Update:
So I went ahead and got that printer I was talking about. I've got it right now, but its still in the box since the transparency film didn't come yet. This printer can do 5760 x 1440 dpi with a minimum ink droplet size of 3 picoliters (diameter of a human hair would be equivalent to 12 picoliters). So I think I am good on the resolution. My current printer is only 1200 x 600 dpi, which is limiting. Beyond the "low" resolution, my printer is also giving inconsistent results. If I print the same pattern but alter the left margin slightly (say from 0.2" to 0.3") then the results vary significantly. So my current printer is just not up to the task. I could probably find some magic set of numbers that will work, but I am hoping that this new printer will just solve all these problems. I really hope it works out, not sure if I can afford any better printer than this one (they start to get expensive when you need wide-format and such high resolution).

Also, I did some experimentation with using a checkerboard pattern instead of the vertical interleave. So far it didn't work that well (because the 600dpi limit) but it did seem to have some effect. With this new printer I am hoping this will be possible. I don't think the checkerboard will give a better 3D effect, or solve the ghosting issues, but it does seem to give the appearance of a higher resolution. I will have to do some more tests to verify this, but it looks promising.

I'm waiting impatiently

So I started working with the new printer I got. I think its pretty much just what I needed, its leaps and bounds better than what I was working with before. I am really within spitting distance of having this 100% functional. It makes everything I have done up until this point look like a proof of concept. Now I have something that is actually playable and quickly approaching commercial quality. Though due to limitations of consumer printers, it will never match a real commercial made parallax barrier system like the Sharp display in the Nintendo 3DS. However what I have now is unquestionably better than anaglyph, and could even compete with interlaced solutions like the Zalman. In some ways it looks even better than glasses-based solutions because you are not losing any color due to polarization. You are still halving the resolution, but the color looks just like normal (aside from the sub-pixel ghosting, which I am working on). With polarized glasses like the Zalman, or even shutter glasses, you are always darkening the image and muting the colors. With the parallax barrier you don't have this problem, so in some aspects it can even look better (ie more vibrant).

Its not perfect, though. You still get this grainy image quality, and banding due to the interpolation used to fake a higher dpi on the print. There is not too much I can do about this unless I had a printer with like 30,000dpi. And the viewing angles are not so hot. There is only a specific spot that is perfect, otherwise you will get ghosting. However in that specific spot the ghosting is very low, maybe only 5%. I still need to optimize the pattern a bit more, but I am extremely close at this point. Its at the point where I am dealing with micrometers of inaccuracy. Should have the pattern finalized by this weekend. Then I just have to figure out how I am to document all this. If I had like the Fujifilm W3, it might be a little easier to take 3D photos. Right now I am just using a regular camera and moving it to the side, which isn't particularly accurate. Plus the camera does not capture what I am seeing in real-life at all. I have posted two cross-eye shots below, but I assure you the experience looked way better. Keep in mind that this is on a small 640x480 portion on the display (not full-screen) so that is why it looks so low-res. I should have better luck taking a 3D video, maybe I will try that tomorrow. For now you guys can at least see that the quality is much improved from my old printer, and that there is none of the color banding I was getting before. Please, let me know what you guys think.

Doh!, that's pretty good considering you are using a consumer printer. It would be nice if you could post a shot of the DDD ghosting test and your blue/red test picture so we can better appreciate the result and compare it with other stereo solutions.

I guess your solution could also be used on mobile phones if their DPI is not too high, did you try to make some tests with this kind of device if you own one ?

Yeah, I can totally do that. Still have to refine the pattern a bit, but I can do some preliminary ghosting tests tomorrow.


Yes, that is in the roadmap. I want to finish the monitor mod first, as I am so close to having it complete.

Nice, keep up the good work...

I wish I'd been equally dedicated to my projects as you are, some nice things you're coming with lately.

Now you're really making progress!
I lately just got my w3 camera and just started to play with it. One of my fave things is actually the display. Even if it flickers a bit i really appreciate the image from it from coming from such small device. I actually have second thoughts about autostereoscopic tv's and their hotspots being acceptable if several viewers can sit in each dedicated hotspot. The w3 looks best viewed straight front but the image is acceptable at two sideviews as well. So practically it's 3 hotspots with proper stereo with this camera.
Implemented on a tv-set with a good quality with oppurtunity to grant each viewer his own hotspot i can't figure it's really a bad idea. And that's coming from me....
(note though: The tech on the w3 isn't parallax barriers but is practically experienced in a similar way)
Sorry for the offtopic rant but i'm actually developing a bigger acceptance for these kind of techniques and you're doing quite some succes!

