It's more or less doable, but still not in real time for now. There's a lot active research in this field (novel views synthesis), which is a small part of the more general image based rendering techniques.

But you're right that TVs can't implement these types of algorithm, they only interpolate 2D views and it's generally quite a bad approximation.

Thats what you would think, but somehow Samsung has made it work. I saw the Samsung UN55C8000 at the store the other day and it looked breathtaking. Its one of those "fake" 240Hz displays, but you could have fooled me. They were showing a 2D Blu-Ray (I think Happy Feet) and it looked incredible. Literally, the motion was smoother than real life. No joke. Unbelievable. I have seen other TVs with really bad interpolation before, but this one actually worked. Really, go to your local Best Buy (or whatever they have in your parts) and find this TV. Seeing is believing.

Here's the other thing with this concept too...... you know how the marketing always shows someone playing soccer or something and they're blurry, then all sharp for the 120/240Hz picture..... If a camera is recording at (say) 60fps, then you're getting an exposure of 1/60th of a sec on the video.... (not saying they couldn't jack up the shutter speed to 1/120 or 1/250th but that KILLS your light, and most sporting events, even with all of the lights, are by no means lit well enough to jack up the shutter speed to that type of speed (unless it's a day game )) there is going to be "naturally" (which isn't a bad thing) some degree of motion blur. That's video for ya. If anything, 3D rendered movies/productions became better over time because the finally built into the renderers features like Depth of Field (i.e not everything in frame is perfectly in focus) and motion blurring. They had to build it into the rendered so that the 3D rendered features looked *more* realistic. So I'm trying to understand where this notion came from that somehow A) these devices can display/render video frames somehow sharper (i.e. without motion blur) than they were recorded or that B) this is a "good" thing(!) to try to do anyway. Seriously, although 24 and even 30fps can appear choppy to some folks (like me), once you're up to 60fps, going up to 120fps isn't going to trick the brain into thinking the motion is smoother.... if anything I think there's enough understanding of how our brain interprets things as motion to indicate that past a given point (I'm suggesting 60fps is representative of that upper limit) anything faster than that is just lost anyway...... I think to a large degree that's proven with the fact a DLP chip can draw two halves of a 1920x1080 picture each 120th/sec apart and our brain not detect that they're separately being drawn......

I still call shenanigans on this whole idea.....

GC

Please go test the TV I mentioned and come back and let me know what you think.

I'll try to find a store which has this as a demo model, I'm doubtful but still open to a mind change.

Same here. I'll try to seek it out and see what it looks like.

GC

I don't have a horse in this race. but I will say there are a lot of beautiful 3D hdtv's on the market. A lot of these have a show room floor setting that distorts the color and brightness reproduction. Some of the newer models have massive image processing that yield superb picture quality with smoothness. But have just enough input lag from this processing to be a problem in twitch shooter games. Also, remember its real easy to set these sets up so that a particular model looks better than the rest through content and setttings. DLP, LCD, LED, PDP, each has there strenghts and weeknesses but honestly a 2010-11 3D HDTV from Samsung, Sony, Panasonic are kick @ss. The Vizio, LG, Sanyo offerings I have not seen much. I did see the LG 3D HDTV's. Something did not look right with the imaging with that unit. I would like to try one for a couple of weeks to see if something is wrong with there base 3D tech. Honestly, It could be a great 3D set though.

And debating the image quality of a TV in a forum. Sheesh

cheers everyone

As an owner of one of the plasmas that you refer to that have the 'judder canceller', I gotta both agree and disagree.

I agree that it affects the 'quality' of what you're watching, depending on the source.
When I first got the tv, I tried the different levels of judder cancellation on a few different blu-rays all excited about what tricks my new bit of kit could do.
When you turn this feature on while watching a typical movie shot on film, it immediately causes the movie to look like it wasn't shot on film. It makes it look like your typical daytime soap opera. Which is also the reason the term 'soap effect' has become common lingo when reffering to it in reviews and forums all over the place.

Whether it's better or worse is subjective. I think it ruins a movie. But I don't know if that's only because my brain has been trained since my first ever movie, that a movie shot on film and running at X frames a second should look like Y.

