Talk:3D display/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
This page should act as a pointer to the various other pages that discuss the different types of display in detail. Please do not put details of your particular 3D display here. There are dozens of different 3D displays in the world; check out Stereoscopic Displays & Applications for details of many of the technologies which have been tried. Neil Dodgson 09:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
stereo3d.com link
The website in question is not a commercial concern at all and is not tied to any particular vendor (also, I am not associated with it.) It IS, however, an extensive, informative resource on the topic. It has been around a very long time and is well respected in the world of hobbyist polyscopics. I consider it an indispensable website, and feel that it fits in perfectly with the other links. 67.180.206.34 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation Neil Dodgson 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
More info on 3D plasma
[1] A little more info.
Mcmadkat (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite / split article
This article is really confusing. There is no explanations of the technologies which make 3D displays possible, and the table uses a LOT of technical terms that no average reader would understand. I would recommend that the table be placed in a separate article ("Comparison of 3D displays") and this article be reserved for explaining the technologies behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The.ravenous.llama (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the table should be moved elsewhere. Neil Dodgson (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The table is somewhat confusing and rather large. I think it should be removed and replaced by something more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.57.98 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The table's categories are directly from [2] - the manufacturer of the product shown to be successful in most of the table's categories; violating bias and copyright rule. --82.24.246.60 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
rewrite feb 2009
rewrote anonymously 20090219, cluebot thought I was a vandal so I have left the block of html inserted for advertising purposes at the bottom of the page. I think this page could also do without the product and research links, though the valuable ones may be useful in the entries for the individual display technologies. I agreed with The.ravenous.llama, so it's a list of the 3d display technologies, which all have wonderfully descriptive entries of their own, along with a bit of non-technical summary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.246.60 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 February 2009 AIDS 3d GIVESU AIDS
- You would have less trouble with ClueBot if you registered for a user account. It's free, very quick, and gives you greater anonymity since you don't broadcast your IP address every time you edit. Registered users can delete blocks of text without triggering the bot.--Srleffler (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
3D vs. 3-D
We have (at least) four related pages on 3D/3-D technology:
Clearly there is an inconsistency between "3D" & "3-D". I checked both Merriam Webster (USA) and Collins (UK) and both show "3-D" and not "3D" ... also, I ran a Google search of each term and found 367 million hits for "3D" and 1.2 billion hits for "3-D".
By both measures, I believe we should be using "3-D" throughout in the above pages (and maybe more).
Enquire (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As of 20/1/10 some bot is suggesting that this article be merged with the one on 3D movie-making. My view is that this would be inappropriate as the two subjects are quite distinct. AlatarK (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- 3d has different implementations of techniques from various manufacturers, so you may say its a different dish. Please consider two different people around searching for that thing don`t fit togheter the words you wish, as some have slowly ilink connections as myswelf and aren`t able to surf amongst 2 pages at a time. Also I wasn`t able to find lists for polarisation developers or proprietary technology developers for now [wiki/3dtv]@wikipedia.Paul188.25.51.199 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Should not merge with 3D Display
I assume by now (March 2010) everyone will agree that a discussion of stereoscopic movies (e.g. Avatar) does not belong in the same place as stereoscopic displays (e.g. DepthQ, Zalman, etc.), therefore I will delete the reference in the main article that suggests that we merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlatarK (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Direct neural imaging?
I see no discussion here about direct neural imaging, the magnetic quantum interference direct electical stimulation of the visual cortex to generate full 120° or so forward 3-D imaging (with realtime change of image as the head turns and perhaps as saccades occur). Is it still too early for research on this to be underway? If so, consider this a reminder in the future.
Topics could include: dangers of direct brain stimulation, disorientation during and after first use, use as a computer input device, difficulties in providing sufficient power, cooling, and sensitivity while maintaining small size and cost for the scanning device. David Spector (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
2D display == 3D display?
Is every regular television not capable of displaying anaglyph images? If so, would this not mean that every regular ("2D") television that can display anaglyph images is "capable of conveying a stereoscopic perception of 3-D depth to the viewer", fitting the definition of a 3D display? In short, what television is not capable of displaying anaglyph images? I have made related questions/arguments at Talk:3D_television#3D versus regular television?.Int21h (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
search results end up at wrong page
If I type "wiggle stereoscopy" into the Wikipedia search bar, it takes me to the Stereoscopy article rather than to this 3D display article. I personally have no idea how to correct that, so I am merely suggesting a correction be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.225.167 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Integral Imaging
Recent (2006) holographic lens techniques have improved viewing angles for Integral imaging displays
3D IS COOL GO MEATSee: [3]
Article needs overhaul
First of all, all mentioned methods are types of stereoscopy and not only the first paragraph. The lengths of the paragraphs do not represent the relevance of the techniques accurately and there are some redundant information. I will do a copyedit of the article. --Fluffystar (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Laser plasma displays aren't stereoscopic
It's a lovely lead image, but it should be moved to a separate article specific to 3D displays (holographic displays, etc). The lead image is a laser plasma display; which has more in common with holography (can be viewed from any angle). "Stereoscopic" means only two different perspectives; as in "stereo" meaning of two. So laser plasma displays do not qualify. 208.65.73.103 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Stereo does not mean two but rather firm or solid. There is a whole paragraph about stereo vs. 3D display. the article is basically about both kinds. --2001:638:911:311:134:109:72:237 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The following does not fit any off the methods mentioned.
Hello, I have always been interested in 3d displays. I believe I know of a novel way of producing a single view autostereoscopic display which is different from any type mentioned in the article. I have built a home made and cruds proof of concept apparatus. I have a web published introduction of the concept and crossed eyed 3-D images of the the display system here: http://3dz.ca/No-Glasses-3-D-Display-(AVD-100-C).pdf I would like to establish if the system if indeed unique and novel and perhaps then add it as a new method. A1call (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)