Great progress there!
I was curious if you are still using the monitor rotated to 90 deg. with the test pictures you uploaded? I ask because I see right eye has red ghosting and left eye has blue ghosting. If so, what is it like when you do have the monitor rotated to 90 deg?
Does anyone know if there are any LCD monitors that have the sub-pixels stacked vertically as opposed to the usual horizontal?

Thanks for the support, guys.

@Likay: Yes, there can be multiple zones with this DIY solution too. If you move to the side it gets blurry and pseudo-stereo, but if you move a little further it will become in 3D again (but of lesser quality than the center zone). So it could technically be possible for 3 people to view it, however the way I am doing it you have to be really close to the screen so it would be hard for people to be that close together. I mean, if they were all sitting on a bench directly next to each other it could work, but there is not as much room for 3 full-size computer chairs. For my purposes, single-user is fine because this is mainly for playing PC games which are a solo affair.

@android78: No, I am using the monitor in standard landscape mode. Although the portrait mode gives significantly better results, it is not really an option since most games do not support it. In addition you waste about 60-70% of the screen real-estate, so it is not really an immersive experience (which is the entire point). I did look for monitors with a vertical RGB arrangement, but I do not think they make them (at least not in consumer displays, maybe for professional auto-stereo panels). Anyway, I think the quality is acceptable, even with some minor sub-pixel bleeding. I don't want to call it ghosting necessarily, because you don't really see the full image from the other eye. Meaning you do not lose the stereo effect, its just that the colors are not accurate. I can probably reduce this further, but its an inherent limitation with having the RGB elements arranged horizontally. There is only so much I can do.

So here are some more images. Not 3d, just ghosting tests. After testing tonight and playing some more of UT2004 and HL2, I realize the ghosting is worse than I thought. Its probably closer to 15-20% actually. Light on dark is the worst, so this is a lot more apparent on HL2 than it was on UT2004. I mean, its still in a playable condition and the 3d effect is nice. But the ghosting can be a bit distracting. I can probably reduce the ghosting by a good amount by using two barriers, but this also has the effect of reducing light and altering the colors. I might try that next. Anyway, here is where I'm at:

I've done some tests with using the monitor rotated in portrait mode, and it does look better. There is still some ghosting, however there is no errant color bleeding like with the past shots. If I increase the duty cycle I think I can practically eliminate the ghosting (at the cost of reduced light throughput). However, most games will not work like this (UT2004 and Mirror's Edge are the only ones so far that would run) so it is not a good long-term solution. But it is good to know how it compares. I also adjusted the pattern slightly, I'm still tweaking it.

hey did you tried changing the thickness of the transparent sheet? maybe it could help, just a thought

Does the monitor have a gloss or matte finish?

Do you think if I sent you a polarizer sheet, you could print directly onto that?

@vpamir: Yeah, I have tried adding in blank sheets in-between the barrier and the screen in order to add more thickness. However I have not tried this with my new printer or paper, so maybe it will give better results.


The monitor is glossy.


That could be possible, but I am not sure how that would help me at all. It doesn't seem like parallax barriers and polarized light have anything to do with each other. In addition, I am using the Zalman Trimon for this, which already has a FPR polarizing sheet embedded in the monitor. So any additional sheets would likely conflict. Also, the transparency film does affect the polarization already. If I just put a blank sheet on the screen, now my Zalman glasses no longer work (its as if its just a regular monitor).

have you tried changing the thickness of the pattern lines?

I know how to strip and apply polarizer sheets, so if the pattern was printed directly onto a polarizer layer, then applied as a replacement to the original polarizer, you might get a little help with viewing angles by minimizing the light path, and getting it as close as possible to the LCD glass.

Just pondering, not sure how much of a practical difference it would make.

@palmertech

polarization and parallax barriers are two different things. i don't think it would make a difference printing the pattern to a transparent sheet and a polarized sheet.

I know that.

LCD panels are basically a sheet of glass with one polarizer sheet on the back, and one on the front. I was suggesting printing right onto that front one.

One thing that a parallax barrier needs is some space between the pixel and the barrier layer, or else you just block out every second pixel, and this will be the same for each eye.
Just out of interest, how do you 'I know how to strip and apply polarizer sheets'?

Well I have no interest in taking apart the monitor for this mod. The idea is that its non-destructive. Also, like android78 said, the entire concept of parallax barriers requires a certain distance between the panel and the barrier. The glass is necessary. If the barrier were under the glass it would not work.

