Meant to be Seen

Eyetracking Autostereoscopic Monitor 20" LG DX2000 (availabe in july in southkorea)- D2000 (outside)
for single users.
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/LG-zei ... e-Tracking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

eye tracking can replace a mouse as an input device ,this is no eye tracking , this is bloat

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 949#p61949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The same, lets continue there and close here, ok?

0% eye tracking , & LG is getting really nasty with their false advertising

The LG Cinema 3D brand is known for the line of "flicker-free" TVs and computer displays that utilize light, cheap, battery-free passive glasses 3D technology, which allows wide viewing angles. Although, the Korean company has already treaded into the glasses-free 3D arena with the world's first glasses-free 3D smartphone, the LG Optimus 3D.

what is the brightness though, 250 cd/m2 in 2D , that means 125 in 3D ?

Well, active shutter will be brighter and better than that. ( with real eye tracking and real viewing angles)

So what if active glasses are better? Thing thing needs NO glasses. For some applications, glasses-free is worth the tradeoff of lower specs. It might not be worth it to you, but that does not make it a bad product.

and what makes it a bad product for real? Patent infringement? *Price apparently not *Hopefuly OSRAM wins at the court !

http://www.techeye.net/business/osram-g ... z1SS5Ug7wd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It now wants the companies to stop using this technology as well as a ban on the importation of products that include such LEDs, which supposedly end up in products such as as LED-blacklit televisions and computer screens.

: D

Ban LG and leaky blue LED-s , what an idea. People should know about this.

How could active shutter glasses yield more light than auto-stereo? That doesn't make sense. Just take a look at the Nintendo 3DS.

yes trito, please elaborate.

logically, if you have a 2d brightness of 250 cd/m², you'd end up with less than 63 cd/m² with active shutters, not even counting duty losses. How is that better?
BTW not all autostereoscopic techniques waste light. Lenticular 3d for one, is lossless apart from the obvious loss in resolution.

Hopefully, we'll see dedicated 2:1 resolution panels if autostereo takes off. A panel like that could be left in 3d mode all the time, and 2d would be shown just by duplicating pixels so they reach both eyes.

The nintendo DS had less than 5% optical efficiency before they coated it with that magic film, then that turned into next to zero optical efficiency, with hold type rendering (motion blur), it can't get any worse.
&
Not every shutter works with polarization! Think about a mechanical shutter, 100% transparent , 100% opaque , thats pretty much ideal but its big & noisy.

If we get it 50% transparent and 99.99% opaque then that can be easily compensated for (we have higher speed too) , but when brightness drop is 5/6 of 2D light (LC) thats not easy to compensate for.
So if we don't want to build displays with too much headroom we need better shutters.

And the trend is that phones going to turn into glasses, and several MEMS display technologies can be turned into glasses as we talk,
& it can do multi viewer stereo 3d with eye tracking ( the real deal). You think 3 dollar per lens shutterglasses from 80's will be the non-plus ultra when theres enormous market for better stuff? Well, thats wrong, I think it must be very easy to commercialize non-LC shutters simply because of demand.

This is not a battle between display technologies, so you can't count those 5% in optical efficiency(in reality probably 40-45%% for a white screen btw). Still, what difference does it make? No matter how much light LCD screens waste, their light production is FAR more effective(lumen/watt) than in any other common display, so much so that LCD displays still give you a brighter image per watt. Take AMOLEDs or CRTs for example. Even though they only produce exactly as much light as they need on a per-subpixel basis, the overall energy efficiency is still worse than an LCD. Considerably worse if compared to their closer counterpart - active matrix LED-LCDs.


Phew. Anyway, even with perfect mechanical shutter glasses, you're always going to waste at least 50% of the 2d brightness. Lenticular autostereo wastes 0% light.

CRT has the very best efficiency besides Laser once we make it with modern technology, looky, LED/LCD is nowhere close, aww. So bad idea.
Calculate your ECO:
http://prysm.com/eco.php?display_area_u ... ator-table" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and inorganic quantum dots are better than amoled afaik.


you should notice that the LPD display itself is one big RGB quasi LED instead of filters and stuff. Anti glare is okay though.

and that 5% optical efficiency is really, really super bad. Only If it was RGB backlit, without subpixels, >40% efficiency, and 3times the pixels . Temporal RGB colorgeneration IS better.

