Elisberg Industries
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like
Decent Quality Since 1847

The Remarkable 3D-TV Story You Don't Know

8/13/2013

50 Comments

 
This tale is long, but then that's in part due to it going back almost three years.  That's not the odd part of the story.  The odd part, bordering on bizarre, is that this tech company gave me the scoop on it.  I'm still trying to figure that out, but it has to be related to two things, I think.  One, my having stumbled on them when they were virtually unknown.  And the other, that almost no one else believed they could pull of this off.  (There's a bonus third:  they'd like it on the Huffington Post.  And it will be there.  It's just going to here first.  Because, hey, you deserve it...)  The story still isn't all told -- there's a lot of interesting information left to be revealed, but the deals and details are not ready to be yet -- but this is the company's first announcement of what they do have on the national platform.

I know it's techie (and long techie, at that) -- but it's also about watching TV.  And I'll try to make it easy and fun to take.

Anyway, for the best place to start, you don't have to go back three years, just two months.

Back in June, Bloomberg BusinessWeek wrote an article you can read here about ESPN calling it quits with 3D-TV, which they said meant that “Nails are being banged into the coffin for 3D television.”

They’re wrong. 

In fact, very wrong.  The problem is that Bloomberg was confusing 3D-TV with glasses and glassless 3D-TV.  Two very different kettle of fish.  I do suspect that stereoscopic 3D-TV (with glasses) is heading towards its end – as it should.  More on that latter, but it was a bad idea, and it remains a bad idea.

The larger issue is the analysis misses – for lack of a better term – the iPhone/iPad model.  There had been cell phones, and there had been portable computers.  But if you come up with something that not only simplifies how those work, and – more importantly – work in a way that people do, then you’re on to something.  And something potentially big.

That’s why glassless 3D-TV is another matter entirely.  And a tiny company you’ve never heard of (unless you read this column…), Stream TV Networks, has just changed the landscape with some major announcements.  And a new product.

Last year at a 3D Symposium in Los Angeles, there was panel discussion about the future of 3D-TV.  All the panelists but one were involved with 3D-TV with glasses.  Only Mathu Rajan, president of Stream TV Networks, was there on behalf of glassless-3D. And when one of the other panelists dismissed glassless as being “at least five years away,” Mr. Rajan sat silently, not saying that they were actually going into production in just a few months.

And that future is here now.  As in – TV sets using their Ultra-D technology are in production, rolling off the lines – now – and three weeks ago I was given a private demonstration with one of the production units.  And in a word, it was spectacular.  But here’s the far-more important thing:  what was impressive goes far beyond that it can do 3D-TV without glasses.  That’s because it remarkably solves the far-more important problem of “no content.”  It also is simply stunning resolution, whether or not you even ever use 3D.  But …most critically…it operates the way you do.  It lets you watch TV the way you have always watch TV.

More on all that in a moment, but a bit of background is in order first.

Back in 2011 at the Consumer Electronics Show, I accidentally stumbled on this tiny company, Stream TV Networks.  They were hidden away in the wrong hall, far away from all the other television companies over in the Central Hall.  They were mainly displaying tablets.  But in a closed-off office, they were demonstrating a very early beta version of their glassless 3D-TV.   And even then, it amazed me.  3D-TV without glasses, go figure, and yet this tiny, hidden company blew away all the big conglomerates who were trying to push 3D-TV with glasses.  I wrote glowingly about them at the time (under its tablet division, eLocity) saying here, “its 3D television impressively has almost none of these sight lines, which makes it one of my favorite ‘cool’ products.”

The next year, they finally made to into the same hall with all the other TV people.  But while the Big Boys only had tiny experimental displays for glassless 3D-TV, where you had to literally stand in one, exact spot to watch a two-minute video of animated fish – Stream TV Networks (are you ready?) had converted Harry Potter, and you could wander around the room and watch the entire feature film in 3D (without glasses!) from anywhere.  And the quality was good.

3D-TV has gotten blasted recently for not delivering on its promise, but as noted the problem isn’t 3D television, but because 3D-TV with glasses is a bad concept.  It’s based on a premise contrary to how people actually watch television.  People watch TV while reading books, talking on the phone, texting, eating, chatting with others in the room and wandering to the kitchen and bathroom.  Right?  Doing all that while wearing 3D glasses simply doesn’t work.  And then factor in that you need to have enough glasses handy for your entire family…and for all the guests who might come to your house to visit – and what if have, God forbid, a Super Bowl party>.  Moreover, without glasses, the TV was useless, because everything would be blurry.  But worst of all – easily worst of all – add in that there was almost no 3D content.

But 3D-TV without glasses?  Ah, now the story is different.  Not needing 3D glasses, after all, you can watch TV and live your life exactly as you always do.  Wander anywhere, read books, have a roomful of guests.  And Stream TV Network’s Ultra-D technology ratcheted the bar up even higher– because it eliminated two other major problems: 

First, Ultra-D lets you adjust the level of “pop.”  You can simply turn a dial and have huge 3D pop, though a slightly-less crisp picture.  Or you could have full, great clarity, just with a bit less pop.  Or…(and this is the important point), you could turn it off entirely, and simply watch TV, like always!  If you don’t want to watch the news in 3D, you don’t have to.  And there’s no worry about any blurry image for people who don’t have glasses.. 

