HDI 100-inch laser-based 3D 1K hertz 1080p HDTV Video Demo

[Silversurfer]

Engadget has managed to procure a video of the HDI laser TV "better than HD quality 1000 Hz" reported in our MTBS newswire article here. Oh and yes that wasn't a typo this is supposed to be 1000 Hz not just 1080p!



I'm not sure whether this was demoed at CEDIA, has anybody laid eyes on this technology in the flesh to attest to its supposed quality? Anyway here's a quote from the Engadget article today, with the url link below including the video for what it's worth to us watching it on our 2-D monitors, at least the presenter of this video seems to be very impressed.

"..to this day we've yet to put our peepers on a more stunning set than Mitsubishi's LaserVue HDTV. Sure, it's fat, ugly and expensive, but the image is otherworldly. Before Mitsu can even take the logical next step, a California startup has arisen to introduce what it calls the world's first laser-based 3D HDTV. We're talking 1080p 3D like you've never seen before, with CTO Edmund Sandberg noting that this production is smoother than RealD, Dolby, film and pretty much every other 3D solution. The secret here is in the speed; this set is so fast that the image "no longer needs to flash from one eye to the other," and no flashing should equate to no headaches."

Article: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/hdi- ... ng-techno/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Silversurfer]

I wonder why this hasn't been adopted by the theatres? Is it just the case that it's too new for them to pick up at this late stage?
Anyway it looks like "Freakin' Lasers", Austin Powers Dr. Evil had it right, LOL YouTube clip: http://snipurl.com/ry3nx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlackShark]

The original's better : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAH ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Silversurfer]

The original's better : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAH ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LOL - you might be right

[Jadentheman]

And it uses polarized glasses!!. Holly wtch out because 3D in home will leave empty theatre seats again

This=win!!!

[BlackShark]

I'm trying to understand how thing works :
I've understood it's a dual 1080p projector system replacing the lightbulb with with laser backlightlight source all integrated with the 100 inch non depolarizing screen is that right ?
The type of pixel generator is a bit confusing, at first the 1000fps makes me believe there's something similar to a DLP chip but i don't know the term "LCOS" (liquid cristal on silicon).
Is it a laser DLP or a laser LCD ?

[cybereality]

No this is a serious contender for a 3d standard. I'm still of the belief that shutter-glasses are *never* going mainstream. I just can't see a group of a dozen guys wearing $2,500 worth of headgear just to watch the Super Bowl in 3D. Or a middle-class family spending $2000 on a 3DHDTV + $1000 on glasses for the family + $200 a month everytime one of the kids breaks a pair. Not happening.

But if these guys have figured how to get high refresh rates, polarized glasses, better colors AND a cheap price well then they will be very rich men!!!! Hopefully they have patents on their tech and can license it to the bigger companies with brand recognition.

[DmitryKo]

it wasn't a typo this is supposed to be 1000 Hz not just 1080p!

Actually, the ABClocal article says 1080 Hz.

a middle-class family spending $2000 on a 3DHDTV + $1000 on glasses for the family + $200 a month everytime one of the kids breaks a pair. Not happening.

eDimentional wireless shutter glasses are only $80, and I can imagine them going down as low as $30-50 in a couple of years.
If you consider the cost of sturdy, high-quality passive polarized glasses, not the cheap disposable plastic glasses which go for $5, I think the price difference is not that critical.

The type of pixel generator is a bit confusing, at first the 1000fps makes me believe there's something similar to a DLP chip but i don't know the term "LCOS" (liquid cristal on silicon). Is it a laser DLP or a laser LCD ?

Basically, LCoS is a LCD-based reflective microdisplay device (like the Digital Micromirror Device in DLP systems), as opposed to tradional transmissive LCD with translucent pixels. Each pixel is monochrome and produces only grayscale grades, so at least 3 display engines with a beam splitter and colorized filters have been required for an arc-lamp backlighted system, just like in 3LCD transmissive technology.

