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

[Eric Lange]

Like wise, Keith, I really enjoyed reading your post, quite an education.

The idea that you can have such narrow bandwidth filters that they are completely transparent is super cool. Initially you think Dolby 3d .. yuck (weird colors), but what you describe with these highly tuned systems definitely sounds worth a go. [A few years ago I got to see the inventor of DLP systems give a presentation at ‘Stereoscopic displays and applications XIX”. Honestly if anyone came into your board room and said, “I have this great new idea, for digital projection systems and TVs that involves making these completely new semiconductors that user realy realy realy tiny little mirrors that we wiggle... at different rates…to make all the colors”; you would say ‘Dude,… what the hell have you been smoking…” . It does seem remarkable to me how some of the most improbable seeming technologies manage to win through. So it always pays to keep an open mind.

So here’s a stupid/ignorant question, if the lasers are essentially coherent and structured light sources, at what point does the laser light become more like very well collimated “unstructured light”? How come you don’t get weird interference/fringing effects at the surface of the screen or earlier on in the optical path?

I am a big fan of linear polarization over circular, seems to give much crisper images (especially on a large screen) with less cross talk; I don’t really think the head tilting thing is such an issue.

For home 3d cinema use would it possible to have a retro-reflective lenticular screen (possibly on a slight curve) that enables glasses free viewing from projectors where the “sweet spot” is the size of several meters (i.e. a sofa and some chairs are all inside the 3d volume of the “sweet spot’)?

Ta.

Eric

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Wayne…

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

Oh, I forgot about that, I was more thinking the identical twin thing and partying. Wheres that embarrassment icon.

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…”.

Now that's what I call an upbringing .

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.

Yep, you certainly know what you are talking about. I wish there could be a group where a lot of people like us could get together and do stuff, but we are all like top sharks in a pool, but I know some excellent people to invite. My own ambition is to start businesses, to earn income to fund projects for community benefit, and charity. Even the businesses themselves are a force for positive change. I am developing a economic philosophy where regular businesses are started to use some or all their net income to fund charitable causes, but run as proffesional businesses running supermarkets, making cameras or washing machines, or cleaning services, but run as a regular professional business, but with an interest in their charity, their workers, their community, environment and the wider world, rather than just their profit. This gives young people that might like to be in a charity an alternative full pay career path to working as a engineer, worker, business or other professional or a regular camera maker, supermarket or white goods manufacturer. We can change the world for the better. Unfortunately the world is full of sharks that only care about their own interests, and think I must be like them.

3D displays, I have done much conceptualizing in this area, even full occlusion and have a number of designs I want to bring to market. I too have a set of stratergies to deal with transitioning through the different levels, but unfortunately everything has been stacked against me to start to fund the step. Unfortunately over time, as market and product specs mature, the effort and funding required just to get started with the first product grow greatly, as you would know. 8 years ago, if my friends at green array chips had their chip ready and I made even a standard definition camera on a well speced SD sensor, with an optical view finder and no controls except a record button to get the GA chip to record to a hard drive, it would have been considered revolutionary, but now it would be considered a joke, even if it was recording 4k I'm afraid. Things move so fast and so many new things every month were on my drawing board years ago. It is amazing what you can do if you only have enough knowledge of an area to do it.

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.

Hmm, Apple, that is one of the worst ones for my old ideas, it is as if they have a pipeline into my brain sometimes. I was wondering what happened to logitech, I have a nice set of speakers here. I came up with an idea and wrote to them years ago and suggested they could improve the high and low end frequency drop off in their speakers by deliberately adjusting, over driving those frequencies, and they did it, now that's service, I want a set of Equators next for the same reason (didn't say I could afford them though). Microsoft also is good at that, I wrote a bug report and suggested a new way they could handle the problem and low behold, they wrote a complete new subsystem to do that, that is impressive. Certain companies you can suggest but often the most you might get is a botched buggy version of what you suggested.