But far better, and most important and remarkable (and yes, I know I’m using a lot of superlatives here, but this is a game-changing technology), Ultra-D got rid of the major problem of there being “no content.”  That’s because – Ultra-D lets you convert any normal television content…in real-time.  That means you can watch a regular football game or any movie or sitcom or cartoon – and have it converted to glassless 3D as you watch!  Well, so long to the “no 3D-TV content” problem.  The problem doesn’t exist.  Everything can be immediate 3D content.

Everything.

And keep in mind, all this was two years ago. It only gets more fascinating.

While all the major companies were still focused on 3D-TV with glasses, Stream TV Networks had skipped past that and developed their Ultra-D technology.  That’s what put them light-years ahead of everyone, including the major companies.

I’ve seen the Ultra-D technology develop and what was good before had become impressive.  You stand looking at a 2D television knowing that it’s impossible to see a 3D image without glasses – yet there it is.  And the once fuzzy-ish image had now become crisp and clear.

But even that has now changed and leaped far ahead.  Which brings us to the private demo two weeks ago with a production unit ready for the market.

Picture
It’s thanks to two things.  1) Partnerships with major manufacturers, most notably Hisense (a leading company in China) and Pegatron, which builds the iPhone.  But there are also partnerships with six other TV companies they told me about off-the-record – and one Really Big TV company.  “Really big” as in huge.  And 2) the advance of 4K technology. 

This part about 4K might seem a little techie at first, but I’ll make it understandable.  And it’s critical, central to all this big news.

You’ve likely heard of HD and 1080p resolution.  That’s the high-end standard today.  (The 1080p stands for the number of vertical pixels, which is what creates a sharp resolution.)

What 4K does (also referred to as 2160p) is quadruple the resolution.  If you think HD is a great picture, imagine it four times better – crisper, sharper, far more minute detail.  Stunning clarity that’s hard to imagine in a TV, let alone describe.  The biggest problem with 4K today, though, aside from price, is – once again, there’s no content.  Having a 4K television isn’t like merely getting a better monitor.  Think of it this way:  let’s say that 30 years ago you just bought the world’s great Blu-Ray player – but they haven’t invented even DVDs yet.  They only have VHS tapes.  It doesn’t matter how great your Blu-Ray player is, if there’s nothing to play on it.  That’s the problem with 4K:  it’s a different technology.  There’s no native content.

(It is a far bigger problem than most people realize.  And that’s the problem often with new technology.  It’s rushed out for it’s ready, and so there’s no content.  Consider:  a movie in native 4K content requires so much “digital information” in its pixels it could be up to 250 GB.  A normal HD movie is only 8 GB.  That’s like needing 30 DVDs for one movie!  Imagine how long it would take to stream a single movie.  Imagine how the pipeline would be clogged.  It’s borderline unworkable.)

But that’s where the Ultra-D technology comes in again.  Because Stream TV Networks has advanced Ultra-D to do the same thing with 4K that it did with standard 3D-TV.  It can convert over-the-air, regular telecasts to be 4K-3D TV compatible…in real time.  You can watch it all in 4K-3D, and as it’s happening.  The same with any movies you rent.  There is no problem with content.  None.  Everything is content.

Everything.

And when I say, “everything,” I don’t just mean TV shows or movies you rent.  But movies you stream from Netflix.  And whatever you watch on Hulu or YouTube.  Or any game you play on an Xbox, or PS3, or anything streamed from your computer to the TV.

Everything.  As in…everything.  It all can be converted to 4K-3D – in real time.

And how is the quality?

As I said, three weeks ago, I was shown a demo of the 50-inch 4K-3D TV – a model off the production line.  It was showing the movie, Avatar.  And the resolution was spectacular.  As vibrant and crisp as it would seem an image could be.  Even when I adjusted the 3D pop to about 75%, the TV image was still very clear.  Down at 40%, the resolution was breathtaking, and yet there still was a sense of depth.  I wandered around the room, and there was no discernible fuzziness.  (At the very highest end, nearing 90-100% there might be.)

Avatar was already a 3D movie to begin with, so they put in a regular 2D movie, and converted it in real-time to 4K-3D as we watched.  There wasn’t nearly the same pop as a movie made for 3D (nor did I expect it), but there still was a rich sense of depth.  And most importantly, this demo wasn’t just about 3D, but the 4K resolution.  Watching anything in 4K is otherworldly amazing.

Yes, again, I know the whole “hyperbole” thing.  But imagine if you were used to watching black-and-white television and then someone showed you a color TV.  4K-3D isn’t “better” television, it’s basically a new technology.  Yet  it takes that aforementioned iPhone/iPad model and lets you watch TV simply and as you always do.  With an overflowing library of content.
Picture
(This is a Hisense model with Ultra-D.  And yes, I know you can't see a 3D image…)
Once upon a time, 3D-TV with glasses had a much better “pop” than glassless, even though it wasn’t a particularly useful technology.  But that gap is now closed.  Because with 4K resolution, the issue is no longer just 3D, but pure resolution.  And most important of all, glassless 3D-TV is actually usable.