LCoS has been commercialized by Sony (SXRD) and JVC (D-ILA); Sony has abandoned consumer RPTV market, but their professional 1080p and cinema-grade 4K front-projection systems all employ SXRD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_on_silicon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The two main benefits of LCoS are
1) pixel control logic is placed beneath the pixel, substantially increasing active pixel area compared to translucent pixels, where control logic eats 10-20% of the pixel area; this improves brightness, contrast and removes "screendoor effect"
2) better manufacturing process results in very fast pixel resonse times, less than 1 ms, allowing for less image artifacts in fast-action picture sequences (and sequential stereo, as a side effect).

if these guys have figured how to get high refresh rates, polarized glasses, better colors AND a cheap price well then they will be very rich men!!!! Hopefully they have patents on their tech and can license it to the bigger companies with brand recognition.

I've understood it's a dual 1080p projector system replacing the lightbulb with with laser backlightlight source

In fact, it can be either 1, 2 or 3-engine, considering their "1080 Hz" figure; but I would expect them to use a cheaper 1-engine setup.


I'm assuming the following mode of operation. Fast pixel response time of LCoS microdisplayy and 3-color laser backlight allow to simultaneously project color components for each pixel, much like Digital Micromirror Devices in a DLP system, and form a single L/R frame at 60 Hz, with L/R color components separated by polarization device placed in the optical path, such as polarizing electro-optical switch, rotating polarization wheel or passive polarized screen.

This approach looks very similar to techniques described in a Real-D patent, see Polarizing Color Wheel Coming For Home DLP Displays.
And yes, High Definition Integration Ltd. (the full company name as it seems) has filed a couple of patents on laser RPTV devices, see http://www.implu.com/patent_assignee/13964;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; one of them concerns an anti-speckle screen for laser projection,
.
Possible system configurations:

1 display engine, 3-color laser backlight, polarisation wheel or electro-optical swith: within a frame, each L/R pixel is formed by projecting RGB color components in a sequence, much like DLP system.
For 60 Hz frame stereo (3 color components x 2 frames), the refresh rate of the microdisplay is 360 Hz; a maximum of 1080 Hz allows "3x movie mode" (frame interpolation).

Possible component order sequence:
Rl Rr Gl Gr Bl Br,
Rl Gr Bl Rr Gl Br,
Rr Gr Br Rl Bl Gl, etc.



2-engine setup: each microdisplay would be coupled with a passive polarization screen and a laser backlight (or a single laser backlight with a beam splitter).
Microdisplay refresh rate at least 180 Hz, maximum of 1080 Hz allows for "6x movie mode".
Component order sequence: (Rl Rr) (Gl Gr) (Bl Br), (Rl Gr) (Bl Rr) (Gl Br), etc.


3-engine setup: each microdisplay would have its own colored laser backlight unit, with polarizing electro-optical switch in the main optical path; base microdisplay refresh rate of 120 Hz and a maximum of 1080Hz would allow a "9x movie mode" interpolation.

6 engines would constitute an ultimate setup where each display has its own polarization and color backlight, and will have no blinking at all. Sony will license it for their 4K steroscopic projectors (or they will just copy the idea and HDI, RealD or both will have to sue them )

[Frasier000]

great!

[koshien]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmnjDhe28ZU[/youtube]

[DmitryKo]

So, they use a 2-engine setup with a single laser light source.

It's great that HDI managed to get support from Intel; hopefully Mitsubishi and Samsung will license that technology as well.

PS. Another video (just to make it all appear in one place):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCggc4iuWQU[/youtube]

PPS. High Definition variant of the video:
[youtube-hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP5Oo6j_1H8[/youtube-hd]

(more parts from this keynote at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... on+keynote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

[koshien]

It's great that HDI managed to get support from Intel

That's what I thought too
It seems to be a great technology...I can't wait for the big companies to start to compete against each other 8)
Oled TVs still seem to be far away...I guess laser could be a good technology in the meantime.
Meanwhile I have just ordered a Zalman Trimon at an affordable price, so that I'll get a new tv once 3D TVs will be at their best quality 8)

[cybereality]

It's great that HDI managed to get support from Intel; hopefully Mitsubishi and Samsung will license that technology as well.

Yes, this is looking really promising. Maybe the only technology I've seen that has a real chance of being a mainstream standard and not just in the niche market. I wonder if HDI is going to be able to survive to license their technology or if they will just get bought out by one of the big display manufacturers.

