Jim has noticed quite a few different attempts at adding a third dimension to tv.

Jim reckons all that is required is a stack of transparent LCD screens.

Job done.
-- madness, Feb 07 2011

Somewhat baked http://www.lightspa.../FAQHowItWorks.html
Not identical, but quite similar. [AntiQuark, Feb 07 2011]

Virtual Boy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualboy
Real 3-D [EdwinBakery, Feb 07 2011]

Jim really needs to do a lot more research before he posts his ideas. This one is almost as old as LCD displays.
-- neutrinos_shadow, Feb 07 2011


Jim has noticed that, every time he gets stoned out of his mind and starts babbling, his friend [madness] writes it all down.

Jim reckons he needs a new friend.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 07 2011


lol ...
-- madness, Feb 07 2011


There WAS a videogame system with genuine 3-D technology - it was called Virtual Boy, it was by Nintendo. It ended up being a flop. But it was genuinely 3-D - it was these large "binoculars" on a stand that you would stick your eyes into, and the system shoot lasers into your eyes or something to make you see in 3-D - things that were far away actually LOOKED like they were far away, you did actually perceive depth. The limitation was that everything appeared in shades of red going to into a reddish white (and no-light black at the other end of the scale), also, it was annoying to keep your head in it.

I had one and remember it and the 3-D was quite impressive, but overall wasn't an amazing system.
-- EdwinBakery, Feb 07 2011


That Virtualboy is very interesting, in the way it solved the problem with the limited technology available.

Strictly, though, it's not 3D. It should really be called stereoscopic, as it simulates binocular depth from a single point of view. A true 3D display would show the correct image from multiple points of view, like a hologram. By the same token, all the so-called 3D movies and TVs coming out now should properly be called stereoscopic.
-- spidermother, Jun 12 2011



random, halfbakery