“This is a different technology that can create a totally different viewing experience,” Mathu Rajan, president of Stream TV Networks, says. “It’s the beginning of the hologram because you can almost see around it.”

But that’s only part of the story, because Stream TV Networks is building on the Ultra-D technology, which is a large part of what they’re rolling out and announcing.

One thing, for example, is that they have a deal with Qualcomm to produce a new chip expressly for them based on the high-end Snapdragon S4 prime quad core.  That’s a bit techie – but what this means for humans is that all the Ultra-D technology can now be put on a little chip, rather than needing a set-top box.  That not only simplifies things for the user, but it lowers the cost dramatically.

(They will have two lines of TV sets, one which uses a set-top box, since that will allow for additional feature that videophiles might want.)

This all will let the pricing be “shockingly low,” as Mr. Rajan puts it.  He notes that Sony right now is selling a huge 65” 2D-4K set in Australia for $11,000.  But one of his partners, Hisense, is selling a similar model for less than half that.  Yet when Hisense’s model with Ultra-D is released soon, the price will drop even more.  And keep in mind:  Ultra-D allows for 3D, not mere 2D.  Moreover, they’ll be selling more standard 50” models, which will lower the price further.

And rather than the “five years” that ill-informed 3-D panelist guessed last year, production has already begun.  Demo units will be available in stores very soon.  “Well before the end of year,” Rajan says.

Yet the company is now slowly-announcing that this goes further than simply 3D TV.

Stream TV Networks  is actively developing tablets and smartphones – right now – that will have the Ultra-D technology in them, thanks to that Qualcomm Snapdragon chip.  Glassless 3D will therefore be available for any content you can view on those devices (most notably games, I would imagine).

Talking with the ebullient Mathu Rajan is like being on the receiving end of a non-stop game of dodgeball.  He is wildly enthusiastic and loves talking about his company’s product, most notably because so many in the industry have long been skeptical of what he has been insisting his company is doing.  While these non-believers have been incredulously wondering where the product is, Rajan says that Stream TV Networks chose to get everything right first and even put things off for a year when they saw that 4K was nearing, so that the public would have a full, proper experience.  And so they could develop an algorithm that transcended the native 4K content problem.  Where, like the iPhone and iPad, it could be used simply by anyone and used immediately, rather than just be a “cool technology” that wasn’t practical – like 3D-TV with glasses.  And have content.

And now, glassless 3D-TV is here.  It’s not a rumor.  I’ve watch an actual production model.  And with the 4K resolution, it does appear to take technology to a different level.

“There is a triple benefit of Ultra-D,” Mathu Rajan bubbles.  “You get the benefit of 3D and there’s the amazing 4K resolution, but also with real-time converting, you have all content available to you – not to mention it can play native 4K content, of course.”

With any new technology, there’s always a question of the public adopting it.  That remains a question with glassless 3D-TV and with 4K resolution.  But having seen the quality of resolution, even if you never use 3D – and seeing the quality of the 3D for those who want it.  And seeing how all content is available to it.  And seeing the ease of using it, virtually the same as using any standard TV today.  And knowing where the price is going to be – and what other products are being developed with Ultra-D, and the partnerships already in place, Stream TV Networks has certainly at least positioned itself to move forward.

I know, too, that all this sounds hugely spirited.  And that therefore there is always going to be skepticism.  But this isn’t a case of being handed an overly-enthusiastic PR scoop – I’ve been following this company and reporting on them for 2-1/2 years.  More to the point:  imagine if you saw color TV for the first time.  Or an iPad for the first time in black-and-white world.  Some things do deliver on their promise.  Where it all goes with the public – who knows?  But I’ve followed this company for almost three years from it being in a closed-off back room to now, with glassless 4K-3D.  And it delivers.

At the very least, it’s remarkable.
50 Comments
Webslinger48
8/13/2013 03:31:33 pm

Well, glasses free 3D phones have been around for over a year and they never caught on. I have the HTC Evo 3D phone and though the technology was neat, the novelty wore out quickly.

To compare this to the advent of color TV is foolhardy. It's probably closer to the launch of HD, but even then...

I compare it more to Beta. It was the better format. But it was too late to the party and never caught on.

The only way you will be able to see the difference between 1080p and 4K resolution is with a massive screen, probably 100" or more. And the market for those is small. There will always be the gadget guys that will go for it. But average Joe Schmoe consumer will probably skip it.

Reply
Douglass Abramson
8/13/2013 04:40:12 pm

Who do I have to kill...I mean when will the sets be out?

Webslinger, one of the reasons that Beta didn't catch on was Sony actively keeping the technology out of the hands of the porn industry. The VHS partnerships didn't care who bought their products, as long as the check cleared. The other main reason was the price Sony wanted for the machines. VHS undercut Beta's price point considerably.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/13/2013 05:05:05 pm

Douglas, the company doesn't want to give a specific date on when the sets will be out, but when I first asked "by the end of the year?," he immediately said, "Oh, MUCH earlier." They're being produced now, and the impression I get is 2-3 months. BUT my understanding is that the first sets will be marketed for places like sports bars. They'll be in stores but only demo models. I'm not certain when they'll be on sale to the general public.