[DmitryKo]

The transcript is available at http://www.intel.com/idf/pressroom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Day 3 Keynote: Justin Rattner - Convergence is So Yesterday: The Future of Television

Justin Rattner; Intel Chief Tech. Officer
Page 25
[...]
Justin Rattner: I was going to show you a 3D LDC TV. In fact, it's sitting right over there. But I was actually down in the Bay area last week, as I seem to be every week these days -- I guess it's part of the job -- and I saw a spot come up on the TV in the hotel about a new 3D technology. I was so excited about this development that we got a hold of the folks who are creating it at a company called HDI, and we invited them to be here today to see the technology. So, I think this is kind of a coming-out party for them. Let me introduce Chris Stuart and Ed Sandberg from HDI.

[Applause]

Edmund Sandberg: Hi.

Justin Rattner: Chris?

Chris Stuart: Hey, good morning, Justin.

Justin Rattner: Hey, glad you're here.

Chris Stuart: Thank you.

Justin Rattner: I just happened to catch that item on ABC, and I saw all the folks really digging this big display that you guys are building. So, why don't you maybe tell us what's the difference between what we were going to show here with this LCD 3D TV, and what you guys are working on?

Chris Stuart: Okay.

Justin Rattner: Chris, maybe you want to give us the big picture first?

Chris Stuart: Yeah. We've developed a very unique and highly efficient 100-inch prototype laserscopic 3D television system.

Justin Rattner: Yeah, I know. I saw those lasers on TV. It blew my mind.

Chris Stuart: What we'll show you here is our LCOS technology that we have developed. We're going to start with that.

Justin Rattner: Okay. Ed, tell us a little bit about these LCOS imagers.

Edmund Sandberg: Well, these LCOS are very, very fast. They will scan over 1,000 frames a second.

Justin Rattner: Wow. I mean, today we think a fast TV is like 240 hertz.

Edmund Sandberg: Yes. But we take advantage of that speed by producing a 3D image, so we have simultaneous high-speed 3D viewing.

Justin Rattner: Okay. And the light sources that drive these imagers?

Edmund Sandberg: The light source is laser technology. Turn it on.

Justin Rattner: Okay.

Chris Stuart: We actually developed a fiber-coupled RGB laser source --

Justin Rattner: Wow.

Chris Stuart: -- that we utilize to power the LCOS engine with.

Edmund Sandberg: So, it's fiber-optic-driven, and red, green, and blue.

Justin Rattner: Okay. How many of these -- does just one drive that whole 100-inch display?

Edmund Sandberg: Actually it's two or three modules of this type.

Chris Stuart: About three [crosstalk].

Justin Rattner: Okay. I mean, you can see how intense that white light is.

Chris Stuart: Yeah.

Justin Rattner: Chris, maybe you can tell us what are the advantages of the HDI approach over -- I hate to say "conventional" 3D LCD TV? 3D TVs are hardly conventional.

Chris Stuart: The systems that are coming out, 3D LCD or the plasma, they're based on active shutter glasses, which actually deliver alternating images per eye with a slow refresh rate, in fact. The other technology is based on a micropole technique, which you get half-resolution. Our technique is dual 1080b imagers at all times. You get full high-definition, full 360 frames per second, at all times.

Justin Rattner: Wow. And with the laser sources, the color quality just must be astonishing.

Edmund Sandberg: It is. It's the largest color gamut that you can produce.

Justin Rattner: Impressive.

Edmund Sandberg: So, you can cover every color standard that's out there.

Justin Rattner: Okay. So, what's the business plan here? When are we going to be able to buy an HDI?

Chris Stuart: Well, we're looking at limited availability in 2010, with ramping up production in 2011.

Justin Rattner: Okay. Are you taking deposits yet?

Chris Stuart: Certainly. And we invite all of you down to our Los Gatos studio for an awesome demo that we have running right now.

Justin Rattner: All right, super. Ed, appreciate it. Thanks so much, Chris.

Chris Stuart: Okay. Thanks for having us.

Justin Rattner: That's great. So, watch for that, folks, the HDI 3D television. Yeah, give it up for them. Thanks.

[Applause]

[DmitryKo]

Here's an official PR:
http://www.prthatrocks.com/pressrel/hdi3dpr.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few important points. They say their laser display's power requirements are about 20% of that of the similar sized plasma TVs (Panasonic TH-103PF10 consumes 1500 W, so I'd say 300 W is still a considerable consumption), and will cost 40% of the cost of a 2D plasma display (hopefully this time they do not mean this 103" monster Panasonic plasma which retails for $50 000).

