Beyond the extra $4+ movie theaters charge for the “experience,” one of the biggest burdens of viewing a 3D movie are those cumbersome glasses. With several different types of 3D available, many of which require a different pair of glasses – not to mention a ton of movies that don’t make all that great use of 3D (usually a post-converted film) – most casual moviegoers simply forgo the experience altogether.
But what if one of the biggest obstacles to that experience (the aforementioned annoying glasses) could be eliminated altogether? It’s not exactly happening anytime soon, but a group of South Korean researchers have published a study claiming they have found a way for theaters to project a 3D image without the need for glasses, and it requires no additional projector installation.
The proposal, which was published in Optics Express, presents a technology that isn’t too overly complicated to set up, but requires quite a bit of explanation. Here’s a handy breakdown courtesy of Wired:
The new method would allow movie theaters to keep their projectors where they’ve always been, behind the audience, and uses fairly simple optical technology. A special array sits in front of the projector and polarizes its light. A filter covering the screen then obscures different vertical regions of the screen, like the slats of venetian blinds. Each of your eyes, sitting at a slightly different angle, has some of the screen blocked and some of the screen visible. The movie has the right-eye and left-eye images interleaved in vertical columns with one another. The trick then is to have the light visible to your left eye contain the left-eye pixels and vice versa for the right eye.
The installation appears to only require a new device be placed in front of the projector and another screen be situated between the audience and the movie theater screen. It sounds simple enough, but with so many 3D technologies out there it doesn’t sound like a cure-all just yet.
Although Real D is far and away the most popular 3D theater technology available, there still exist several other options, like Dolby’s Digital 3D, which use a different form of 3D projection. Was this adaptation used on Real D or another type of 3D? Will it work on all forms including those that don’t use polarization to project a 3D image?
Devices like Nintendo’s 3DS are perfect examples of situations where glasses-less 3D is possible, but the device itself is built with specific instructions. A pre-determined viewing angle must be achieved at all times or else the entire 3D effect is lost. There are definitely ideal places to sit in theaters – sections where this glasses-less 3D would be at its optimal level – but what about the front row or the side sections?
These are all just hypothetical problems that theater owners could run into, but one of the major problems with this new technology is its ability to only project a low-res image. It’s something that could be fixed with tinkering, but shows that the tech is still not ready for widespread testing.
Still, the prospect of ditching glasses in favor of a crisper unhindered 3D image will likely have moviegoers intrigued.
-
Source: Optics Express (via Wired)
‘Game of Thrones’ to End in Season 7? 
‘Prometheus 2′ Casting Rumor – Is the Sequel Moving Forward? 
‘Dexter’ Season 8 Trailer: The Hunt Begins – How Will it End? 
‘Halo’ Live-Action TV Series From Steven Spielberg Announced 
Nintendo 3ds already did, sorta.
Nintendo 3DS is crap…The effect is limited to straight-on viewing (and only mildly interesting, even then). I really have not understood the love for the system. The tech itself is great…for beta testing for a future system. I can out fathom why people by the current system AS A SYSTEM.
Sigh…NOT “can out”.
That should be “cannot”.
Arrrrgh! That should be “but”, not “by”.
God bless it…I despise predictive text.
BUY*
I have my doubts on the accuracy of this proposal.
Personally, I think the ultimate solution to the best 3D
will not be the abolition of glasses but rather the screen.
Glasses which contain the movie projection and create the
illusion of a theater screen and deliver precise left and right
eye images at all times no matter what position the viewer is in.
But then how would you be able to see the person you’re with or whisper things to them while the movie is playing?
That’s part of the appeal for going to the movies for me with others. Not to disturb others, but to share the experience with a friend etc.
The “glasses” I describe would mean a theater was not even necessary.
You watch at home and movies would be delivered electronically.
I appreciate what you are saying about the theater experience.
I do enjoy that as well but with tradition film presentations
and not 3D which unfortunately there is less and less of.
Ah, I see. Well I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon because the theatre owners will want to control the environment the movies are shown in. Otherwise it would be to easy to pirate the movies if you could just put on some fancy glasses at home.
Plus there’s something to be said about seeing something on a huge screen and the whole theatre experience. I have been in home theatres with large projector screens, and while it’s a cool experience, it’s just not quite the same as going out to the movies.
Bring on the holographic projections and enough with this 3D garbage!
Hey if we can get a holographic Tupac that looks real then why not?
This sounds feasible. I would be willing to at least try it out.
This story might have some interesting information in it, but could you put a shadow under the letters so it’s like they’re levitating over the page? Then I could try to grab them while I read. Also make them sway.
The 3ds’ “3d” is garbage and a gimmick. Like looking into those crappy baseball 3d cards. I want 3d that pops out, not some basic 1″ inch depth into a tiny screen of a toy. Scream all you want, nintendo fanboys, 3d is trash, even more so on a handheld
I want holograms already…
I have no need for 3D and I don’t care whether that’s with glasses or without. I like my movies flat, thank you very much.
I’m generally against 3D, but this year most of the 3D movies I’ve seen have been pretty good…
So yeah, I’m glad to hear they’re developing new and better ways to see “3D” images on a screen.
It still has its problems though: The glasses are certainly an uncomfortable annoyance (especially for those who already wear corrective lenses) and then there’s the fact that the glasses make everything look darker (obviously because the “lenses” are tinted plastic) and how some 3D moves are blurry, gives people headaches, etc.
If researchers can come up with better ways of enduring/enjoying 3D (whichever way you see it) then I say go for it… it’s not like 3D movies (or that extra charge) will be going away anytime soon…
What’s kind of ironic is that a real viable hi-res speckles home unit is much much further along than this but of course its not as interesting to the movie industry and like OLED TVs it’s hard to predict when you’ll see it on the market. Physiologically I have a much harder time perceiving 3-D than most and it’s not a problem you can correct with glasses.
The industry is desperately trying to grow technology that can keep theater seats full. With the ever growing budgets and home systems getting much better at ever lower price points it’s getting harder for the consumer to justify going to a theater to watch a movie on a regular basis. Over the course of a few years the price of gas, inflated admissions, and food prices haven’t done the industry any favors and you can save that same money and apply it to a home system with results that are as if not more attractive then at least equal to going out…
They should really try to make more entertaining movies, that would be more appreciated than all the bells and whistles. A lame movie in 3D, IMAX, and Dolby is still a lame movie, paying 16 dollars for it only makes it worse….