I've had long discussions with Mathu Rajan about why other technologies didn't catch on. It's something they've given great though to. Obviously they're biased as to why they *think* they've dealt with those issues, but time will tell. But the biggest two issues are content and price -- and they *have* resolved those two.

I have no idea if this will catch on. But what I saw from them a year ago was amazing -- and the final production line a year later is jaw-dropping. And, unlike 3D-TV with glasses, is usable.

Also, the deal I hint at with a "major" company goes deeper than the article notes. First, I can't impress upon you how truly major the company is. But second, the fact that this other company dropped its own R&D technology that it had been working on for years and is licensing Ultra-D instead speaks volumes about how great Ultra-D. Huge companies don't drop their years of R&D and go with a tiny upstart unless there is a profoundly compelling reason *and perceived market* to do so.

There's a lot else, too, that I was under non-disclosure about. I can only repeat that I have no idea how Ultra-D will do. But I've seen it in operation, it works, it solves MANY problems, the 4K sets are beyond brilliant, and will be priced reasonably. So...we'll see.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/13/2013 04:50:56 pm

Thanks for your note. To be clear, this wasn't about 3D phones. That's something that is an addendum. But your comparison isn't apt. 3D in movies didn't catch on when it was first introduced -- the technology wasn't right, the content wasn't there, and the audience wasn't ready. Ultra-D converts 2D content. And the quality is stunning So, it's a totally different landscape. But this isn't about phones.

Second, my comparison to color TV was simply the "Oh, my God" factor" when you see something stunning you've never seen before. Whether other comparisons are apt -- they may or may not be.

As for you considering this "beta," you haven't seen it. I have. This is not "beta." It was beta 18 months ago. This is "Oh, my God."

You're right about how the bigger the screen, the more that 4K will make a difference. But a) it works great on normal 1080p screens, even if one doesn't have a 4K set, and b) there *is* a noticeable different with this on 4K. More so the bigger the screen, yes, but the difference is there.

Last year at a 3D symposium, others on the panel were just as dismissive. Said it was 5 years away, at best. Yet it's being produced now, and will be on the market in about two months.

I have no idea if this will catch on. I'm sure people weren't sure if 3D movies would catch on, or color TV, or HD. Some things don't, some do. But Ultra-D is a stunning technology, it solves the content issue, and will consumer-priced. We'll see if it catches on. But the article was largely about the technology.

Reply
Derek
8/13/2013 09:51:06 pm

Can you watch content in 4K 2D as well? Based on the fact that you can turn the 3D off, the answer would seem to be yes, but I don't think you explicitly say so in the article when you detail its 4K capabilities.

Great article and very informative. Thanks to Mark Evanier for linking it on his Newsfromme blog.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:00:19 am

Thanks for your note, and thanks to Mark Evanier for most everything on his Newsfromme blog...

In answer to you question -- yes, absolutely you can watch 4K in 2D. I was playing with the easy remote control and simply punching the + and - buttons to adjust the pop, and the 3D can be turned off in 4K.

Reply
Tech Curmudgeon link
8/14/2013 12:04:09 am

3D viewing works by having each eye see a slightly different view, so the brain can construct the appearance of depth. This problem is over a century old, and all the existing solution either involve some kind of viewer (e.g., glasses) that limits what each eye sees, or having a device that essentially projects left and right images onto each eye, which assumes a fixed location and a small "sweet" spot. So making a 3D display that works without glasses, and can be seen from anywhere in the room would require some *major* invention. Since Stream TV would have patented this, where can we find out how it works?

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:05:56 am

Thanks for your note. I wish there *was* information about the technology -- or anything. Their website is VERY barebones.

In fact, at the most recent CES, I was standing with Mathu Rajan, watching a monitor (just 1080p, at that point) and said -- "You just stand here watching this flat, 2D screen, knowing that there is no realistic way a person can possibly see a 3D image with just your eye. Yet -- there it is."

Indeed the point of the article is that this IS a "major" invention. And it's not just that it works -- but works as amazingly as it does. And converts to 3D in real time.

I keep repeating: I have no idea if this will catch on with the public. But thus far, they've done everything right to allow it to. We'll see.

Reply
Tech Curmudgeon link
8/14/2013 01:17:08 am

Thanks for your note, and for the original post! I'm certainly eager to see this technology, and hope it succeeds. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've been around 3D for a long time, and seen a lot of exaggerated claims. I'll remain skeptical until I at least see it or understand how it could possibly work (or, hopefully, both!)

Don P
8/14/2013 01:34:06 am

You've seen it and I haven't, and you know more about this tech than I do, BUT:

-- Fake 3d from 2d is a standard feature on at least Samsung 3D TVs, as is adjusting the amount of 3D.
-- You can't create resolution where it didn't exist. I don't doubt the sets look good, but if the info isn't there, it isn't there.

I suspect the glasses-ness is so striking that the rest is melting your mind, or something.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:50:32 am

In fairness, all 3D is "fake 3D". It's not that native 3D is more real, it's that 3D converted from 2D isn't as good as native 3D.

