smaller and cheaper lens assembly can be used, and there is far less dilution of the blacks. Apart from that, the laser output can be varied virtually at will, giving much better black level control anyway.

Because Red, Green and Blue light are generated directly, there is also no need for a dichroic colour separation prism, and the monochromatic nature of the beams gives much greater control over the possible colour gamut.
The bottom line is that the 96 Watts of visible light energy produced by the lasers goes a lot further than an equivalent amount produced by a Xenon tube or similar.

So Laser illumination definitely looks like the way of the future, but I think they need to get seriously into bed with Texas Instruments with a view to bringing down the cost of 4K DLP devices.

For my money, I think the Super Anaglyph system has the most potential, since it doesn’t require a metalized screen like the polarizing version. 3D images could actually be projected onto any surface, which opens up other entertainment and advertising possibilities. Being able to have your regular everyday eyeglasses made up with the laser type filters so you could watch movies in greater comfort would also have to be a potential winner.
 
Keith Walters said:
As you say, because the polarization of the lasers can be switched electrically, there is no need for a rotating polarizer filter wheel in front of the lens. This actually has a two big advantages:

In the alternative "Super Anaglyph" system used by Dolby, Panavision and others, the rotating filter wheel is designed to alternately pass two slightly different wavelengths each of red, green and blue light. When the left image is being shown, the projected image passes through a filter section with the same filter spectrum as the lens covering the left eye, then when the right image is being shown the light passes through the other filter section, which matches the filter spectrum as the lens covering the right eye.
Click to expand...

:) good, have been thinking about this sort of thing for other project's in the past.

Kodak's new laser system uses 3 banks of 12 = 36 semiconductor lasers, each with a 3 Watt output. Current green and blue semiconductor lasers aren't up to this task, so the Blue and Green wavelengths are produced by infrared laser beams passed through harmonic generator crystals which halve the wavelengths, giving visible blue and green, while the Red component is produced directly by 12 x red-emitting lasers.
Click to expand...

The magic words, this is how the other primaries are often produced for performance reasons, but there is a cheaper way I have been thinking about in my display design. I have been thinking of solutions for collimation control aswell.

For my money, I think the Super Anaglyph system has the most potential, since it doesn’t require a metalized screen like the polarizing version. 3D images could actually be projected onto any surface, which opens up other entertainment and advertising possibilities. Being able to have your regular everyday eyeglasses made up with the laser type filters so you could watch movies in greater comfort would also have to be a potential winner.
Click to expand...

Keith, thanks for turning up here and giving an overview of the tech. I simply don't get to see what other people are attempting in the various industry sectors.

This is what I meant, that even though you have lasers you need a good screen to avoid polarisation scattering. Still, the frequency separation to avoid stereo cross talk from screen re-emission frequencies, scattering and harmonics, is it much off peak? Actually, along the special screen design line above I know of a supposedly excellent screen technology to produce glasses free 3d screens, which I had previously considered designing myself. I have a new solution, and a number of ideas for alternative screen techniques that I don't need so much anymore. I can probably use my past screen design concepts to make a very cheap glasses free digital cinema screen design, if Red would be interested in developing. Hmm, an even cheaper solution has come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Wayne…

“bite my shiny metal ass…” (when Bender meets Flexo), that’s very flattering.

So a bit like you perhaps, I regard myself as a pathological designer. My father used to work at NASA and then later become a production designer on some of the biggest “space” movies of all time. So you could say we were raised to be super intolerant of bad design, it’s almost a constant eye on “how can we make this better…”.

So in the areas that I/we have innovated that we have managed to secure some useful patents in technologies that are useful to us and genuinely unique (especially in new frontiers of s-3d/VR applications). But, … before getting into any of this going from a more academic environment to a more commercial one; I/we have had to plan around the idea that much bigger corporations and organizations DO have the capability to squash you like a bug, either accidently or deliberately. So for example we looked very closely at the company history of companies like Intergraph (and others) to help inform how we can safely proceed. Jim has shared so much, especially by this forum, and it has been an amazing education and real privilege to see how things have unfolded (and continue to do so…; although the “new” policy seems to make sense). As a result we have elected to work in areas that no-one else is working in and also in sectors that are more government “style”/type applications so that nobody can really mess with our initial core markets/applications. After that we are very mindful of trying to build up a sufficient “war” chest so that we have the capability to get in the “swim” on a bigger stage…(…or NOT!). I’m not a super greedy megalomaniac; we try to put on eye on what makes sense for the “greater good” and what makes sense for a decent life and family and so on.


So for me, s-3d capable TV that has the processing power of a PS3 ++++ looks more like a very “plugged in”, fully interactive VR rendering platform (to my eye), that has a lot more potential… (especially combined with the relevant technologies we have developed). However, the idea that the TV is or could be the NEW PLATFORM to develop for, is nothing new of course. Apple have wanted to combine all their capabilities for a new TV platform, so have several others, most notably Google. Logitech apparently lost tens of millions of dollars (and a CEO) working with Google on a similar concept.

So Wayne (and anybody else), check this out www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/sep/05/apple-television


This is a fantastic article on how the apple i-tv seems like an excellent concept but is totally mired by the moronic problems that plague most good ideas, I think you will laugh your arse off when you read this. Every excuse in the book is used to why this cannot happen. This is why I love what RED does, as (and I paraphrase) I think Jim once described himself/RED as [… ever go to bar where you get into a fight where there is the crazy guy with the veins standing up on his neck with the half broken beer bottle in his hands…that’s us”]. I like the fact there are companies that refuse to accept the mountain of excuses, and just say ..why not! So when Jim says “NO EXCUSE(S) passive system”, then we pay attention… Jim in this case when referring to “madness” of shutter glasses, I assume is referring to TVs and monitors and Blue Ray coding standards and the like. [Can a laser system be stuffed into a DLP type tv affordably?] I suspect it has more to do with the way that RED would like to code stereo (S-3d) on REDRAY and perhaps has seen or is using pre-production models of some very promising TVs/displays for S-3d that use passive glasses (at full res, perhaps based on a re-arranged 4k set). I can understand the frustration (that Jim might have) of standards that are very short sighted and don’t makes sense for where the technology is going to really land (or SHOULD LAND), rather than stunting its development for short term gains (like Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc). To be fair Sony has been investing in S-3d technologies and research for a very long time, and perhaps they just need to keep the faith and follow through on a longer arc. Still a TV is more than a dumb display device and capable of more than a limited degree to transcend some of the standards and format issues… this is certainly not beyond the wit of man, or beyond the development of more cooperative business models that the consumer, media companies, content providers and manufacturers can all benefit from.

Quoted from Jean Loius Gassee article in the Guardian re: the TV/internet/apps integration game as well.

"But the concept remains valid. And now that Google owns Motorola, a company with known expertise in set-top boxes and CableCards, we can expect a next-generation Google TV and, quite likely, a Samsung TV set with an integrated Google TV running Android apps and competing with the putative Apple TV."

Wayne sorry to hear about the disabilities etc.; please feel free to PM about anything (at all) if you wish.

Cheers,

Eric
 
Jannard said:
I think it is safe to assume that there are lots of developments in 3D coming... active glasses are not one of the better ideas.

The fact that 3 big companies get together to try to force a bad idea just doesn't sit right with me... so we won't let that happen.

Jim
Click to expand...

I can't copy Jarred's infamous heh heh heh... but I sure can say, he he.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top