Print 37 comment(s) - last by Visual.. on Apr 9 at 9:19 AM

Sharp's new mobile touch-screen 3D display  (Source: Sharp)

The upcoming Nintendo 3DS is a likely target for the display.  (Source: Ployer)
Sharp is also targeting cell phones and other mobile devices

Today Sharp aired its stunning new 3D display.  The mobile display offers switchable 2D and 3D display modes and best of all does not require the user to wear any goofy glasses.

The television manufacturing industry at CES 2010 revealed itself to be deeply enamored with 3D sets.  However, doubts remain over whether users will be willing to don special glasses every time they want to watch events broadcast in TV.  A handful of companies, including Sharp, are alternatively pushing sets that don't require glasses.

The new Sharp display uses something called "CG-Silicon technology" to achieve high brightness and low cross-talk.  The new technology shrinks the size of wiring, enabling a brightness of 500 cd/m
2, twice the brightness of previous 3D mobile displays.

The display supports touch technology, measures 3.4-inches, and sports a 480x854 pixel FWVGA resolution.  That size screen could fit in the fourth generation iPhone, but its inclusion seems less likely.  Sharp does say that it would be a great match for smartphones though.

A more likely target is that the display will be used in Nintendo's upcoming 3DS, portable 3D gaming console.  The new portable is expected to launch in March 2011 as a follow-up to the best-selling Nintendo DS.  By then the display will have been produced for some time, as it's expected to start production in the first half of fiscal 2010.  Hitachi has also been speculated to possibly be the producer of the Nintendo 3DS screen.

It'd also make a pretty nice addition to an Android handset, in our opinion.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

semi-transparent 3D?
By serkol on 4/2/2010 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
The deer on the screen shot is semi-transparent - you can see bushes and other things under it... this looks bad... is this the way Sharp 3D will look?

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By shabby on 4/2/2010 10:40:01 AM , Rating: 5
Yes it will look exactly like that simulated image...

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By lecanard on 4/2/2010 11:55:40 AM , Rating: 5
The question is fair; they did simulate a transparent deer. Why? Just to make it look more 3d by showing the background I hope, unless this is a game about the vengeful spirits of the deer killed in deer hunter.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Jeff7181 on 4/2/2010 12:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
You mean it's not going to project the image outside of the display? Man... way to get my hopes up...

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Mitch101 on 4/2/2010 12:29:21 PM , Rating: 5
Scientists discover gene and part of brain that make people gullible


RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By amanojaku on 4/2/2010 1:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
fMRI, supra-credulus, WTF1, "Say something about Thor. Everyone likes Thor."

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Samus on 4/8/2010 1:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
srysly. if you don't have a 3D display, how do you expect any images to demo the technology?

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By GaryJohnson on 4/2/2010 10:42:16 AM , Rating: 1
I'm 100% certain that is a "conceptual" image and not an actual took-a-picture-of-a-3d-screen-with-a-2d-camera image. If you've seen any existing 3D displays, it's probably going to look something like that, ie: out of focus with distorted colors.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By noirsoft on 4/2/2010 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 4
...besides, you can't have a 3d object that appears outside the frame of the display. There aren't pixels floating in space.

Which 3d displays are you referring to in your post that are "out of focus and with distorted colors"? -- The displays that I've personally seen and used (barrier autostereo, active shutter glasses, passive polarized glasses like current 3d movies, individual screen per eye head-mounted displays) don't have those problems unless poorly calibrated, just like a regular display.

Yes, I work with 3d displays often.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Jellodyne on 4/2/2010 12:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
R2D2 has pixels floating is space.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Chocobollz on 4/2/2010 3:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I wouldn't count on that one because it's.. a long time ago in a galaxy far far away :P

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Oregonian2 on 4/3/2010 12:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
...besides, you can't have a 3d object that appears outside the frame of the display. There aren't pixels floating in space.

Hard to make them outside the frame of the display (meaning left/right), but it's trivial to put images in front of the display (toward you) floating in space. In 3D lingo, it's in front of the window. I've a 2x3 foot lenticular that I purchased at the 3D Center for Art & Photography in Portland Oregon ( that has its image sitting in front of the wall by about 6". Interesting to watch people wave their hands through the image. :-) Same as 3D movies where stuff is sitting over on top of the audience.

There's a technique where one can make images look as if they're out of the frame by making a smaller frame in the left/right images and have the subject flow in front of the window and outside of the "artificial" smaller frame that's within the image. Makes it appear somewhat similar the 2D representation shown above. I first saw somebody do that a few years ago (I've been doing 3D photography for about thirty years).

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By noirsoft on 4/3/2010 12:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
In front, yes, but never outside the frame like in the image.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Oregonian2 on 4/3/2010 3:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, not "truthfully" outside the frame, but can look as if it were using the technique I mentioned.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By Visual on 4/9/2010 9:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
outside of the fake smaller frame, maybe, but not the real physical one? so it is quite pointless, except in applications where the real frame blends well and is not obvious. not relevant to this example.
or i totally have no clue what you are saying.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By bhieb on 4/2/2010 10:52:00 AM , Rating: 4
LOL what you mean this 2D image hear does not look 3D.

Damnit Sharp if you can't release some 2D images that better represent your 3D product we aren't buying it.

