| Author | Message | ||
     Larry Elie Rating: N/A |
Has anyone tried the Kodak stereoscopic imaging display? It looks ungainly, but the claim is that it is very easy on the eyes. http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/Articles/KodakSD/KodakSD.htm Kodak does know something about pictures... | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I did. My impression: Totaly non confortable device. The user is forced to have head and eye exacly in one precise position - this is great disconfort ... It gives only a limited benefit (no flicker, no ghosting) in comparison to shuterglasses, bu it is not worth the disconfort ... Maybe it can find some limited use in museum as an atraction ... | ||
| BOPrey Rating: N/A |
Finally got to see of a picture of it. It looks exactly like what I expected. Crap. | ||
| Lars Ahnland Rating: N/A |
That thing looks soooo funny!!! | ||
| StereoGamer Rating: N/A |
"It gives only a limited benefit (no flicker, no ghosting)" It depends on how significant these are to you. Certainly no ghosting is big for a lot of people. What people have said about the look and having to have head still is true, but those aside the stereo experience is pretty good. 1280x1024 per eye with zero ghosting. Having used the Sharp display at length I know that it's possible to train yourself to keep your head still while playing most games. And do you really care about the look as long as it works? So in my opinion the biggest issue is the $20K cost. That pretty much limits it to the high end workstation market and tradeshows. - StereoGamer | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I saw the display at SID 2004 in Seattle, WA. The 3D is good, however, you have to sit in a chair, and place your head in the device. The displays weight is 500 lbs.! The PRICE, around $20.000 USD for the starter model.! 3DexPert | ||
| Anonymoose Rating: N/A |
What I still don't get about the Kodak display is this: The stereo effect, the movement range, the lack of ghosting, and the overall visual experience is no different than what you would get if you looked through two largish viewng lenses at two small high resolution displays (such as DMDs). Furthermore Kodak could build and sell something like that for a lot less than $20,000 and it would take up a lot less space. So why do they even bother with the fancy "autostereoscopic" system? Maybe they're just after a marketing splash?? | ||
| BOPrey Rating: N/A |
No. It is like fixing a HMD on the desk. LOL. What is looks like to me is Kodak is trying to join the rank of manufacturer of autostereo displays. That's all. |