What most people lack is direction, if you can get somebody to figure out what to do, you can make great strides. If only there was a position for that, what a great living.

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.

You're going to love this one Eric. I figured I could design a Large panel 4k laser tv for around $80 several years ago, now maybe it would be a bit more expensive, 3D glasses free and touch, with a 700MHz 100 core chip, on much less than 100 watts. Jim may not be the biggest shark around here. Believe me I have gone through ideas for hundreds of new display technologies to arrive at the best reflective, emmisive and scanning technologies, unfortunately my security strategy relies on me staying alive.

Unfortunately it is way beyond my bed time, so I will have to read the articles latter. Thanks for posting them.

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."

You know that you can easily beat Apple or Google, it does not even require much money because you can earn money doing it. When companies stop listening to people in certain areas people want, it leaves huge gaping holes that competitors can exploit. Believe me, Google and Apple have trampled through a number of my ideas over the years. I am actually interested in Google as a potential partner.

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

Cheers,

Eric

Thanks Eric, I wish I could still say it is nothing, but when the mind is still intact, you still have the force that God has given you.

Left you a PM yesterday.

Thanks very much Eric, a pleasure.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

For home 3d cinema use would it possible to have a retro-reflective lenticular screen (possibly on a slight curve) that enables glasses free viewing from projectors where the “sweet spot” is the size of several meters (i.e. a sofa and some chairs are all inside the 3d volume of the “sweet spot’)?

Ta.

Eric

I think this was the screen I mentioned before from years ago. I can't remember the name exactly, but I don't want to mention it here.

 

[Eric Lange]

Wayne, really nice stuff and thanks for the words of encouragement. All the old clichés apply, persistence, focus, more persistence, focus , persistence, did I say persistence..? (and of course insanity), and putting most your wood (as the Americans) say behind one or two things at most… I think the main thing is to find something that really can be fundamentally new, i.e. a lot of things can therefore naturally branch off from in many different ways, (if need be). I/we are lucky as we have been working in this area before things started to become more main stream and really heat up.

Don’t worry I’m huge Bender fan. My wife got me this a few Christmases ago [Bright and Shiny BENDER Robot Action Toy]

http://blujay.com/item/Bender-Robot...hiny-Futurama-Action-toy-R603-7180000-2272508

Only take it out of the box very occasionally…

Wayne, do you have a photonics laboratory in your basement or something? Maybe one day we should set an open collaborative goal, such as you describe, on line open invention/collaboration, could be a real blast, with many thousands of contributions and jerry rigged 4k 3d displays or some such (super awesome). We should pick something. Have you spoken to any of the guys at 3M?


BUT SERIOUSLY…IF THERE IS A COMPETENT FULL RES 3D PASSIVE MONITOR WE ARE 100% IN, even if it means we have to re-write fairly substantial amounts of (low level) code to render appropriately. Since the disappearance of the CRT for serious 3d work there has not yet been a real alternative yet that is not compromised in some (annoying or difficult) way; that leaves one either worried or wringing your hands a bit, (for lack of quality...).

Is this days, weeks, months or a year, or more away (I wonder)?

Any ideas?

I am assuming this not a RED tv.. but an s-3d coding format [for Redray] that works very well with better devices that are not yet available?

We need or would like to ship pre-configured/ turn-key systems as well as to spec HW to use with our software that have proper 3d display devices (that are not super prohibitively expensive). As yet I don’t feel that there is anything out there right now that I/we feel happy shipping with display wise, (for many reasons).

I really hope Jim is right and coming soon means “coming soon” however a normal human being might interpret that statement.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[David M]

Like wise, Keith, I really enjoyed reading your post, quite an education.

The idea that you can have such narrow bandwidth filters that they are completely transparent is super cool.

They're widely used for safety glasses in laboratories which deal with high power lasers. They look like ordinary glass, but they almost completely absorb the target wavelength, while letting everything else through. Astronomers also use them to filter out the light from sodium street lights.

 

[Eric Lange]

They're widely used for safety glasses in laboratories which deal with high power lasers. They look like ordinary glass, but they almost completely absorb the target wavelength, while letting everything else through. Astronomers also use them to filter out the light from sodium street lights.

OK, so I’m being a bit slow on the uptake…

Yeah, I have seen these but they appear to (or at least the ones I have seen) to have an orange-ish hue, but not significantly so?

OK the penny is slowly dropping. With what Keith was saying [With highly tuned filters that appear transparent] let’s say looking only at left and right red channels, the filter on the left eye, would block or remove the signal from the projected right image, and the right filter would block the singnal from the left image. If we don’t use polarizer’s then the single projector would have to alternate the projection of the left and right images on the screen, I assume at 120HZ (through the DLP)? So with this system you would still get a sort of flicker, but much less cross talk than a polarized system. As Keith says, polorizers let a narrow spread of different angles through, so some degree of cross talk is a “fact of life” if you are using polorizers. [I’ll come back to that in a moment]. I am intrigued by the idea (from what Keith says) that (to extrapolate) you could have twin projectors where the left and right images are simultaneously projected on the screen and the glasses with the “special filters” would decode the signal correctly without issue (no alternating left and right images, but 2x as expensive). So the colors/wavelengths of the left and right laser systems would be tuned slightly differently (which is fine for s-3d, providing the contrast is the same), thereby providing stereo imagery that has zero flicker and potentially much less cross talk than any polarized or even shutter based system and does not require a special screen. It’s even possible that the color gamut and representation assuming very narrow bands for very discrete subtractive filtration could actually be very good indeed, and better than current systems. I don’t really know?

What Keith wrote also helped explain an observation I had working with linear polorized systems of dual projectors. I have found working with a twelve foot (retro-reflective) screen), [dual passive, lin pol] that when brighter projectors are introduced that exceeded 5000 Ansi Lumens then the "3d-ness" of the imagery would appear to get weaker, i.e. the cross talk would increase (we were using top of the line polorizers too). So from what Keith was saying that a spread or range of angles (of light) are let through. This would explain that there is a ratio of well polarized light essentially mixed with more diverse angles of light. When you increase the illumination it seems you get a higher level of mixed light to polarized light. So to me this indicates that although everyone complains about how DARK the colors look in the cinema etc. It’s possible that if the illumination was really cranked up (somehow) on a passive polarized (cinema) system, then the system would at some threshold would essentially start to break down or fail i.e. cross talk would start to dominate.

I would one day love to see a single or dual laser system of the type that Keith describes, providing there is not much cross talk or color shifting required to get truly intact separate left and right channels, this would seem to have a lot of merit as it would not be hampered by de-polorization effects in the way that other systems are/would be (especially once the illumination is cranked up). Wow, if you could stuff that into a TV, way cool. Who’s working on this right now Kodak..? [I like Wayne's idea for the 4k set].

I stumbled across this, useful explanation of LG’s passive polarized system, article titled “where’s my Pixel?”; at the bottom of the article they talk about a new Samsung TV that dynamically polorizes the whole screen at 1080p.

www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2011/08/lgs-passivepolarizedglasses-3dtv-where-is-my-pixel.php

Quotefrom article linked above by Rudolfo La Maestra August 4th 2011)

“Recently Samsung demoed an LCD 3DTV panel that dynamically polarizes the whole screen (the full set of 1080p TV lines) allowing the use of low-cost passive 3D glasses. Such method can actually claim that the whole 1080p content can be seen at once per eye using low-cost 3D glasses. The technology has been introduced only for LCD panels (no plasma), it was said to be more expensive although there were no specifics, and the whole screen polarization mechanism must still demonstrate that it can be fully removed out of the image path for HD viewing.”

So it seems to indicate that Samsung has some awareness of the need for a full HD passive systems…whether it hits the streets or not???