I wonder if HDI is going to be able to survive to license their technology or if they will just get bought out by one of the big display manufacturers.

Well, their patents seem to cover an anti-speckling screen and overall rear projection system design, but since this particular implementation seems to be covered by patents issued by Real-D (see this thread) and maybe others, there's not much to gain from licenising.

Manufacturing and selling the end product is where most money can be made, so I'd guess HDI will try to make the most by actually producing the TV sets as long as they they can in order to make most of the money. If they are at least moderately successful, yes, they will be bought out by some larger player; this is the purpose of such start-ups.



As a historical example, there was an American startup, BrightSide Technologies Inc. In 2005 they were the first to show a prototype LED-backlight LCD TV which used local dimming for imroved constrast, a technique now abundant in so-called LED TVs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bright ... ,1426.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This 37" Full HD set cost $50000 though, way too high for the consumer market, so I don't think they were able to sell many. When Samsung first announced their first $5000 LED TV back in 2007, BrightSide were bought by Dolby Laboratories.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/4/4/28" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[koshien]

The transcript is available at http://www.intel.com/idf/pressroom/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for the info, very very interesting!
I wonder if Neil can arrange an interview with HDI?!
That would be great!

[relaxman]

no headache because of smooth images?
you focused always to the screen plane, even if the object are in front of it, you get headache.

[DmitryKo]

Uhm. So, in real life, one is supposed to get headache just by looking around?

By using the word "smooth", they were referring to the fact that HDI does use not use sequential frames and shutter glasses. They use two 1080p display engines and passive polarized glasses, and even though color components seem to be rendered sequentially like in laser DLP devices, the frequency is sufficiently high (up to 1080 Hz) to not cause any headache or image artifacts.

[relaxman]

"So, in real life, one is supposed to get headache just by looking around?"

Outside of the 3-D movie theater, our eyes move in two distinct ways when we see something
move toward us: First, our eyeballs rotate inward towards the nose (the closer the target comes,
the more cross-eyed we get); second, we squeeze the lenses in our eyes to change their shape
and keep the target in focus (as you would with a camera). Those two eye movements—called
"vergence" and "accommodation"—are automatic in everyday life, and they go hand-in-hand.

Something different happens when you're viewing three-dimensional motion projected onto a flat surface.
When a helicopter flies off the screen in Monsters vs. Aliens, our eyeballs rotate inward to follow it,
as they would in the real world. Reflexively, our eyes want to make a corresponding change in shape,
to shift their plane of focus. If that happened, though, we'd be focusing our eyes somewhere in front
of the screen, and the movie itself (which is, after all, projected on the screen) would go a little blurry.
So we end up making one eye movement but not the other; the illusion forces our eyes to converge
without accommodating.

- from http://www.slate.com/id/2215265/pagenum/all/

happy reading

[DmitryKo]

Stereoscopic 3D Film and Animation - Getting It Right

If you sit in the real world and look around at objects that are close and others that are distant, your eyes track by converging and focusing together on each object in the center of your vision. If I take a stereoscopic photo of the same area I must converge the cameras on only one point. One of the problems with 3D movies is the effect is so unique that viewers tend to look all around the image on the screen. Instead of looking at the character or object that was intended to be the center of attention, they may be looking at the trees in the distance, or the wall paper on the wall behind them, or the pattern on the floor. If you converge your cameras on an object in the foreground, and the viewer decides to look at objects in the distance it may be necessary for his eyes to diverge. As we said before, most people cannot diverge their eyes. The result will be either severe eye strain, or they wont be able to lock their eyes on the object they are trying to look at.

The third rule for getting it right: set your cameras to converge on the most distant objects in view, and adjust your separation so that infinity is 2 inches apart at the screen, and let the foreground objects find their own place in that space. Resist the temptation to converge your cameras on the center of attention. If you really want to lock the viewers attention on one area, then use a depth of focus effect to blur the rest of the image, so the viewer will not be inclined to look around the area at other things

http://www.siggraph.org/publications/ne ... g-it-right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Happy reading for you.

[relaxman]

thx for the link, i read the whole article.

i like very much 3D because i CAN SEE objects in the background, and i decide
which is important for me, for what i set my eyes convergence.
I dont like the idea to blur everything in the background to force people
see the main object. i know in real life is so, but as i said, i love it in 3d,
the possibility to look around in the layers of deep.

