Why wasn't this chosen over 3D Glasses?
Everyone hates the glasses right? Why wasn't this chosen over them? http://www.spatialview.com/product/3deescreen/ Ive owned a toshiba qosmio and it had glasses free 3d at every angle. This is just the screen without the camera but either way, wouldn't it have been the way better choice to go with?
Everyone hates the glasses right? Why wasn't this chosen over them?


http://www.spatialview.com/product/3deescreen/



Ive owned a toshiba qosmio and it had glasses free 3d at every angle. This is just the screen without the camera but either way, wouldn't it have been the way better choice to go with?

Model: Clevo P570WM Laptop
GPU: GeForce GTX 980M ~8GB GDDR5
CPU: Intel Core i7-4960X CPU +4.2GHz (12 CPUs)
Memory: 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3L 1600MHz, 4x8gb
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

#1
Posted 03/28/2019 04:59 AM   
Lenticular screens can be less effective as the size of the screen increases (like more ghosting), and they can have fairly restricted optimal viewing positions. Autostereoscopic eye tracking cameras add a little cost, while autosteroscopic position correction software can add a variable lag in gaming performance (for complex image processing compensation) - and cannot accommodate more than one person viewing screen at a time. Some manufacturers like Philips added more lenticular views for multiple users (no eye tracking), but each additional view reduces individual resolution. For an older reference, see [url]https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-stereo-technology,1023-6.html[/url]. Passive displays like LG’s E6 4K TV were a reasonable compromise requiring no head/eye tracking hardware/software - but they did require (light) glasses to view the superb 3D, for multiple viewers. LG’s lenticular lens-like layer (actually Film Patterned Retarder) added $X00’s to cost of TV, which LG abandoned in 2017...
Lenticular screens can be less effective as the size of the screen increases (like more ghosting), and they can have fairly restricted optimal viewing positions. Autostereoscopic eye tracking cameras add a little cost, while autosteroscopic position correction software can add a variable lag in gaming performance (for complex image processing compensation) - and cannot accommodate more than one person viewing screen at a time. Some manufacturers like Philips added more lenticular views for multiple users (no eye tracking), but each additional view reduces individual resolution.

For an older reference, see https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-stereo-technology,1023-6.html. Passive displays like LG’s E6 4K TV were a reasonable compromise requiring no head/eye tracking hardware/software - but they did require (light) glasses to view the superb 3D, for multiple viewers. LG’s lenticular lens-like layer (actually Film Patterned Retarder) added $X00’s to cost of TV, which LG abandoned in 2017...

#2
Posted 03/28/2019 01:06 PM   
Scroll To Top