Discussion and speculations about the new IZ3D screen

[LukePC1]

Have you considered the possibility of building a 2d (single screen) lcd or plasma monitor which will be capable of functioning with shutter glasses? Is it possible to make lcd screens with reasonable shutter performance?

we prefer sunglasses more than shutter glasses Smile

yes, it is possible technically - you just need to have 120Hz LCD - I heard about few companies, like Samsung, for example, have prototypes, but did not see them. But I'm talking about real 120Hz, not interpolation between frames - otherwise you will see some "ghosts" for fast moving objects...

but again for us as a company this way is not very attractive.

Moreover, I think at existing stage of 3D development any form of 3d need to be active - when 3D solution will be 10-20% of market - then competition will come, but now "Let a hundred flowers bloom...." Smile

it's en extract from here:
http://mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1528&start=45


I wan't to take the oportunity to make a poll to collect information, what gamers want - and what would be the best screen.

Most certainly all of these aspects have a certain importance for different users and different purposes.

I'd like to have a 'low cost' version with a decent resolution and as low ghosting as possible:
What about making a LCD with cheackerboard pattern, but polarized instead of active?
- It should have low costs, since it's basically a LCD screen with slightly modified polarizors above it
- polarizers should have very little ghosting, if aligned correctly.
- it would have a good 2D resolution so 2D gamers would buy it, too.
- with cheackerboard at a good resolution you will notice the loss of resolution less than on with interlaced

What do you think? How much more expencive could a modded sheet of polarizers be?
Maybe make 2 versions: one with more and with less glasses/equipment to make it appealing to 2D gamers...
I hope IZ3D reads this and gives some (helpfull) input, too. I'd like to know, what is possible for what price and so on...

[BlackShark]

The perfect 3D screen should have EVERYTHING, first of all it's 3D specs should be perfect :
-no flicker ( = no shuterglasses even at ultra-high refresh rates )
-no ghosting / crosstalk (at all)
-not even need to wear glasses (not compatible with next feature)
-full resolution (we're in the HD era, there's no way were going back)
-wide 3d viewing angle

then the screen should also have the classic perfect features we expect from conventionnal 2D screens :
-very low response time since we're gamers it must be able to compete with the fastest 2D screens ! (2ms or less)
-high contrast (800:1 or more)
-calibrated colours
-wide view angle in any direction
-HDCP compliant
-good looking
-extra gadgets ? (usb 2.0 hub ? yuv input ? HDTV tuner ? coffee machine ? dishwasher ? errr, maybe not)

and with all of this it should be cheap.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to have everything.
so let's focus on the basics :
3D :
-passive glasses for zero flicker
-full resolution
-no ghosting / crosstalk

2D :
-very low response time (2ms)
-high contrast at least in 2D mode (should be harder to achieve in 3D)
-if possible have reasonable color calibration
-HDCP compliant

price : the lower the better, the monitor could be a huge success if you could reach the same prices as standard monitors but this seems impossible at the moment

and finally : get excellent reviews and have reviewers know what they are talking about so that people stop believing that 3D = crappy headache (this should be the hardest part i think)

The iZ3D screen is the closest screen we have to the perfect 3D screen yet.
It's next challenge is to be able to compete with the response time of premium 2D screens.
then we'll deal with autostereoscopy later... I think autostereoscopy is the future, but in 10-20 years, not next year.

[LukePC1]

price : the lower the better, the monitor could be a huge success if you could reach the same prices as standard monitors but this seems impossible at the moment

and finally : get excellent reviews and have reviewers know what they are talking about so that people stop believing that 3D = crappy headache (this should be the hardest part i think)

I think these two go together. The reviewers - and non educated 2D gamers usually compare a 3D screen to 2D screens.
I think it would be great to have a top 2D screen, which is 3D ready ( cause of special polarizers) as a bonus - like Samsung DLP-TV's.
Reviewers and gamers would compare it to their screens and say: "wow +10% for 3D ready??? That's a price I will pay!"

The additional money for the driver could be gotten by special bundels or by selling their drivers.

[BlackShark]

Indeed, a samsung DLP polarized equivalent would provide a good affordable 3D solution while still using conventionnal 2D screens.
The only drawback is the resolution which is divided by 2 in 3D mode, but it would still provide a cheap entry level 3D solution, integraded into standard screens.