All I can say is that Jim certainly gets to play with some nice toys and tools on a daily basis it seems.

Cheers,

Eric

Keith thanks for taking the time to explain things (much appreciated)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Wayne, really nice stuff and thanks for the words of encouragement. All the old clichés apply, persistence, focus, more persistence, focus , persistence, did I say persistence..? (and of course insanity), and putting most your wood (as the Americans) say behind one or two things at most… I think the main thing is to find something that really can be fundamentally new, i.e. a lot of things can therefore naturally branch off from in many different ways, (if need be). I/we are lucky as we have been working in this area before things started to become more main stream and really heat up.

It is amazing, yes something fundamentally new. It does not even have to be a product, just a new way of doing things, or a fundamentally new version of something. Most of my work fall in these categories. As long as it is better and fundamentally desirable to the customer/user. I should not mention that, people actually pay to hear advice like what we have been saying. Tough world, but good advice can get you through.

I had planned to introduce a new type of game system that could act as a design platfotm for many other products, including a third world computer system. I had a revolutionary graphics technology I developed many years ago that I refined in concept, figuratively, beyond belief. I originally wanted to do a console version with a fpga and a fpga programming interface that programs could use to download circuites from their programs, which also could run my graphic technoligies. I could have designed something no more complex or expensive to make than a Wii, but more powerful then any if the consoles in graphic horse power, and just for that I would not have needed a very big fpga. But now I have dropped the fpga idea, particularly for portability and expense. I should be able to get power requirements down to a 500+hour battery life on conventional battery and hopefully fast display version, and much more using certain technologies. As for processing, the normal chip has a limited life, and even I have plans for a cheap optical processing technique you could manufacture locally, that does not require heavy investment. Sure it might not be as fast as normal optical in future, but a lot cheaper. This us apart from several more advanced techniques I am interested in developing. One or two things at a time, yes, I just lock everything else away for a better day. This is another thing that stops me from knocking over a cheaper digital cinema camera in 6 months, no time would be left for serious work. But all the time I have spent around digital cinena camera projects and helping them, I could have, ironically, done one myself instead.

Don’t worry I’m huge Bender fan. My wife got me this a few Christmases ago [Bright and Shiny BENDER Robot Action Toy]

http://blujay.com/item/Bender-Robot...hiny-Futurama-Action-toy-R603-7180000-2272508

Only take it out of the box very occasionally…

Yeah, I don't know why he hangs around with that guy fry, he should have him polish his nice shiny ball, on top his pointy head (in Bender voice). Talk about a back handed sideways comment. Isn't it amazing how people are attracted to characters least like us. I have a friend that's like Bender, or Bart, take your pick.

Wayne, do you have a photonics laboratory in your basement or something? Maybe one day we should set an open collaborative goal, such as you describe, on line open invention/collaboration, could be a real blast, with many thousands of contributions and jerry rigged 4k 3d displays or some such (super awesome). We should pick something. Have you spoken to any of the guys at 3M?

No, in my head. I wish I had one. KISS principle (keep it simple stupid, for everybody else). Scientists figure out the maths, engineers try to figure out how to use the maths, but inventors figure out new things that you can use the maths on. I try to avoid blue sky ideas, as you can spend your entire life researching them trying to prove them true. When I have more money and knowledge I would not mind it, but you could do 100 profitable things in the time and effort it takes you to do a blue sky. I have my own new hypnosis for the natrue of physics, but am just going to use it for writing content for now until I get a better understanding. Knowledge is not everything as such, but in design it is as if it almost is, it is tools to create with. I am a systemist (my term), I deal in making and defining systems. Maths describes systems but does not define them, this is where people get it mixed up. Maths only describes the system, but of itself does not make it happen. If somebody is good at maths but lousy at systems they are not likely to be a good engineer or even a good scientist. If you are creatively good at systems then you canbe a good inventor, but you will need somebody with the maths eventually to move on. One can design new physics as much as one likes but one would eventually need to plug in the maths to verify it works and fits in with the evidence data (one being us mere mortals).

