Philips' 56-inch HD 3D display has four times the standard resolution of any TV. That's awesome. But the fact it can be watched with your own eyes without wearing silly glasses (or imposing a serious headache) is causing people to check themselves. Because they just might wreck themselves trying to figure out how it works and how to buy it.
Yesterday, Philips unveiled these Quad Full Autosteroscopic 3D HD TVs (see pic below) at a 3D event in Hollywood, after years of development. Quad Full TVs push through data at such a fast rate that they increase a display’s screen resolution to a truly sick 3840x2160 (or 8.29 million pixels), four times the number of pixels of the highest HDTV standard.
That's important for 3D-focused screens, because the data speed and high resolution is a must to create believable, high-quality 3D images.
The large collection of pixels produce images take advantage of the same ol' right-left human optical trick, and its speed slaps the images together at once. This creates a large viewing angle (160 degrees) and a very high image contrast. Otherwise, the images wouldn't pop out of the screen -- they'd look transparent and uselessly weak.
Philips promises up to 46 views at once, which means the resolution is 23 times better than the crappy 3D you've seen before.
It's fitting that Philips decided to unveil the HD 3D TV at the Biz-Ex conference in Hollywood. As we mentioned previously, the movie industry is leading this charge with the help of several hardware manufacturers, including camera makers and 3D-enabled HDTV's. Toshiba and Sanyo have previously said they are also working on competing autostereoscopic technologies.
When Philips is ready to sell this 3D rig to businesses at first, they will do so with their already-developed 3D WoW Technology, which rewrites regular HD programming to 3D (see screenshot above). So users can pick for themselves which specific blade in the 3D version of the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon will be coming at ya.
The early word is that this TV will cost approximately $25,000. Or the same amount that cost to take Britney to the hospital last year. Don't you love it when good money is spent so wisely?
[blog.wired]
Bookmarks