It's probably more that it's simply different to what I'm used to, and therefore doesn't feel right. When I see Pacino, or De niro doin their best.. I don't want it too look like they're doin it on Bold & Beautiful. It even affects how you perceive their acting. I mean... it looks like cheaper shows, and therefore you almost think the acting aint as good. Very strange.

However... put on a doco (like Baraka for example, or any IMAX movie) and turn it on, and it can actually be amazing. Whether they're shot on film doesn't matter as much for some reason. Because of the content I guess.
Anyway... in Baraka for example... early on where there's a sweeping shot of some volcanic mountains, without it on, you get what you get whenever the camera moves too quickly in a film. A choppy image.

Turn it on... and it's quite startling how that choppy image is now completely smooth.

Look... I don't know the algorithm used. I wouldn't have a clue as to how they do it. But I know they can, and do. They figured out the world wasn't flat, invented the wheel, flight, put man on the moon... and we got electricity, and computers and 3dtvs and all kinds of out there stuff. And I don't know how they do any of that either. So I'm sure some cats in lab coats who are way smarter than me can figure out how to make pictures on those same screens smoother.

They'll undoubtedly do it better and better as the tech improves in these displays, as they always do.

But right now, the tech is there to do it.... to your liking or disliking. And the proof is because you can go turn it on most recent tvs right now. And it works.

Actually, the concept doesn't seem that crazy to me. If I handed you one of those old school page-flipping cartoons. And left a couple of pages blank between a few cartoons. And asked you to draw the missing in between cartoons (and you were a half decent cartoonist!) you could probably figure it out. I imagine a computer or chip or algorithm designed to do that particular task could do it infintely better.

I'm completely simplifying what we're talking about here, i know.
But why is it so foreign a concept that these tvs are able to 'fill in the blanks' to some degree? It might not be what's actually in between the frames, as there technically isn't anything in between the frames.

But from where I'm sitting, it's a hell of an impressive guess.

i just got the wd65c10, i was playing some l4d its pretty much perfect.

only issues so far is that the resolution is actually 1776x1000 not 1920x1080 so you have to set custom resolutions in some games.

anyway no ghosting, colors look great, and the picture is pretty huge. i had some reservations about the dlp link glasses but it works great. i got them from ultimate3dheaven they were cheap and work fine.

so no complaints at all i highly recommend it.

I wonder why it's saying it's 1776x1000? It's the same DMD chip that's in the 73C10 (which I have) and I was just running 1920x1080 resolution via DVI/HDMI.... it looked great. I was even able to pull up some of the 1080p 3D (side by side mode) clips on YouTube and it worked wonderfully.

GC

wierd maybe its my graphics settings then. i went to the ati ccc thing and messed with the overscan settings but the best solution for me was to just set it to 1776 res and play like that. maybe if i used the service menu i could get rid of the overscan but i dont want to mess it up.

Some of these checkerboard DLP sets have been known to only work at odd custom resolutions. I don't know why that is, but many people have had that problem.

Well 1776x1000 is 92.5% of 1080p, is that resolution working because you have a over scan of about 7.5%? I know on my TV when I run at 1080P I probably lose about 5 to 7% of the image on all sides when I have 0% over scan set in CCC. The second I touch the over scan settings to get back the lost pixels on the sides it breaks 3D, which makes sense as the checkerboard format breaks once it goes through any type of scaling. Could 1776x1000 be the correct resolution to run in with the needed over scan to get back the lost edges of the image? I need to toy around with this when I get home. Is 1776x1000 also your desktop resolution?

well its close eventually i figured out how to set up a custom resolution, its actually around 1840x1036. its kinda tricky with ati drivers, you have to go to desktops and displays in the drop down menu and click a tiny triangle on the displays icon. then go to the hdtv support tab and select 1080p 60hz and click add. then you have the option to customize it, shrink the sides and top till it fits perfectly, then itll make a custom resolution. so far it works in all the games i tested it in w/o any problems.

Thanks snarfbot, this really helped out a lot. The magic resolution for my TV ended up being 1841x1036. Also the text is more readable too.