I try to work on simple ideas on well founded concepts and go from there. You would be surprised on just how many simple ideas and directions are missed, you can make quite complex systems from this with established technologies and principles. The principles and technologies become segments that slot together like Lego, but you need to know how to do it and how to enhance this, but again this requires knowledge the more relevant knowledge the better you are at it (and the less blue sky ideas are). People have a tendacy to categorise, to presume, people can't figure things out or things are missed. Because people presume and categorise, they don't see things and try to keep things in the categories, trying to refine what was done before because that is where it must be, the way it is (must) be done. In the computing industry we suffer from this a fair bit. The industry for years had pursued a processing model based on the C language and Unix os, ontop of the more generalised processing model, at great great expense trying to refine and turbo charge it to get a little more performance with hundreds of times increase in circuit complexity. My speciality area in computing, I belong to a leading alternative computing group based on reverse polish notation operand stack processing architecture that is often cheaper, simpler, faster, lower power and superior. The originator of this group is Chuck Moore, the inventor of the forth computer language, a past key language at NASA, and from memory in the original Mac, and forth and misc processors, and a key patent holder and leading processor designer, one of the genuine geniuses of the computer industry. He got that way because he was so often good and right. Yet the industry failed to change direction and ignored this. It is the same all over, you had to listen to people presume Windows, or whatever, was the best or only way to go, and look at you like you were a real idiot if you knew any different. This is the case in so many things, the inventors biggest vain and big gaping opportunity.

I would love to do a collaborative effort but protection is low and rights a nightmare, so it tends to limit the sort of things you can work on. I am planning on doing something like that for a project, and was thinking again of contacting Chuck tonight about it. I do not want to do the display publically, because you know how many billions of dollars a year that is worth, it could fund a lot of community oriented projects, like water condensation technology research and cropping for the third world, low cost third world power generation, building and infrastructure systems, apart from expansion. If it was open to the public the profits would likely just go to share holders to buy more expensive houses on Sydney harbour etc instead, pushing up the realealstate prices for the rest of us in poor areas.

I haven't contacted 3M, it costs substantial money (well for me at least) to play that game, protect the IP, get the product to the stage needed and do a substantial business proposal document that requires substantial research that normally requires a MBA at least. It has been on the back burner for a while due to other things, but I have been re-evaluating that decision lately, and my health has also jumped up at the same time. Yes, I would not mind doing it, though paper work is not my strong point and I would need help.

The first prototype should take less than a month to knock off. I think it is possible to beat every emmisive display type out there in power consumption and cost except maybe lowest cost printed high efficency oled (I understand that OLED efficiency in the general feild has past 40% and maybe a lot higher from memory. We have a guy in Australia that has 80% or more efficient street lighting LEDs for a while that seem to use an idea I had a while before to lift lighting efficiency. So, the competition is out there, they just haven't got the gains in displays yet. But it could probably beat them aswell, I have also been speculating on measures to achieve a close to 100% light source for a while, but the difference between 100 and 80% efficiency market wise is insignificant, a label on the box. I as thinking I could manufacturing them locally as an rebadged OEM unit and wear the cost as they are cheap enough to compete, or just license it to every Chinese manufacturer out there.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

BUT SERIOUSLY…IF THERE IS A COMPETENT FULL RES 3D PASSIVE MONITOR WE ARE 100% IN, even if it means we have to re-write fairly substantial amounts of (low level) code to render appropriately. Since the disappearance of the CRT for serious 3d work there has not yet been a real alternative yet that is not compromised in some (annoying or difficult) way; that leaves one either worried or wringing your hands a bit, (for lack of quality...).

