when are the 3d tvs that don't require any glasses be available in the stores and what will be the price range (estimate)
I hope next year 2011. I found this website: www.3Dfusion.com that should hold all the information with the exception of release date to market. They show a 42' tv in one of their links. I have emailed them concerning their release to market, when they get back to me I will be quick to post the info. They have been travelling around the U.S. this past year showing off their awesome technology, I guess they are currently working on doubling the resolution availability, but I do believe they have already reached HD just unaware as to what level.
i do believe 3d television is already possible.
my crt shows 3d depth.. and even a 19 inch philips crt shows depth.
to make these 3d images, you can certainly combine the left and right image on top of eachother to give depth without glasses.
except that the glasses allow for more depth (especially when popping out of the screen) because the cameras can be placed farther apart.
you have an object you want to record in 3d.. to create the illusion, you could place each camera at 20 degrees offset and layer those two seperate images on top of eachother for 3d.
but, if you are using glasses.. you can switch from one eyeball to the other to give a stronger result, as the brain will work as the accumulator.
this means you can record with 30 degrees of offset and let the brain fill in the weird extra length, thanks to the eyeball being on the side of your head rather than the middle.
people with a lazy eye can sometimes switch which eyeball they choose to view from, and these people know exactly what i am talking about.
if you place your eyeball down a wall, you wont see much of the wall at all.
if you switch to the other eyeball that is farthest away from the wall, you can then see the face of the wall.
most often, televisions will have depth.. as if you can reach your hand inside of the television and grab an object on a shelf.
popping out of the television requires much more angle offset.
there comes a time when a limitation can be seen without glasses.
for instance, if you tried to view a globe of the planet earth.. eventually the offset will be too wide and the globe will start to unfold.
once the round shape is being deformed, you have to switch to shutter glasses to continue pushing forward.
high resolution webcams are enough to capture depth nowadays.
its not hollywood quality, but it helps prove recording 3d-like depth is possible with a single camera and a lens.. which can be viewed without special glasses.
resolution isnt as important as the amount of colors recorded.
i have been watching television on a 19 inch philips crt monitor from 1998 .. and the television shows inwards depth (not as much as my 1080i sony crt though)
cameras need upgraded, as well as the software used to 'touch' the video after it has been recorded.
nothing like having the analog to digital convertor capture everything.. then the software used to save the final video removes lots of colors that are hardly seen by the eye.
usually these extra colors arent necessarily valuable when recording objects.. but the colors can represent things like UV rays, and they really help record the air between the camera and the object.
a time will come when videos are compressed to save space, and the information removed are these special colors talked about.
it is the same colors that make video games look realistic or fake.
if the shader model doesnt allow for the colors to be rendered in the atmosphere, you will have to 'burn them' into the textures to get a final result with the colors included.
photo realistic is becoming generic, as cameras are evolving to show more detail of the precious space between object and camera.
a picture from the 1990's probably doesnt show such vast amount of shading (or UV light)
with that said, photorealistic could simply mean higher resolution textures without the 'air space' included.
i would think some actual photos used to texture a 3d object will not have the result of brain-tricking realism.
because sometimes, viewing depth is easier on a television or computer monitor than it is in real life.
people have different values of sight, so it would be best to exaggerate the 'air space' so that everyone who isnt legally blind can actually be persuaded to view the 'gas'