And to be clear, the 3D created on 4K sets is NOT native 4K content, nor does the company suggest it is. But they're able to use the higher resolution for better results. And no, I have no idea how they do it.

Personally, I wouldn't focus on whether this is actually native 4K (it's not). It's that it's amazing 3D, can convert 2D to 3D in real time, can convert to 4K compatible, can play on 4K sets, and will be consumer priced.

Personally, I'm hoping the answer is "...or something", because I'd really hate it if my brain was melting. But you never know...

Reply
Jon H
8/14/2013 01:35:03 am

So let's get this right. This company has created a 3D tv that is glasses free, can be viewed anywhere in a room (with no sweet/dead spots) and can convert 2d content to high quality 3d on the fly?

I am more than a little doubtful - but if your post is accurate, and you saw what you thought you saw, then this is a real breakthrough and they've got my money!

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:59:02 am

Dear Jon H, I absolutely understand your doubt. But please know that they had a display showing this (for 1080p) during the Showstoppers public event at CES in January. And at their main booth during the whole show. And at the IFA Berlin tech show last year. And at CES the year before. They *did* have dead spots at CES 2-1/2 years ago -- but that's when it was truly in beta, hidden off in a little room.

Yes, it's better when view reasonably straight now. But I wandered around the room, and it still worked. When LG showed off theirs at CES two years ago, you had to stand in one exact spot -- and all they showed was a 2-minute video of animated fish. Even last year at IFA, Toshiba showed off their sets and the viewing range was narrow-ish. But Ultra-D you can wander fairly extensively. It's not perfect, but seriously addresses the question of deadspots.

Again, I understand the doubts. But I've been writing about this company and Ultra-D for 2-1/2 years, and my articles on online and on the record.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:35:49 am

Dear Tech C, I think it's fair and reasonable for anyone to be cynical. As I said, at that 3D Symposium last year, experts were dismissing it as 5 years away at best.

And no one has to believe me (I mean that). But not only did I see this in operation 3-4 weeks ago with 4K...but they had public demos at the last *two* CES shows and last year's IFA Berlin. So, it's not a secret and transcends claims. At the last CES, I was at their booth interviewing them -- when vendors from all the top TV companies (and content providers) were flocking by all day to watch and set up meetings.

From my perspective, it's not a question of does it work -- I've seen it work for 2-1/2 years. And it's being manufactured right now. It's a question of can they position it, get the distribution deals, and convince the public to buy it.

Reply
Mark Hevingham link
8/14/2013 01:37:51 am

Although the results maybe good, would not a 4K picture upscaled from a SD transmission just guesstimate the resolution and add nothing to the experience? You cant pull 2160p lines from a 480i picture? Or am I missing something?

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 02:04:43 am

Mark H, I wish I was more tech-knowledgeable to answer your question. As I said elsewhere, this is NOT native 4K. The best I can offer is something I wrote in my notes when talking to them. It was along the lines of "Other companies treat pixels in 4K like light to turn on and off, so you get no change in image. But we treat each pixel like data."

Again, I can't explain the technology. And it's not for them explaining it. But I actually told them to stop, because (as I said) if I'm going to write this article, all the techie discussion will make most people's head spin and stop them from reading. What MOST people want to know, I said, is -- what does it do? How does it look? What buttons do push?

Believe me, Mathu Rajan looooves talking about the technology and what they resolved. I had to stop him. That, in part, was what I was referring to in the article about talking to him was like being on the receiving end of a game of dodgeball.

Reply
Tom
8/14/2013 02:46:02 am

Anyone know how it compares to the Dolby/Philips glasses-free 3DTV on display at April's NAB show, which was widely praised for being as good as the one you describe?

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 02:59:34 am

Dear Tom, Thanks for your note. I can't say I saw the exact same Dolby set that you mention was at NAB -- but I did see a Dolby glassless 3D set last year at that 3D Symposium I referenced. Maybe it's the same, maybe not.

The one I did see was terrific. A really great image and highly-pronounced 3D. I was very impressed and asked about it. The big difference I was told was that the Dolby set did NOT have real-time conversion. It was just a monitor. Whether that's changed, I don't know.

I also don't know the price or if it's being manufactured. (There were one or two other good glassless 3D sets at the Symposium, but all were demo models built individually, not yet being mass-manufacturered, which is a big hurdle. And none did realtime 2D conversion.)

Reply
Brian Jacoby link
8/14/2013 03:55:36 am

Seeing this thing in action is the first, and maybe the only, reason I will ever step into a sports bar.

Reply
William Watling link
8/14/2013 05:54:58 am

Folks, this is all true. There's at least 5 companies with 4k autostereoscopic TVs in test now. StreamTV have signed a distribution deal in the UK & as a 3D content specialist I can honestly say autostereoscopic is a game changer - I've got one sat next to me here now & have been converting movie clips during the day for the testing I'm doing.

