Inertia's picture

Glasses-less Stereoscopy

Assuming this isn't some japanese version of a christmas fairytale, what do you guys think of it? [Insert some search engine name here] couldn't answer it: are japanese living rooms really small enough that couch-to-TV distance is closer than 1m?

As a sidenote, SVN trunk now contains an example of anaglyph rendering for red/cyan glasses.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jdomnitz's picture

I saw them at CES 2010.... absolutely incredible technology. If its the same worked pretty well up to about 6-8 feet away.

emacinnes's picture

I've had an autostereoscopic laptop previously, about 4 years ago, it was reasonable, if limited, tech at the time, still a bit of a headache after a while, but glad to see its coming to fruition in the tv space finally, the glasses version was always a stopgap tech till they got this right.


Icarus Scene Engine. OpenTK-based 3D simulation & games solution:

See Icarus videos at

the Fiddler's picture

Is this the same technology as the one used on Nintendo 3DS? It's nice to see 3d technology trickle down to consumer devices, now all we need is quad-buffer stereo in consumer video cards.

Inertia's picture

It's just confusing that they're building a TV with "suggested viewing distance 90cm", that's more like the viewing distance for computer screens. The technical data does not write anything about refresh rate, that might explain abit ... Unfortunately I haven't seen any meaningful technical explanation for either device's display technology yet, so no clue about differences in design. My understanding is that it's some evolution of holography so that the images for each eye can only be viewed from certain angles.

Are quad-buffers really necessary? How about rendering to 2 FBO and copy (maybe merge it with the tone mapping step) to the window-system provided framebuffers when done?
Is this correct? If hardware supports #2058: [GL 4.1] Viewport Array it can draw for both eyes (i.e. to 2 framebuffers) with a single draw call.

the Fiddler's picture

AFAIK, autostereoscopy is the main area of research right now.

As for quad-buffer stereo... I guess it depends on the setup. Systems that use dual displays (as in the movies) won't work without qbs. Systems that use a single display and an IR emitter can be hacked to work without qbs (miss a vsync and you stand a 50% chance of flipping the left-right projection). Autostereoscopic systems might be able to work without qbs if they interlace the left-right images into a single one (i.e. left eye on odd columns, right eye on even). Even so, qbs is trivial to use and provides a uniform method to work with any 3d display - we are just missing the drivers.

Inertia's picture

Thanks for the link, it's amazing how much wikipedia articles may differ depending on your language. According to it, Nintendo's 3DS uses parallax barrier and in Toshiba's document they mention lenticular lens sheets (the later is also what I was mentioning with "holography"), so they're using different approaches.

Without doubt, using quad-buffer stereo is just a matter of selecting the correct draw buffer. What I've been pondering about is whether you still need double buffering, if your image is rendered into a FBO attachment anyways? Are you doing unnecessary triple-buffering? The user can never see unfinished images (one of the desired effects) but tearing may still be an issue.

nythrix's picture

Pardon me, my pathethic math knowledge, but don't you need two eye tracking gizmos and two renderers (one per eye) to achieve real 3D perception? This pseudo 3D mania (a real boom, where I live ATM) is quite laughable. Everyone's headaching...

Inertia's picture

You didn't think the HD TV you just bought short ago would last a while, did you?

For movies there's a given focal point anyway, so it's actually desired that the viewer should not change attention to something in the background. Eye tracking is probably existing in some lab already though, they'll sell that to us in a few years ;)