But i don't think iZ3D would do it this way, iZ3D provides the only full resolution solution and i believe they want to keep this feature.
I just realized that i forgot to add something to the "perfect iZ3D screen".
A non-glossy surface, it's a question of taste, some people like glossy screens, other don't. I prefer a matte surface, free of reflections on the screen surface.

edit : added an other feature : an optionnal Dual-link DVI connection to use the monitor with only one DVI cable instead of two, and have a 2nd DVI connector available for a 2nd screen (i like dual view mode to work, and connecting/disconnecting screens isn't "fun")
I say optionnal since not all graphics card support dual-link DVI output.

[cybereality]

I think all those features are pretty important, too bad the poll doesn't let you pick 3. If I had to pick one, I'd say the big screen, but everything is important. I guess it just depends what issue you have with your current hardware. Other than that I'd say viewing angles, ghosting, then resolution, in that order.

@BlackShark: LOL! You are funny man! I bet we will have direct connection to the visual cortex before that perfect monitor you speak of comes out!

[LukePC1]

I got an Idea by reading Neils
hardware guide:

What about those Dolby3D glasses?
All you would need are these high quality glasses (expensive ) and 6 colors instead of 3. I'm not shure, if this could be a big problem = be expencive. Well if it is doable relativly cheap, it could become a new high quality S3D rig wich is not too expencive. The ghosting should be somewhere near ZERO, if you make it clever the full resolution might be used and so on.


Other (more easy) setup would be a DLP projector with 6 instead of the usual 3 (or 4 with white) colors in the color wheel. I don't think such a projector could cost much more than a common one... but 120hz shouldn't be a big problem either in theory...

[cybereality]

Aren't the Dolby3D glasses based on anaglyph? Meaning it would work with any monitor (and you just need to buy special glasses)? That could be an interesting low-end option if the effect works. It would be nice to have a SG-priced option for beginners. I used to be able to recommend to anyone to get shutter-glasses. Now I don't even mention it usually due to the technical issues. If there were an under-$100 option that was somewhere between anaglyph and shutterglass quality, that could be a popular solution on the low-end. Still, it could give the false impression that iz3D was just about anaglyph unless this method is significantly better than the standard anaglyph (I have no idea in this regards).

Personally, I think a polarized checkerboard layer on an LCD screen would give the best bang-for-the-buck. I have no idea what the costs involved are, but it seems like it could be an affordable solution. It really comes down to price. Most gamers are not willing to spend double the amount of money of a 2D monitor just for S3D (especially without seeing the actual unit). The hardcore PC gamers with $$$ probably already own 24"-30" screens, and aren't going to want to "upgrade" to a smaller set. But if the screen is too big (or expensive) then that cuts out the mainstream market. There are a lot of things to consider.

[Tril]

I don't think it can work like that. A monitor uses three colors (red, green, blue) and varies their intensity to make the pixels appear as other colors. It tricks the eye into believing you see other colors. In truth, the monitor is only able to display three wavelength. You would need a monitor that can display six to use the Dolby glasses. The monitor would use slightly different wavelength of red, green and blue for each eye. At least, that's how I thought it would work.

[LukePC1]

The system chooses a red, a green, and a blue for the left eye (RGB), and a slightly different red, green, and blue for the right eye. With RGB, it is possible to project the entire color spectrum to each eye. In order for the color difference between eyes to remain unnoticeable, the viewers’ glasses have no less than fifty filters in each lense. When both eyes are open, the viewer’s dominant eye compensates for whatever minor color difference remains.

That means you don't need 'only' 3 different colors, but
2 times blue
2 times red
2 times green.
All of these colors have to be slightly different (maybe by some nm in the wavelength of light).
I'd say it's a bit similar to polarized...
The perfect thing would be a DLP projector, which uses a color weel. Simply add one different tone of each color to it and you are there. It's similar effort to SG (which require a higher refreshrate), but you would have passive glasses.

Or you could use it in a dual (LCD) projector in one box: one 'projector' for the left and one for the right image.

@ quality: I think this solution should give an equal experience to polarized, since all colors are still in it and the difference between the eyes could be much less than 1%...


Other Idea for DLP with weel: just make the colorweel polarized. It could do the same trick