@vpamir: I can only alter the thickness of the line if I use the monitor in portrait mode. I have done some test like this and it does help reduce ghosting. However in standard landscape mode it does not work like this. It will either increase ghosting, or ruin the colors. So the barriers have to be uniform to the spacing.

I did have some luck with reducing the thickness of the barrier. What I did was place the sheet with the printed side facing the monitor, basically as if I had printed directly on the glass. This improves the ghosting levels and the overall image quality (color reproduction, etc.). In fact, I am not sure I am going to get much better quality than where its at now. While the ghosting tests don't look perfect, when actually playing a game the ghosting is more than acceptable. In dark scenes it can be a problem, but that's true even for commercial solutions. However, in some cases, the ghosting is even less than with the Zalman itself. So I am alright with that. I will just need to get the full-sized paper and see if the pattern can keep its phase over the longer distance. But I am extremely close at this point. Its almost done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JPp8i287MU

Watch in 720P cross-eye for the best effect. Keep in mind this is just running in an 800x600 window, not full-screen, so that is why the resolution looks blurry.

just beautiful!

if you're viewing cross-eyed don't forget to check "Swap (right-left)" from the 3D settings of the YouTube player.

when is the documentation and guide coming???

Nice job ! One thing I don't get though is why the screenshots taken from the video game are mostly red for the left view and blue for the right one, but they seem to have correct colors with the DDD ghosting test.

Ok, this looks really good. With the method used it's amazingly good!

Thanks guys. Its really coming along. I should have the full sized 13"x19" paper within a few days, so then I can try with the whole monitor.


LOL! I should have mentioned: those images are from 2 different parts in the game. I am using them simply because it is more obvious if there is sub-pixel bleeding if I use primary colors (its also a throwback to red/cyan anaglyph, so I think its cool). Its supposed to look like that. Here is what the original source image looks like:

My other hobby, making portable game console units out of vintage full sized consoles like the NES, N64, PSX, etc deals a lot with LCD screens. I got into polarizer replacement trying to improve the clip-on PSone game screen, which is frequently hacked and used for portables. I was replacing the polarizers with ones from the 3M Vikuiti line, and also repaired a few screens with new polarizers in cases where they were severely scratched.

I later got even better at it when I started modding original Gameboy's with LED and Electroluminescent backlights (I was the first person to ever backlight a gameboy with EL!). I have also replaced some laptop polarizers to fix severe scratches. Anyways, to be on topic...

This is amazing, Cyber! That video is great, are the ghosting levels really that low? Worlds and worlds better than my IZ3D, I really want to try this myself! Thought about trying to launch a semi-commercial product?

Yes, the ghosting levels are actually that low. The video was not doctored in any way. Along the edges you start to get some bleeding, but you don't notice this much while playing (since you are usually focused in the center of the screen). It remains to be seem if this will hold up with a bigger barrier, but we will find out soon. I did actually entertain the idea of making a semi-commercial product, but I still have to sort a few things out. Mainly being that the screen is basically unusable for 2D content once you attach the barrier. So there needs to be a simple way to take it off and put it back on. I do I have some ideas, but I am just not sure that people want that kind of hassle. The professional parallax barrier screens use an monochrome LCD panel as the barrier, so they don't have this problem. You can easy switch into 2D mode, or even have only part of the screen in 3D. With a printed barrier you would have to go through the mounting process everytime you want to play a game. Not sure people would be interested. Anyway, I think it will be more fun just to release the plans online for free so anybody can do it themselves.

How difficult is it to line up the barrier when putting it on? Do you just select a test image and line it up? It has to be so perfectly lined up with the pixels i imagine it would be a nightmare? I guess it only needed to be vertically perfect, then your head will just adjust horizontally?

Lining up the barrier is somewhat tedious, but its not really that hard. I just use my black/white testing pattern and then slowly shift the barrier until it aligns correctly. I just have to make sure the lines are parallel to the pixel columns. Positioning the barrier horizontal or vertically is not important. Vertical makes no difference since the lines are straight, and with horizontal you can just move your head to the side a bit and it will be fine. I wouldn't say the process is easy, but its not that hard either. What is a hard is aligning a checkerboard pattern. I actually tried this the other night and it was a complete nightmare. It had to be perfectly aligned in both x and y axis to the sub-pixel level (in addition to having no rotation). Then if its off you try to move it to the right a little bit, but then it moves up too. Very pesky. I did finally get it somewhat working in the end. However the quality was not acceptable. Although the perceived resolution was greater, it made the image much darker and ghosting was way worse. But, in theory, it could work. However with the interleaved pattern I basically have something working now, so I am not going to bother with checkerboard at the moment.