However, whilst the tech is incredible, any 2D converted to 3D will only be so so. I often test my stuff taking a stereo side by side, batch creating a 2D+Depth file which the media player I'm testing (beta) then uses to create the 8view files it displays on the TV. However, I shoot with an 8x camera rig & when you see originally shot 8view on these TVs it's truly awesome. You can literally move your head & look around the edges of objects in real time, just like I do in real life. 2D to 3D can't do that. If you thought autostereoscopic 3D was a game changer, then ask to see a show reel or photos shot in native 8view, it's a league of it's own!

What I can say is they should be available to the public by Xmas with a marketing tag of "4k for £4k"! Start saving now. They're being shipped to warehouses as I speak :-)

If any of you are near Coventry on the 21st Aug (nxt Wed) you can hear me speak about it to the Coventry Skeptics In The Pub. I'll also be taking their portraits with my 8cam rig, so they can see for themselves.

Will

Reply
Tech Curmudgeon link
8/14/2013 06:06:47 am

Is it possible to take 3D pictures of this display with a stereo camera? I can freeview side-by-side stereo pictures (parallel or cross-eyed), and would love to get a glimpse of how this looks.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 06:40:24 am

Perhaps Mr. Watling above has that capability to take 3D pictures of it, though even that wouldn't do it justice. Alas, it's out of my own skill level.

Reply
Will Watling link
8/14/2013 08:28:25 am

I've already tried that & whilst you get some depth, it's only a poor reflection of what I can see as you won't be able to see the 'look around' capability without the 8view at your end, only normal stereoscopic depth.

Reply
John A. Rupkalvis link
8/14/2013 12:31:15 pm

Photographing any display, 2D or 3D, will not do the display justice. You are adding whatever limitations and artifacts exist in the imaging device to those of the display, so the results will always look inferior to what the display is capable of.

Regarding 4K, yes it is better than 2K or HD, but for 2D not as big a leap visually as going from SD to HD. There is more to it than just the resolution numbers. 3D, however, is another factor. For autostereoscopic displays, where each increase in the number of views widens the "sweet spot", but also reduces the resolution for any one point of view, 4K is very important, and the results are a marked improvement. I use the Dimenco 4K display (branded as Dolby), and I would guess that it is similar to the one being described. Recently, I had the opportunity to look at the same content in 2D on a 4K 2D monitor and in 3D on a 2K autostereoscopic 3D monitor (Philips). The lower resolution 3D version looked much better compared to the higher resolution 2D version. Then I saw the same content in 3D on the autostereoscopic 3D 4K Dimenco/Dolby monitor, and it was unbelievably stunning.

It would have been good if I had also been able to see the same content with a glasses-based system at the same time. Unfortunately it was not available in that form at that time. However, my impression is that the 4K autostereo is approaching glasses-based systems very closely. It does, of course, require viewing from a fixed position, whereas glasses-based systems we do not have this restriction. But, that appears to be the only remaining trade-off. I say appears to be. Someone else told me that you could not get as strong an amount of negative parallax with the autostereo, but I find that hard to believe. My guess is that they were not centered in the sweet spot, and that they were confusing cross talk (the ghosting or bleed-through of seeing part of the other image in the wrong eye-view) with the visual splitting you get when either negative or positive parallax is too strong.

Both the barrier grid and the lenticular systems that were used back in the 1930's and 1940's faced similar restrictions, but they had very narrow sweet spots due to the use of only two views (a conventional unmodified stereo pair).

As far as automatic 2D to 3D conversions, some people are impressed by them just because the show some depth. They quickly realize that these are not very good, with pseudostereo (inverted depth areas) in many parts of the pictures, and other weird anomalies. Most of these systems are based on only one or two depth cues (chrominance and/or luminance). A system base on more depth cues would work better (I hope that the one described is), but still would not be perfect. Digital Cinema conversions for major studios require a lot of people doing a lot of hand work, and are very expensive. There is little doubt that the existing automatic TV conversion systems had a lot to do with the public disillusionment.

The advent of 4K 3D is certainly good to see, I hope that Mr. Rajan's system is successful, as well as the Dimenco/Dolby system and any others yet to come.. I would also like to thank Mr. Elisberg and Mr. Watling for their positive comments. They each have a different style, but they both mean well, and any support for 3D television is most welcome.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/14/2013 01:09:49 pm

Dear Mr. Rupkalvis, Thanks for your remarkably informative note. It's much appreciated. And yes, Will Watling and I have different styles: he knows what he's talking about, and I just know what I've seen...

When you write, "Then I saw the same content in 3D on the autostereoscopic 3D 4K Dimenco/Dolby monitor, and it was unbelievably stunning," that is the heart of what I've been saying, whether or not some believe it. The technology of the how and why is why thing, for experts such as yourself. But as I often have explained to Mathu Rajan of Stream TV Networks, "I understand why you're so excited about the technology, but most people simply want to hear 'How does it look?" and 'What buttons do I hit to make it work?'"

I largely agree with you about conversion. As I've said, native 3D content is vastly superior to converted 3D. But it's still respectable and considering that non-existent content has always been a huge barrier, this at least addresses it. It's not THE solution, but it fills in a cavernous gap.