"set your cameras to converge on the most distant objects in view"
"and let the foreground objects find their own place in that space"

its hard. when i always converge to the most distant object when recording,
then in the foreground there will be object that is on the left camera frame,
but doesnt exist on the right frame. i think its not a big problem when you
take only photo, with 10megapixels cameras, but when using a simple
HD 1080 camcorders, its more problematic. You have to crop from the side
of one frame, and on a full hd monitor you get black borders.
Or do you zoom in to fill the screen? Then resolution is dropped
I have taken my relaxing movie with the "convergence to the nearest point"
method.
you think it was bad idea? i love the result.

cheers

[DmitryKo]

I dont like the idea to blur everything in the background to force people
see the main object. i know in real life is so, but as i said, i love it in 3d,
the possibility to look around in the layers of deep.

It's rather on the contrary. The possibility to freely inspect the scene like you do in real life, that is to converge and focus your eyes on whatever object you like, would require multiple different views of the scene. That would take a multi-camera setup to capture and some sort of volumetric or holographic projection to display.

With 2D capture (stereoscopy belongs there as well), only a single view of the scene is captured, at predefined focus, depth of view, and (for stereoscopy) convergence and separation. There is no additional information in the image to let the viewer change focus, so it's only natural to leave some visual clues for the viewer to adjust to the depth of the scene.

when i always converge to the most distant object when recording,
then in the foreground there will be object that is on the left camera frame,
but doesnt exist on the right frame.

This is just a matter of artistic control. Even in traditional cinematography, you don't typically place foreground objects in front of your main subject; with stereo, this technique only becomes even more distracting.

[relaxman]

"would require multiple different views of the scene"

Not necessary. With small enough aperture settings a photo
has more depth of field that our sight.
And i can easily move my interest between the layers in deep.
Only the focusing is problematic because always has to be
at the screen plane.

So you say, to prevent headache in S3D movies,
only the main subject at the screen plane has to be
in focus? I understand, that in this situation, the
problem gone. but how can then achieve the popout effect?
If its blurred a little? If not, then its in focus, but you
have to focused to the screen plane, and not converge
to the screen plane, so again we return to the starting problem.
This bring headache. You say, not?

i read many article about "use large DOF" for stereo movies,
because you cannot say in advance, what would or want
the audience see in it.

[DmitryKo]

With small enough aperture settings a photo
has more depth of field that our sight.

Cinematography and still photograpy frequently employ rather narrow depth of field, where only the subject remains in firm focus (I do not mean amateur cameras which have almost infinite depth of field), as the side effect of using fine-grain low-sensitivity film stock and large lens apertures to allow for "natural lighting". You just can't use infinite depth of field all the time, especially for close-up objects, because this is not how our vision works.

The point is, 2D capture does not allow you to re-focus on arbitrary objects which were, well, not in focus at the time of their capture.

i read many article about "use large DOF" for stereo movies,
because you cannot say in advance, what would or want
the audience see in it.

This is "depth of scene", not "depth of field". Depth of field is related to focus (object's "sharpness"), depth of scene is related to convergence, that is screen depth, and separation, that is the depth of the farthest object in the virtual 3D scene.

Remember that in a movie theater, the screen is several dozen meters away. The point of having convergence set at the farthest object (but not the backround, mind you) is to allow the 3D scene to unfold in rather large real-world space between the screen and the viewer, even though the viewer may not realize that he is actually looking at over-sized virtual figures dozen meters tall which all act in front of the screen.

Only the focusing is problematic because always has to be
at the screen plane.
.... how can then achieve the popout effect?

You mean, achieve "realistic" pop-out effects that would not require de-focusing hte background? Basically, you can't A small practical excersize: place your hand at your monitor screen and move it towards your head and back again to the screen, while simulteneously trying to focus back and forth on your hand and the screen.

Strong pop-out effects where the object tries to reach out to you and punch you right in the nose may been used for additional "wow" factor, but IMHO this will soon fade out and the cameras will be framed far more carefully, and that should lessen the focusing issues. Beowulf 3D was especially notorious, with lots of periplheral objects trying to pop out in front of you, but 3D re-releases of Toy Story series were just fine with no strong pop-out effects, and so were most 3D movies released in 2009.


Anyway, in a movie theater, the viewing screen is several dozen meters from the viewer so any focusing issues are irrelevant at such distance. The object "popping out" of the screen would actually be at least dozen meters from you, in the real world space.