The new lcd research with blue phase LCD technology looks promising for cheaper screens going upto 1000fps, and the recent conventional models have reached 1ms, which means probably 50ms at there slowest change, I expect more pleasant results and brightness at 1/2 a millisecond. I've just figured out, it just came to me, how to drive a conventional LCD to much reduced switch over time and incorporate glasses free 3D. The latter is a concept I've come up with before, but I have to do some thinking and measuments on this and the other 4ks system to see if they work as expected. Don't know why I didn't see this before.

Is this days, weeks, months or a year, or more away (I wonder)?

Any ideas?

Actually, I just remembered MIT has just been demonstrating a glasses free system. This one will blow your mind, but predictable. It simply uses two LCD layers stuck over the top of each other to produce an interference pattern that diverts the light. Mind you I don't know if it had a good angle, but refresh rate shoul be less of a problem and therefore better brightness. For the demo unit, they just got two conventional LCD monitors, from memory stripped out the LCD layer and put it with the other one. I think it was veiwsonic, so it might had been those 1ms models I just mentioned. Doesn't it just make you want to cry.

It is in America and near enough ti Red, so I wonder UF Jim is adopting it. I don't know the quality but they are just programming the patterns to make it work, so I wonder how much it will take to refine.

We need or would like to ship pre-configured/ turn-key systems as well as to spec HW to use with our software that have proper 3d display devices (that are not super prohibitively expensive).

Cheers,

Eric

Sounds really interesting Eric, I'm going to have to PM you to find out more.

3.05am again.

Thanks


Wayne.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Eric, this is what I thought LG said they would do in the first place, a 3m film I thought. A shame, a few or 6 months before they announced it, I had thought of this, can't remember what solution I was thinking of for it, then they popped out.

www.hometheater.com/content/samsungreald-activepassive-3d-flat-panels

Give a monkey a hammer, he might play with it. Give a builder a hammer, and he might start building with it. Most people will wonder what to do with a new discovery, the inventor will find a use for it.

 

[Eric Lange]

Eric, this is what I thought LG said they would do in the first place, a 3m film I thought. A shame, a few or 6 months before they announced it, I had thought of this, can't remember what solution I was thinking of for it, then they popped out.

www.hometheater.com/content/samsungreald-activepassive-3d-flat-panels

Give a monkey a hammer, he might play with it. Give a builder a hammer, and he might start building with it. Most people will wonder what to do with a new discovery, the inventor will find a use for it.

Wayne that’s a really nice, useful and awesome find; reassuring in fact. (I have to re-read some of what you wrote earlier.. There are only so many hours left in the universe..and I’m really up against it right now..); I’ll make time, put something together off list (just give me a bit of time).


There’s a funny or ironic history to the technology. Lenny Lipton originally with Stereo-graphics (and of course also credit to Starks) developed the first very nice shutter glasses, Crytal Eyes™, (they were always and still pretty/very pricy but good contrast ratio; not like their consumer cousins that are much weaker (I think). Stereo-graphics also had a Z-screen which was a switching circular polarization screen you put over as a sort of bezel on a good quality CRT like a Silicon Graphics or Crystal Diamond type monitor, and you could use these with passive glasses. I NEVER liked the Z-screen/passive system (as it had low contrast) and much preferred the high quality shutter glasses. So it’s amazing how persistent Lenny Lipton has been, and managed to help join and found ReaL-D. Never in a million years would you think that bolting on a Z-screen to digital cinema projector would cause a new renaissance in what is currently thought of as “S-3d cinema”. I know that Lenny Lipton has always spoken very positively about Samsung, and now I see why, from the link you provided (Wayne), (I don’t know if Lenny Lipton is still with Real-D or not?). The reality is Stereographics/Real-D seem pragmatic and if you look at their patent portfolio they have tried just about everything including diagonally arranged lenticular auto-stereoscopic displays (they called “inter-zigging”).

The problem with the original Z-screen on a monitor was that there was a lot of internal reflection, and the circular polarization seems to give rise to a bit more cross talk than other methods. I.e. it always seemed soft and dark. BUT…with this new full res active/passive Samsung Real-D flat panel offering, I guess as all the layers are in intimate contact and the monitor purportedly runs at 240HZ so this will be a much more “solid” 3d image.