That's a great job man!!! Just wondering, what driver (and mode) are you using to produce the vertical interleaved of the screenshots of HL 2?

Edit: forget that I just saw in one of your videos that you are using the IZ3D with vertical interleaced.

sorry for double post

I am guessing a 28" monitor would be too large for you to print a sheet?

I am using a 23" right now, about to upgrade to 28", but I might get a 22" spare with the same dot pitch as yours if I can buy a matching sheet off of you. I wonder how it would work with an IZ3D display, I have one of those I rarely use.

28" could work. The biggest standard size available of transparency film is 13" x 19" (which I have, but haven't had time to test yet). This would fit a 24" 16:9 monitor with less than an inch margin on the left and right sides. Bigger than that you would need to get a roll of transparency, which you can do but its a little more expensive. I did the math and a 27" 16:9 monitor would be possible with just a small 1/10 inch margin on the top and bottom. So 28" could work as well, you would just have a slight margin on the top/bottom, but I don't think this will be too noticeable.

wow thats really incredible work, not bad with a rocket launcher either!

Say someone had a spare 19inch lcd and they wanted you to print one up for them... how would you go about working out the pixel pitch for it and printing it up or would they have to start from scratch as you did and keep printing test sheets until it worked?

There are a lot of factors involved, just having the pixel pitch will only get you so far. For example, the thickness of the glass on the screen is a factor. So is the IPD of the user. I mean, if someone had a different brand 1680x1050 22" LCD, I bet the pattern I'm using on the Zalman would be close enough. But for any other sizes, resolutions they would have to figure it out like I did. I do have a method that makes this easy to follow, and I will be writing a tutorial in the next few days. But it is still a process of trial and error. I was thinking maybe as a community we could pick a widely available cheap LCD screen as a standard model (lets say up to 24", anything bigger may not be economical to do this). I would then buy this model and perfect the pattern on that. Then I could post the pattern file, or even send people sheets if they want (and you buy the specific monitor). I've seen some 1080P LCDs going for like $150 or less, so this idea could actually work. And it would be cheaper than buying just the Nvidia 3D Vision glasses alone forget the monitor!

I know I am biased, considering I will be buying (Another) one of these, been using one for the family as a bedroom TV, but my suggestion is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Hanns-G-HG281DPB- ... 705&sr=8-2

Why? It is proper 16:10, but it supports pixel to pixel mapping for 16:9, which would allow for having a small black border on top and bottom so your transparency could fit. It is also a very bright panel, and has 3ms response time, great for gaming.

Expensive, you say? Not quite! See, this EXACT same panel was used in several TVs made by the same OEM. That is right, a 16:10 TV! I got mine for $299 as a TV at Costco, there are many versions of this screen, you can find them for under $200 all the time on eBay! But here are some links to new ones:

http://www.amazon.com/I-Inc-iH-282HPB-C ... 705&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Hannspree-ST289MU ... 902&sr=8-1

Thoughts? Yes, I know I am being selfish, but that particular panel is a fantastic deal.

Well that seems a little big for what I was thinking. I would want to keep cost as low as possible, and the larger sizes make the barrier more difficult. The tallest I can print is 13", which makes 16:10 more problematic. To go any bigger would require professional level large-format printers ($5,000+, which I'd rather spend on a CAVE). That also does not seem like a widely available model. Even Amazon themselves do not carry it. It would have to be something that can easily be purchased anywhere online.

Newegg has carried the HannsG 28" monitor for a long time, when it was $320, it was a 10x "Customer Choice of the Week" award winner. It is also on sale at several retailers, including Best Buy and Costco.

That said, you are probably right. I know it is not the best choice, but like I said, selfish here. But 24" would be great! Any particular models in mind? Business line models are often available more widely and reliably than consumer lines, because of their longer product update cycles. Not sure if that makes economic sense, just comes to mind.

Well 23" would be the ideal size since we could use standard Super B transparencies. With 23" we can fill the full vertical space and only have about 0.5" of margin on the left or right. This is pretty minor and probably not noticeable while playing a game. If we go to 24" then there would be almost an inch margin on the sides (about 0.95"). I could get a roll of transparency, which would mean the full screen could be filled but this adds some cost to the project. But it certainly could be done. I did a quick search and the Acer G235hAbd seems like a nice candidate. It sells for around $140, its a 23" 1080P display with good reviews (however it could have better distribution):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009266

The key aspect of this is the economics. If you have to spend $300-400 it doesn't make sense because for that price you can get a real 120Hz 3D monitor.