In home 3D stereo with its short distances to the screen and diverse viewing environments, that can be a problem; I'm yet to see what would the solution offered by the industry. The much-publicized SMTE Home 3D Task Force has only formulated the problem but has yet to deliver any proposals.

[relaxman]

"Cinematography and still photograpy frequently employ rather narrow depth of field"

Yes, i know. Because this is a tool to lead viewers eye to the subject, to the matter of the composition.
But in 3D i want to decide which part of the image is interesting for me. Don't blur so much!

"I do not mean amateur cameras which have almost infinite depth of field"
With wide angle lens you can easy get big DOF even with pro cameras, and its used for eg. landscape photography.
Its a known technic, just a tool for the author. Not mean that pros always use small DOF and cheap, amateur cameras always
has big DOF. If you zoom in enough and use open aperture settings you can get small DOF even with those cheap camcorders.
But i think, you know it

"2D capture does not allow you to re-focus on arbitrary objects which were, well, not in focus at the time of their capture."
that's what i like in 3D, and because of this call we 3D, and not say 2.5D

"This is "depth of scene", not "depth of field". "

No, i dont confuse it. Those article says: almost everything has to be in focus! So use large Depth of field.

"punch you right in the nose may been used for additional "wow" factor, but this will soon fade out"
i think for long time it will stay.

"and it should lessen the focusing issues."
so you say LESSEN. but its still there and give a little headache.

"without any strong pop-out effects, and so were most 3D movies released in 2009."
i saw gforce in reald, and it had not so much popout effect, i dont liked it.
for me it was better in imax movie a film with dinosaur's head 20cm in front of my head
i know this popout should be the exception rather than the rule.
Watching a stereo movie is looking into an alternate reality through a window. -like Cameron sayed
but just because its exception, doenst mean NEVER use it!

"In home 3D stereo with its short distances to the screen and diverse viewing environments, that can be a problem; I'm yet to see what would the solution offered by the industry."

So you agree that this is a problem, especially for home users. It seemed to me in the first reaction,
you state that there isnt such problem.

"So, in real life, one is supposed to get headache just by looking around"
No, because you always focused to the object where you converged the eyes.

bye

[DmitryKo]

But in 3D i want to decide which part of the image is interesting for me. Don't blur so much!
that's what i like in 3D, and because of this call we 3D, and not say 2.5D

We call it "stereo", true volumetric 3D will use different technologies.
I don't think movie makers will never take creative control out of their hands and switch to a sort of aerial stereo panorama projection, so the viwer comes with binoculars and can look at whatever object or scene he likes.

zoom in enough and use open aperture settings you can get small DOF even with those cheap camcorders

I don't really think people use extreme wide zoom to get a background blur, and even then the effect will not be as strong as on large-sensor equipment. What's your point? Are you trying to prove that tiny camcorders are as good for movie production as professional camerasm, or that mobile phones can make fine portraits just like DSLR cameras?

its still there and give a little headache.

I don't have headache from out-of-focus background, and as far as I know, most people equally don't.

i think for long time [pop-out] will stay.

Not in Pixar movies. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/movie ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, i dont confuse it. Those article says: almost everything has to be in focus! So use large Depth of field
So you agree that this is a problem, especially for home users.

I think you do. Strong pop-out effects and front-of-screen depth of scene can have issues in home stereo because of different screen convergence. This is unrelated to depth of field and background blur.


Anyway, I really don't see how all this is specifically related to this 100" display from HDI.

[relaxman]

"We call it "stereo", true volumetric 3D will use different technologies."

Stereo 3D exactly

"I don't really think people use extreme wide zoom to get a background blur"

You mean, extreme tele position?

"Are you trying to prove that tiny camcorders are as good for movie production as professional camerasm"
No, where wrote i this?

"amateur cameras which have almost infinite depth of field"
I just write for this, that it is not the rule, cheap cameras-> always infinite DOF.

"I don't have headache from out-of-focus background, and as far as I know, most people equally don't."
Yes i have, for long time use. (>20min)

"Strong pop-out effects and front-of-screen depth of scene can have issues in home stereo because"

Then why smoothness means NO headaches?

"Anyway, I really don't see how all this is specifically related to this 100" display from HDI."

"smoothness means NO headaches!"

I just criticise this. Peace