3DTV is only bridging the gap until these become affordable

[SinbadEV]

Yay! 3DHD head mounted displays are coming!

http://techdraginfo.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... asses.html


You can probably find more info around teh web but I have wanted these type of thing since before I read "Snow Crash" and have "NEEDED" them since.

[zwzsg]

It's 1995 all over again!

[SinbadEV]

It's 1995 all over again!

Yes... but you needed a large cardboard box, a bicycle helmet and some duct tape to make the Virtual Boy a head-mounted display...

My preferred method of playing virtual boy was by lying on my back and balancing it on my face and chest... worked very well and eliminated the neck and back sprain issue... another trick was to play it in a darkened room. Somebody told me recently that they had a friend who cornea had detached itself while playing Virtual Boy with an astigmatism.

[Pxtl]

Really, VR won't see decent adoption until companies can make a *good* set of VR glasses for a similar price to a decent monitor.

Either way, I'm not really interested until we can get alpha-transparency to the outside world (and not just with cameras on the other side, but true transparent HUD) and so we can have some seriously hardcore Augmented Reality gaming.

[Gota]

It cant cost as much as a tv...It has ot cost less cause Only one person can use it at a time...

[SinbadEV]

Really, VR won't see decent adoption until companies can make a *good* set of VR glasses for a similar price to a decent monitor.

Either way, I'm not really interested until we can get alpha-transparency to the outside world (and not just with cameras on the other side, but true transparent HUD) and so we can have some seriously hardcore Augmented Reality gaming.

I think high def cameras and displays with a under 2ms delay and a "dynamic focus layer"* would be sufficient replacement for that...

but yeah... until the "HUD Like" displays get down to "decent PC monitor" price ranges we won't see the level of adoption needed for the technology to really take off.

*(the human eye likes to "focus" on distant objects, if the head mounted displays could compensate for this focal adjustment so that the eye would be better tricked into accepting the flat display as a window into the real world... this technology does exist)

It cant cost as much as a tv...It has ot cost less cause Only one person can use it at a time...

3D HD TV price: Approx 1500
3D HD Shutter Glasses price: Approx 150 per person

Assuming 4 people using this gives 1500+(4x150) makes 2100/4 makes $525 per head mounted display... then add the price of my personal computer monitor (which I wouldn't need because I have the glasses)... gives $700... oh... and the 3DHD camera's that need to be build in that I won't have to buy gives $800

Yeah, so when these glasses cost under $800 the 3D revolution will finally take place.

[Caydr]

Look at these're:

http://www.google.ca/images?q=myvu

I came close to buying a pair of the black "crystal" ones like 4 years ago. Got to the part where you fill in your address and found they wanted $150 to ship them to Canada... failgoats.

[CarRepairer]

3D HD TV price: Approx 1500
3D HD Shutter Glasses price: Approx 150 per person

Circular Polarized Glasses: $5

Got four of those and they work with my monitor.

[Pxtl]

I didnt' know circular-polarized monitors existed. I always though shutterglasses were a hideous hack. I guess the advantage is that you can turn off the shutter-glasses and you still have a hyper-fast monitor, meanwhile a circular-polarized monitor is stuck being circular-polarized - you can turn off the 3D, but you can't turn off the filters eating up a lot of the light.

[CarRepairer]

I didnt' know circular-polarized monitors existed. I always though shutterglasses were a hideous hack. I guess the advantage is that you can turn off the shutter-glasses and you still have a hyper-fast monitor, meanwhile a circular-polarized monitor is stuck being circular-polarized - you can turn off the 3D, but you can't turn off the filters eating up a lot of the light.

The monitor is just as bright as a regular monitor. The filters don't appear to darken it at all. While wearing the glasses your vision darkens things slightly (compare to shutter glasses which darken by exactly 50%).

[Pxtl]

Probably both are a lot more than 50% due to imperfect opacity when it's "open" - the human eye is really, really not good at determining magnitude of brightness, so while we think of things as linear scales we're actually seeing logarithmic scales.

Either way, though, I'm happy that thing works well and would be interested in picking up one myself if I hadn't just bought a monitor. How much did that thing run you if you don't mind me asking?

[CarRepairer]

After shipping it was about 280, which at the time I got it was about 100 more than a monitor of that size and resolution. I considered it am inexpensive way to get really easy 3D that has support for nvidia 3Dvision.

[SinbadEV]

I don't like shutter or polarized glasses very much... so I guess we're saying until these glasses get down to about 200 (maybe 300 if they include the HD3D camera)...