[edgy]

dont be fooled, this is not 3D as in "stereoscopic" 3D like avatar. You will not get the feeling of depth because for that you need a different image for each eye (only achieved with glasses or a special screen (like 3DS or at the movies). This is just a 3D geometry trick...

[jodrellblank]

Do be fooled. What do you gain by refusing to be fooled?

[edgy]

Well I'm just annoyed because many people still say that the current 3D TVs dont bring anything, or that the technology with glasses will disappear soon. They think that someone will find a magic software trick to make it 3D without glasses, maybe by tracking eyes. But it is impossible, it is a misunderstanding on how stereoscopic 3D actually works. Current 3D technology is actually really good, though the glasses will surely get much lighter.

[function_seven]

You're probably correct in saying that glasses won't disappear anytime soon, and it is impossible with eye/head tracking alone to achieve stereoscopic 3D, but I'd like to bet that sometime in the future a holographic display could be created. One that sends different images to different regions of the room, such that your left eye is literally seeing a different view than your right eye, without shutters or polarization to mimic it.

To truly get there, you'd have to actually change the path length of each ray, to allow your eyes' focus to agree with their convergence (a common complaint with current 3D, where the eyes are forced to focus on light coming from 3 meters away but converge on an object thats "1 meter" away.)

[newhouseb]

While I undersand that 3D is a lot easier to say than "stereoscopic", I don't think any 3D movies warrant being called any more three dimensional than this sort of thing. IMHO, it's not 3D until I can move around and see different things (in each eye), i.e. until the medium understands itself in 3D space and reflects accordingly on my eyes.

[edgy]

it is widely accepted that 3D in context of movies and games is "stereoscopic", meaning you have a perception of depth. I believe the perception of depth gives a very different experience, personally I was stunned when I saw 3D movies for first time, since you really feel like you are present in the scene. Looking around and seeing different things is already implemented in 99% of games, since the camera is controlled by the player.

[newhouseb]

Yeah, I know it's widely accepted (I grew up being bombarded with Spy Kids 3D Volume 72 advertising throughout my whole childhood). I'm just of the opinion that it doesn't leave much room for consumer understanding of advances in 3D technology by dominating the terminology.

[scott_s]

What's important is tricking my brain into perceiving depth in something that has none. How that's achieved is irrelevant.

[rexf]

This type of 3D (head tracking) combined with 3DS type 3D (glasses free depth) would be amazing.

You would get both depth and the ability to "see" a different perspective as you look around just like real life.

[Raphael]

The 3DS depends on a very narrow viewing angle, so the different approaches cannot be combined at this time.

[antimatter15]

Some more advanced autostereoscopic displays use head tracking as well to configure the paths of light instead of arbitrary prescribed fixed sweet spots. It's also pretty cool in that you could use it to give a different full sized image to different people watching it. So for playing games, you don't have split screen, but rather each player sees their content full size sans glasses. Maybe you could use the ultrasound interference patterns to create directional sound too.