I’ll quote some of the link and article:

"On display at the show was a 46-inch, 240Hz LED LCD TV (seen at the top of this blog) and a 23-inch, 120Hz computer monitor (above) with the RealD technology. Both looked excellent, with no black lines or flickering—just smooth, solid 3D. Even better, you can use the same glasses with any other passive 3DTV—even FPR-based models—or for any commercial RealD movie.

Of course, these sets will carry a premium over the price of comparable FPR-based 3DTVs, but Samsung would not tell me how much. The company plans to release computer monitors this year and TVs early next year, so I expect to see them out in force at CES next January."

ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I can’t tell you how long we have been waiting for this!!!!) We’ve been practically turning blue. Finally a competent s-3d full res TV AND MONITOR!!! Yeh…!!!!!

I know the posts are really long etc. etc. blah but this is super usefull and thanks to JIM et al. for drawing everyone’s attention to this possibility!

I have to admit after all this, I want to now try as best as I can (with available information) research to death the possibilities for REDRAY. This really seems where it’s at… (big time).

Thanks so much…and Thanks a million Wayne...

Eric

 

[Wayne Morellini]

No problems Eric, just really exciting important things going on to talk about. That why I am talking off list, not much else to say here for now.

I remember hearing about the z screen now. It is a conceptual and a practical problem, how do you structure it to increase performance. When I was at uni I would go down to the library most Friday mornings and spend upto 3 hours going through all the electronic engineering journals for usefull stuff. I kept this up for years latter on the internet and scientific journals until I was too sick too even do it, and the volume of information just increased immensely. If I had been well enough I could have told you about any relevant leading edge end technology in a display segment (before the segments grew immensely, I could have for most segments if I had bothered). This is what I was telling people, knowledge is a tool, big businesses need to employ somebody to read all the relevant information to summarise it identify and categorise relevant information. The person, or another in a consultant capacity then goes through it all. Other engineers then can access it. I think often engineers must not keep up with new information and fall behind. I shouldn't give the secret away. If a big company can afford to do this, they can greatly improve the performance of their engineering departments.

Well remember that MIT autostero display I mentioned, I'd love to find out the performance of that one.

Thanks


Wayne.

 

[Jannard]

Watch here for 3D projection news...

Jim

 

[Mathias Erichsen]

Yey! What´s the news?

 

[albert rudnicki]

Jim is doing it again

 

[Peter Majtan]

Watch here for 3D projection news...

Jim

Please add it to Your first post, or it is going to be hard to find...
Thank You...

 

[NEIL ANDREW BATES]

Watch here for 3D projection news...

Not I'm expecting you to let anything slip but I have to admit you have me a little bit concerned RED's 3D will be for home use only.

 

[Eric Lange]

Watch here for 3D projection news...

Jim

If Jim has picked through any of this, he’s probably going, “Ahhh, …NOT SAMSUNG!! You @#$@ @$#$#$!” (slaps head).

This is mind blowing. The future’s so bright you have to wear two pairs of Oakleys…

Will watch this space in silence (for a change)…

Wow…

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Watch here for 3D projection news...

Jim

He's hot to rock.

Hey, I might be out of businesses, 3D home theatre projection, I haven't mentioned everything, but here we go. Just what I was hoping for cheap 4-8k home 3D laser projection?

He's announced it, get the check books out .

Please Jim, don't let it be a $40k cinema unit.

 

[Eric Z]

CEDIA show is coming up soon. There are going to be lots of new projectors announced at the show.
Panasonic 7000, Epson 5010, Epson 6010...and maybe a RED Eye 3D??

 

[Colin Hubick]

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

Beyond what RED has already done to the face of modern cinema, I for one like having a company like RED "really" looking out for the better interest of it's clients. Thanks Jim for not letting the filmmaking community be railroaded by faceless corps.

Colin