Why don't home movies ever use polarized 3d glasses?

Volca on 3/12/2007 at 12:46

The question is why to use an external screen, when someone can come up with a direct-to-eye projection system (one for each eye).

The only two reasons I see is that it is much harder to create a decent field of view in usual set-ups (not costing too much at the same time). And that it is hard to create those so that it fits every eye type (including people needing glasses and such).

I read an article some time ago about a laser based projection system (in glasses) which used a vibrating glass fibre to cover a decent FOV, but I guess people would be scared to use this (in case of a malfunction, the laser could shine too bright and hurt your eye).

I'm still waiting for a good device that would do this. All those flipping glasses, 3d LCD's and such devices are limited too much to take into consideration. Not even mentioning anaglyph glasses, which result in ugly colors for other than B&W pictures.

SubJeff on 3/12/2007 at 16:07

Quote Posted by Volca

I read an article some time ago about a laser based projection system (in glasses) which used a vibrating glass fibre to cover a decent FOV, but I guess people would be scared to use this (in case of a malfunction, the laser could shine too bright and hurt your eye).

Are you talking about those "retina painters" ?(don't know what they are really called) Those seem like an awesome idea, especially for games - for films not so much.

Volca on 3/12/2007 at 17:23

Yes, exactly. I found the reference to the article, but the article itself was removed it seems:

(http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D3918) http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D3918

It would be interesting to try such technology, but it seems to be used mainly for pilot training or plane HUDs. A pity.

Edit: It seems those are called Virtual Retinal Displays
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display

Microwave Oven on 4/12/2007 at 08:15

I got to thinking, and what I came up with is that good stereoscopic video is too expensive to become mainstream. So, you need a cheap intro technology to bring 3d into the mainstream. My answer is the 3d chair.

This crude illustration should at least cover the gist of it:

Inline Image:

http://home.comcast.net/~gearheadgeek/3dchair.jpg

Essentially, you'd have two flat panel displays mounted to the back of a comfy recliner, with two wraparound lightguides with mirrors, then a set of goggles to focus with. The arms could swing out to release you from the chair, and would also be adjustable for accommodating different postures and heights. I estimate that the total cost would be under $1000. That should be cheap enough to get people interested.

True, it would look kinda silly, and you don't have any freedom to move your head around a lot (plus you'd have to be stuck in the chair), but look at the bright side: It's cheap!