I just want to say one other thing. You write that autostereo glassless 3D does "require viewing from a fixed position." One of the many things that stunned me about Ultra-D is that I was able to wander around the room and still see a 3D image. I know this goes against the conventional wisdom -- but that's been true with them since I saw their rough beta of Ultra-D 2-1/2 years ago, and it's far, far more pronounced today. I specifically tested it the other day. Yes, it's better straight on -- but it worked and was good even when wandering.

Thanks again.

Reply
William Watling link
8/15/2013 01:33:09 am

Folks, see below - 82" 4K glasses free 3D TV with 2D to 3D real time conversion using TriDef 3D. This one you can invest in! I use TriDef 3D at home as my default media player for LG glasses monitor.

DDD (now under the brand Rembrandt) in TriDef 3D licensing deal with JOMVS

15 August 2013 | 08:37am
StockMarketWire.com - DDD Group - the 3D solutions company - has licensed its TriDef 3D software to China's Chongqing JOMVS Photoelectricity Company for its glasses-free 3D PCs.

JOMVS produces a range of glasses-free 3D displays for PCs, TVs and mobile devices.

At the ChinaJoy 2013 Expo held in Shanghai last month, JOMVS featured an 82" glasses-free 3D screen showing game clips converted from 2D to 3D using TriDef 3D. DDD will receive quarterly royalty revenues from JOMVS based on the volume of 3D units shipped.

At 8:37am: [LON:DDD] DDD Group share price was +0.01p at 13.13p


Story provided by StockMarketWire.com
- See more at: http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4651175/DDD-in-TriDef-3D-licensing-deal-with-JOMVS.html#sthash.zogRYeFc.dpuf

Reply
William Watling link
8/15/2013 01:35:36 am

Apologies for posting 3 times. The browser said it couldn't submit the post due to an error, but clearly had!
Will

Reply
Tim link
8/15/2013 02:30:27 am

OK, here comes the $64 million question. If it does everything 3D you say and from almost anywhere you can see the TV, what would a one-eyed person see?

If the answer is 3D, where do I invest?

Reply
Mathu Rajan
8/15/2013 08:14:39 am

If you close one eye , you still see the 3d

The other products mentioned do not have the resolution nor the depth or Pop of Ultra-D 2160p

thanks,

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/15/2013 09:03:45 am

Mathu, thanks for checking in. I figured that someone with far more knowledge on the subject than me would have a response to these issue...

William Watling link
8/15/2013 09:17:12 pm

Mathu, pls DM me [email protected] as I have some technical Qs re content I'm preparing, My email to you seems to have got lost.
Will

Robert Elisberg
8/15/2013 04:28:44 am

Will, yeah, for some reason some people have been getting that error message and leaving multiple message. Not to worry, I deleted the extra ones.

As for that JOMVS, I don't know about them or their plans for distribution or deals in place, though I do have "off-the-record" information about Stream TV Networks. The operative point is that this technology is real and here today and actually does work.

Reply
Gordon Kent
8/16/2013 01:16:21 am

I have no doubt that what you are saying is absolutely true.

I have a different problem with 1080p HDTV and it may seem to you to be an odd one.

For me, some of the clarity to too much. I don't really want to see everyone's pores and skin problems so clearly. The make-up department has not adjusted to the acuteness of the current picture and so bad make-up, pancake make-up -- you name it -- becomes, for me, uncomfortable to look at.

I'm not really sure I want more details.

But I'm willing to look and see.

Reply
mathu rajan
8/17/2013 03:06:42 am

Many people have called our technology a natural viewing experience

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/16/2013 03:23:13 am

Gordon, I don't think your personal issue is odd at all. It's a comment I heard from some people about the clarity of Blu-Ray. Not all technologies are right for everyone. Hey, we all know people who hate -- absolutely HATE -- 3D in movie theaters. They either don't like the glasses, or it gives them a headache, or...anything.

So the issue isn't whether a technology is right for everyone, but right for enough to make it viable.

The other thing is that -- in this specific case -- 3D TV without glasses might not interest for all things, or most things, but there might be things in which you'd find it very valuable and worthwhile. That might be sports. Or nature shows. Or certain high-end 3D movies. Or you really, really want to so food leaping out of the screen on cooking shows...

Reply
Egbert Rousselle
8/17/2013 01:40:45 am

Hi Robert,
I am not a "techkie" but I know what Ilike. I have a 110" 3d Sharp projector and I don't know if you have an idea on what size their first tv's might be. I know it won't be anywhere near that, but, I'm very interested and can't wait to check it out and see what they come up with (soon I hope).

Reply
mAthu Rajan
8/17/2013 03:13:19 am

The first size is a 50 inch then 55then 65, then a 39 and 84 inch

Reply
Egbert Rousselle
8/17/2013 03:36:15 am

Thank you so much. The 84" sounds VERY good I'll be watching closely. Any indication as to when and prices yet?. In any case , this is great news if it is as good as it promises. And my wife is all for it.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/17/2013 03:18:17 am

Dear Egbert, Thanks for your note. You're right, they don't have any sets upcoming that will come close to the size of your projector. My recollection is that they're looking at 62", 55" and 50" -- though I can't swear to any of that.