Crt generally pulls more power from the outlet than other technologies. How could they possibly then be considered more efficient?

tritosine2k wrote:CRT has the very best efficiency besides Laser once we make it with modern technology, looky, LED/LCD is nowhere close, aww. So bad idea.
Calculate your ECO:
http://prysm.com/eco.php?display_area_u ... ator-table" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and inorganic quantum dots are better than amoled afaik.


you should notice that the LPD display itself is one big RGB quasi LED instead of filters and stuff. Anti glare is okay though.

and that 5% optical efficiency is really, really super bad. Only If it was RGB backlit, without subpixels, >40% efficiency, and 3times the pixels . Temporal RGB colorgeneration IS better.

oh, right, forgot about the color filters >.< so, say 10% then? Well anyway, that's still not applicable here. Different technologies CANNOT be compared like that.
BTW 3-chip beamsplitting is better than temporal, but that's not about flat-panels so i'll drop that. Oh and LCDs would not work well with temporal color.

Now, you didn't comment on the whole active vs passive discussion? Are you trying to change the subject?

AntiCatalyst wrote: oh, right, forgot about the color filters >.< so, say 10% then?

as I said, next to zero, 0.x - 1% -2% for parallax barrier and FPR polarized, low dynamic range, bad temporal behavior,spoiled colors and spectra, viewing angles and what else

cannot be compared

LOL, Samsung made big thing out of their transmissive LCD with 15% percent. You can be 100% sure parallax stuff is next to zero, with all the above symptoms : D but it s glassesfree : D

Crt generally pulls more power from the outlet than other technologies. How could they possibly then be considered more efficient?

because it has a quality to go with the power draw , local dimming on each pixel, ultra short timewindow-zero motion blur , perfect blacks, white, high speed, etc.
(not to mention anti glare coating instead of reflective crap)
-really theres just persistence issues with CRT because cheap last century phosphor, & both LCD & AMOLED are overrated like hell.

Oh and LCDs would not work well with temporal color.

Ever heard of OCB LCD? It's good for surgeons!

I just baked some cookies. Anybody want one? there chocolate chip

tritosine2k wrote:

Crt generally pulls more power from the outlet than other technologies. How could they possibly then be considered more efficient?

because it has a quality to go with the power draw , local dimming on each pixel, ultra short timewindow-zero motion blur , perfect blacks, white, high speed, etc.
(not to mention anti glare coating instead of reflective crap)

So CRT is more power-efficient watt per watt because you think it's better?
i LOL at your reasoning




oh by the way, if LCD has 5% optical efficiency(i'm still saying that you have to compare 3d brightness from the actual 2d brightness, not the total amount of light produced BEHIND the screen, but i'll play along) - how can a parallax barrier bring that down to 0.1-0.2%? that'd logically be 8% duty.

could somebody with mod rights please change his member status to "eye am a troll"?


EDIT; I looked at that physm link, what they're calling LED displays are actual L.E.D. displays with one LED per pixel. figures. LED-LCD would probably be a bit(10-20%) lower than ccfl LCD. Where's CRT on that scale? way over to the right i imagine.

Chiefwinston wrote:I just baked some cookies. Anybody want one? there chocolate chip

Chiefwinston wrote:I just baked some cookies. Anybody want one? there chocolate chip

thanks gramps, now tell us a war story!

check this out , they might even, eventually, LOOSE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 ... 12759.html

Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) said a U.S. District Court concurred with a ruling last year that some LG Electronics Inc. (066570.SE) refrigerators infringed Whirlpool patents, while it also expanded the scope of infringement and called for a new trial to assess damages.

before you'd thunk refrigerators are funny: I saw they make them RGB backlit, that makes it more advanced than your average flat panel , no joke.

p.s.:
LED vs CRT , well I think it must be on the left on the scale, once we factor in image quality, white LEDLCD is both spatially and temporally nowhere to CRT, it can't really get close . If they made CRT with modern technology efficiency would be so good it could be used as backlight module, but then why would you want it as a backlight module : D

CRT is ancient history. Stop exhuming the body.

-CRT is the closest thing to future laser displays right now, so Im just using the best technology available, CRT for 2D , DLP for 3D. The difference between the two tells you what to expect on the long term, short term we can dream about military grade CRT , whats the problem?

These CRT comparisons won't stop , you can be 100% sure, you might not be one but there are lot of happy CRT users.

AVS Forum > Display Devices > Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays
Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre ... st20718148" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-damn sure!!