It is currently Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:18 am

Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
 The Final Word? I Don't Think So. 
Author Message
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Posts: 5652
Reply with quote
Are Jon Peddie's remarks justified? Do you buy into this standards stuff? Why or why not? What did you think of the DISH Network commercial and what it means for our industry?


Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:04 am
Profile WWW
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 332
Reply with quote
If you needed different kinds of glasses for each show, then that would be a problem. But if you need different glasses depending on what DVD player you have, that isn't a problem at all. It's no different from needing a different brand of remote control depending on what brand of DVD player you have.

On a computer, no standard is needed, since the computer has the data in a format it can easily convert to any of a dozen different stereoscopic output systems. You can watch stereoscopic movies however you want, and play stereoscopic computer games however you want, without needing to change the movie or the game in any way. It is normal for native stereoscopic software to support every stereoscopic format.

Standardised tags describing what format a movie or image is in would be useful though.

But for TVs, a standard stereoscopic movie format is urgently needed. While I wouldn't have thought it was difficult to include the same movie in several different stereo formats on a couple of discs in the one box, studios seem reluctant to do that. So I think DVD players or TVs need to be able to output to different stereo formats than the input is in. Anaglyph movies can't be de-anaglyphed, at least not without losing the colour, so I'd like people to be able to watch stereoscopic movies in anaglyph from a non anaglyph source, or in whatever output method they want.

Copy this code to clipboard: 0o1rp5zk then go to to register. Use the code for $5000 startup bonus, and to support Gaza.

Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:25 am
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 419
Reply with quote
Re: "five types of glasses", don't tell him that cars need different types of tires (at least 100s of different types exist), he will have a mental breakdown (oops, too late.)

I agree with Carl, the display technology needs to be seperated from the storage technology through standards, it is easy for the decoder to process the data, so it shouldn't matter if the display is checker/anaglyph/horizontal or vertical interleaved, or full per eye.

I think that the DLP guys need to get on the ball and release circular polarized DLP for the consumer, I bet the theater guys are lobbying heavily to keep it to entice people to the movies.

This poor fool clearly doesn't understand any of the technology required to get each eye to see a different image, ten minutes playing with some polarizing filters in a local middle school lab would be a world of education to him (I got to play with some filters in 8th grade I believe.)

I find it highly ironic that he bashed the glasses and completely forgot about the actual display devices, I take that to mean that he has only superficial knowledge of what S3D is.

Ugh, who is this guy anyway? What education, background, or work experience allows him to condemn an entire industry? Has he ever tried any 3D game at all?

As for his misunderstanding of how computer games even work (Polygons and Vertexes with a 3D co-ordinate system, and hardware accelerated 3D rendering), I don't think this is his finest hour.

Counterpoint: Everyone has Stereo, you just don't see mono anything nowadays (except the cheapest TV's). Why? Two Ears and 3D positional processing in our brains.

You have two eyes and use depth perception to judge mass/velocity/size and relate this between objects many times a second, in your brain. Bringing this to movies and games is a very important immersive step.

Try a little experiment to "wake up" your 3D in day-to-day situations: Build or find a periscope of the childrens style, $5 worth of mirrors and cardboard from the $1 store is sufficient. Hold it horizontally and manually set the convergence for the object you are looking at (this may feel painful to the eye muscles, be sure to align it properly for the general depth you are looking at). The one I built was about 8 inches long, it is the same effect as moving one of your eyeballs to the side 8 inches, or having a giant's head.

Now look around you at the side of your house, the porch will pop out at you, its physical properties are almost tangible, it has "mass" and real depth. Look down a street and marvel at the sense of depth perception.

I haven't yet tried looking at the rising moon, but I bet I can get a real sense of how enormous it really is.

Don't talk about things you don't have experience in if you at all are bothered when you appear a great fool. I would like this individual to understand exactly what is going on. Maybe he should ask a person with one eye how life is looking to them? If lack of depth perception doesn't bother anyone, why don't we just poke out an eye? Then we can store something useful in that eye socket, like a laser or something (man, the terminator was a pretty cool movie).

Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:17 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am
Posts: 1149
Location: Montpellier, France
Reply with quote
I see a lot more sense in what he says than you guys.

He gives an analysis from the average consumer point of view.
You seem to forget the horrible reputation that consumer S-3D accumulated over the years. Just have a look at the flood of trolls and old headaches reports on general information websites and blogs everytime nvidia makes a new press release about S-3D.

People do not trust shutter glasses and guess what all the big and loud announcements are about ? nvidia's shutters, Samsung's DLP shutters, Mitsubishi's shutters, 120Hz LCD monitors for shutters.
The whole S-3D is extremely optimistic that consumers will embrace S-3D in the next years, waaaaay too optimistic in my opinion.
The average joe isn't ready to accept S-3D equipment yet, we will have to fight a very hard battle against consumers (justified) skepticism.

The market hasn't even finished an expansive transition to 2D 60Hz HDTVs, and 60Hz LCD monitors, expansive technologies that do not allow S-3D (well theres anaglyph but it would make the situation even worse than it currently is). And now you exect the whole market to switch to even more expansive S-3D products that are not even standardized ?
This winter there will be barely a dozen products available on the consumer S-3D market, all of which use a different image format, a different image separation method, and even a different driver , and none of them are compatible with any other... (although iz3d is trying to make the driver part better, it's not ready yet)

for the image Transmisison :
Samsung uses a single frame with checkerboard pattern
Zalman uses interlacing
Viewsonic uses pageflipping + Dual-Link-DVI
IZ3D uses proprietary colour + polarisation over 2 separate DVI connectors
Philips uses proprietary 2D + depth (shouldn't be on this list because of price)
HMDs use low resolution side by side or pageflipping (I'm not up to date with HMDs)
Homemade Dual projector systems use separated streams over 2 DVI or VGA connectors

BluRay players won't offer conversion for that many different formats
If the IZ3D 26" will have multi-inputs as announced it will be the 1st multiformat compatible display ever.

Then for shutter glasses :
The old shutters linked to the VGA connector (wired or wireless) aren't sellable to the average consumer, especially for TV use.
So for consumer shutters we have the samsung DLP ones, the nvidia ones, and the to-be-announced Mitsubishi-laser ones. All three will be wireless and we have absolutely no idea if these will be compatible with each other. (so let's guess they won't be, and if they do it's by luck).

Shutters use the exact same principle, the only difference between models ils their efficiency and their looks. In order to display 3D they all need the exact same information.
If a shutter standard is established, we could see TVs and Monitors with embedded ir/bluetooth/wifi/whatever sync device which would be compatible with all Shutters, allowing interoperability and competition.

For passive polarised we also have two different types : linear and circular which and not compatible with each other.

I'm not going to start comparing performance/price between IR vs bluetooth, or circular vs linear and pick the best.
Nor will consumers, or you'll get an endless was like the blu-ray vs hd-dvd which ends up by being big companies paying big bucks to kill the other technology, consumers won't do it because when two technologies performance is too close without compatibility, consumers are afraid of one format becoming totally useless, and they won't choose any.


We, S-3D consumers have been enjoying for years a technology which wasn't ready for mainstream use, and which still isn't.
See how we struggle to get our hardware working rigt now (especially shutters)
See how we then struggle to get bug-free games in S-3D ?
See how few products we have, compared to standard 2D TVs ? We barely have a dozen choices where they have thousands.

S-3D is still a niche market, and since so many thing are just not working, I would even prefer calling it a prototype market.

Yes, for us the stuff we buy from the S-3D manufacturers are products because we truely want 3D and have no other choice, but when you compare them with the rest of the market, they should be called prototypes.
Prototypes that are so cool that we want to buy them, they could almost be products. But they miss the most important to be really called products :
100% out of the box compatibility. And unless we have it, we just aren't ready for the mainstream market.

With new technologies and new products which make cheap S-3D possible again, the S-3D has become way too enthusiastic. We are thinking that S-3D is just about to invade the consumer market. But it's completely wrong ! We have to remember where we stand.
We sure have covered a lot of ground since the Elsa 3D revelator, but we still have a long way to go before being able to claim the mass market.

Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:59 am

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:52 am
Posts: 655
Location: Canada
Reply with quote
Neil, is that you who wrote that or someone submitted you that text? You should write the author name on the same page as the text.

CPU : Intel i7-7700K
RAM : 32 GB ram
Video card : GeForce GTX 980 Ti
OS : Windows 10
Display : Samsung UN40JU7500 Curved 40-Inch UHD TV with shutter glasses
HMD : Oculus Rift


Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:54 pm
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Posts: 5652
Reply with quote
Jon Peddie wrote the article submitted today. This editorial was written by me ABOUT his earlier statements which were not printed here.


Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:47 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.