As I noted elsewhere, the first of their sets that will be available will not be for the general market but instead focused on places like sports bars. This strikes me as a smart strategy -- go where there *is* a potential big market, let the public see it, and get interested in one for themselves. I *think* those will be in the next 2-3 months. And I *think* general store sales will be by the end of the year -- but again, I wasn't given a definite date. Hey, it could even be earlier, for all I know...

Reply
mathu rajan
8/17/2013 03:23:26 am

We dont use scalers we release the pixel information and with third plane the resolution goes up significantly

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/17/2013 03:25:02 am

Mathu, Thanks for the accurate information. At least I was semi in the ballpark.

Okay, so, Egbert, there you have your answer, straight from the Big Kahuna. Next time, I should at least try to get my reply in *before* someone who actually knows the exact answer directly get HIS answer posted.... But hey, I'm just glad to have an accurate answer!

Reply
Egbert Rousselle
8/17/2013 04:03:48 am

I hate to bug you again folks, but, I forgot a very important question. I have about 100 blu ray 3d movies and about 800 blu ray movies and 800 regular dvd's using the amazing OPPO 95 3D blu ray player. My question is: Will I be able to watch any or all of those in 3d without glasses? Thanks again for your quick replies.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/17/2013 03:38:32 am

"We dont use scalers we release the pixel information and with third plane the resolution goes up significantly."

Let me translate for folks here. (My joke with Mathu Rajan is that he speaks Enthusiastic Tech-ese. I translate that into a language mortal humans can understand.)

Resolution is a factor based on pixels. In 1080p that you've heard of, the "p" is pixels. (4K is also known as 2160p, and has four times the resolution of 1080p. It sounds like it should be double, but remember you're multiplying height x width)

Okay, with that out of the way --

To increase resolution, most companies simply take the existing resolution and scale it larger. (ie, "Make this picture 25% bigger") Sort of like magnifying the image. It doesn't really increase the detail of the resolution, though. What Ultra-D does is deal with each individual pixel, all of which contains information, and therefore expands the availability of information for every pixel. That's why they say they have far-higher resolution and can deliver 4K-compatable images.

And yes, I know that wasn't a techie answer and simplifies things FAR too much, and probably misses a thing or two. But I think it's at least more graspable for most people.

Reply
Patricia Foreman
8/30/2013 05:54:07 am

I would just like to point out that the "p" in '1080p' stands for 'progressive', as opposed to '1080i' where the pictures are displayed in an 'interlaced' format.

Also, "releas[ing] the pixel information" sounds like some form of intelligent upscaling, but I would love to know more about the methodology you use to determine the color and shade of the pixels based on surrounding ones. Do you analyze each frame as a whole, or just check adjacent pictures? Since you're generating 3D I assume you must be using some sort of depth map generation. Is this then applied to working out the pixel contrast on a local basis? How do you deal with, say, a thin red line of one shade moving over a red background of fluctuating shades?

I would love to see how you were to upscale a picture like this: http://i.imgur.com/0kwbrZI.jpg

With obvious lack in quality, and the low resolution removing visual details we know are there. Would you be able to draw the strings straight, and keep contrast where they meet the floor?

If this is something your technology can do, and do well, I would highly suggest a clear demo of this, upscaling pictures that are hard to, and converting them to 3D images, using the functionality you have in your TVs. This is something that would easily be digested and spread around forums where people pay attention to image quality, and enjoy advances in visual experience technology.

Reply
Robert Elisberg
8/30/2013 06:39:04 am

Patricia, you're right, thanks, I had a brain freeze. The "p" is for progressive. My mistake and thanks for correcting it.

As for the other questions, those are clearly for Mathu Rajan, and I'm not sure if he's still checking the site here. I'll do my best to pass it along.

mathu rajan
10/20/2013 08:29:54 am

public demos coming soon

Robert Elisberg
8/17/2013 04:23:59 am

Egbert, please don't take my answer as definitive -- or even necessarily accurate. But you sound in a rush, and I don't know when anyone who knows better than me will check in to answer.

My understanding is that, yes, you would be able to watch *all* those movies on a "3D without glasses" set, at least with Ultra-D technology. My understanding is that being Blu-Ray has nothing to do with what will be watchable in 3D without glasses. My understanding is that anything that comes through the TV will be able to be watched in Ultra-D 3D without glasses.

(The Blu-Ray already in 3D will likely have much greater 3D impact than the regular Blu-Rays that have to be converted, but that's true whether the movies are Blu-Ray or not.)

And again, I don't know for absolute certain that anything I just said here is true. But...I think it is.

Reply
Egbert Rousselle
8/17/2013 04:47:43 am

You've answered my question the way I was hoping you would. It's not that I'm in a rush as such, but, now that I understand that it will do everything I was hoping for, we will not buy that new projector we were looking at. Even at a reduced size the advantages are exceptional. We'll wait and see what happens.

Reply
mathu rajan
8/17/2013 04:52:54 am

3d blurays look outstanding on the Ultra-D tv

Reply
Egbert Rousselle
8/17/2013 04:59:26 am

That's great, thanks.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.

    Picture
           Available on Amazon

    Picture
           Available on Amazon

    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    International
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like