RE: semi-transparent 3D?
By ralniv on 4/2/2010 3:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
It will certainly not look like the image. Take note that the deer's legs extend below the screen and you can see things behind the deer. They used this approach because they are trying to portray a 3d image using a 2d graphic. Without these graphics tricks it would look like a flat 2D deer standing in the wild.

viewing angle
By tastyratz on 4/2/2010 10:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
I have read that viewing angle is reduced to nearly non existent on integrated 3d screens. That's less of an issue for portable equipment making it a good target market for initial release without being as much of a problem till they figure out a way to increase view angle.

There is a lot of room for improvement with 3d displays and it sounds like the tech finally has the financial pump to get it- I cant wait to see where it sits in another year or 2.

RE: viewing angle
By noirsoft on 4/2/2010 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
With this sort of screen, if your head isn't in the sweet spot, everything looks off, so in that sense the practical viewing angle is almost zero, since your head has to be in one precise place to make the 3d illusion work. The viewing angle of the screen (in terms of brightness and color, not for 3d effect) is largely irrelevant.

Not a problem with a portable device, as you mention, since that is a single-person screen and the viewer can easily be in the sweet spot.

RE: viewing angle
By Slyne on 4/2/2010 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it depends on how many viewing angles are created by the display... I sure hope it's more than 2, but considering how quickly this was released and that it seems to target single viewer applications, I'm not counting on it.

I suppose once they define a high enough number of angles, like 60 or more, then the viewing sweet spot won't be an issue anymore. There was a 27-inch prototype display, shown at CeBIT I believe, with 64 angles.

Until that kind of 3D monitor is available I'll stay clear of 3D and dorky glasses. Although I do appreciate that those 3D monitors are going hand in hand with finally decent refresh rates for LCD monitors.

RE: viewing angle
By noirsoft on 4/2/2010 3:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
I see where you are going. More views gets you a wider sweet spot if the pixels are small enough. I'm not sure it's financially feasible to add the GPU power and display hardware for the specific application of cell phones and portable gaming, when you have much more control over the position of the screen and eyes than with a large TV.

I can almost guarantee that the screen (not this one specifically, just this type of screen) only has two viewing angles for that (and other) reasons.

RE: viewing angle
By blueboy09 on 4/3/2010 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you would think that this small screen would give you a terrible headache, regardless of whether or not you have glasses on. - BLUEBOY

Awesome on my phone
By Mjello on 4/3/2010 1:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one who thinks that it would be an absolutely awesome gimmick to have 3d on my phone ?.

Done right one could do those little holo displays from starwars :p

3D Glasses
By FaceMaster on 4/3/2010 7:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
WHY haven't these caught on yet? Is it because some idiot might try watching Lord of the Rings while walking across a road? They're proper 3D, don't have any problem with viewing angles, and have the potential to be really immersive. We have headphones, 3D glasses would be one step closer to a virtual reality simulation!

Hello ladies.
By rburnham on 4/7/2010 10:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
Is that... Mario hanging out with the ladies from Dead or Alive?

By MrPickins on 4/2/10, Rating: 0
Old news...
By roostitup on 4/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Old news...
By therealnickdanger on 4/2/2010 9:59:11 AM , Rating: 3
Were you aware that DT reported a similar story "at least a few days ago" as well? The difference is that the old story was about Hitachi screens, not Sharp. No one knows for sure which screen Nintendo is using at this point.

RE: Old news...
By amanojaku on 4/2/2010 10:01:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's true, but a bigger mistake is the lack of sources and detail. I could only find this, but I imagine the author could (should) have gotten more.

RE: Old news...
By MrPickins on 4/2/2010 1:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see why you were rated down, your comment was spot-on.

Without sources and with so little actual information, this is barely worthy of a blog post.

RE: Old news...
By amanojaku on 4/2/2010 3:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
He added a link to the Sharp website, at least. Here's another one I came across.

RE: Old news...
By Hiawa23 on 4/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Old news...
By lightfoot on 4/2/2010 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's kind of funny - I'm not terribly interested in 3D for movies, but very interested in it for gaming.

I'm okay having to sit in a sweetspot for 3D gaming if it means no glasses are required.

When it comes to watching movies, I like to do that with friends, and having to use glasses makes it a deal breaker.

RE: Old news...
By noirsoft on 4/2/2010 3:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Even with glasses, you need to sit in the sweet spot for the proper 3d effect, unless you have good head tracking as well. Of course, the penalty for not having being in the sweet spot is poor 3d effects, unlike a barrier display where the penalty is weird banding and ghosting of images.

RE: Old news...
By Black69ta on 4/2/2010 6:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Facial Recognition could allow the TV to tune itself for however many and where ever the viewer are. They already have face tracking web-cams, just use that tech to allow the TV to tune the alignment.

RE: Old news...
By masouth on 4/3/2010 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man...

This is a prime opportunity for someone to get the news post about racist 3D TVs ready to run.

RE: Old news...
By noirsoft on 4/3/2010 12:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
Facial recognition is a form of head tracking, so that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Just remember that with shutter glasses, a current 240 HZ tv can maintain 4 independent viewers with 30hz refresh for each eye. That's not too bad, but you will notice the flicker. two viewers with 60hz per eye will look much better. In order to get a large number of people all with proper 3d effects at the same time, the refresh would need to be very high. number of people * 2 (eyes) * desired refresh per eye.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki