Is this kind of glasses-free 3D TV possible?

[edisonprime]

We all know of active 3D and passive 3D, as well as glasses-free 3D (which is basically another type of passive). But say if you don't want to cut the vertical resolution in half, which is the way the standard glasses-free 3D is, how about making an active version of glasses-free 3D, in which the actual TV does the flickering, one image for left eye, and the next for the right? Yes, I know many people hate active so would also hate that idea, but for those who don't want to sacrifice the vertical resolution, could this way possibly work? It would be great for watching glasses-free 3D in full HD, full 4K, full 8K, or possibly even further if such a trick was possible.

 

[TheKrell]

...how about making an active version of glasses-free 3D, in which the actual TV does the flickering, one image for left eye, and the next for the right?

Without glasses, how does the TV flicker in any way, shape, or form, such that only one image makes it to each eye?

 

[harshness]

The terminology is "autostereoscopy". Here's a good illustration:

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2011-03/how-it-works-3-d-tv-without-glasses

 

[edisonprime]

The terminology is "autostereoscopy". Here's a good illustration:

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2011-03/how-it-works-3-d-tv-without-glasses

I think you misread my post. I know about autostereoscopy. But that format is similar to passive, meaning that odd lines go to one eye, and the even lines go to the other. This time you just don't need the glasses. My question is that is it possible to not sacrifice the vertical resolution by having the TV do flickering images, kinda like how active glasses do, but this time directly from the TV instead?

 

[gadgtfreek]

Just get a 4K OLED with passive 3D glasses and you will never look back!

 

[harshness]

I think you misread my post. I know about autostereoscopy. But that format is similar to passive, meaning that odd lines go to one eye, and the even lines go to the other.

The technology presented in the Popular Science article, parallax barrier, is based on columns as opposed to rows. Because of the vertical "louvers", one eye sees even columns and the other eye sees odd columns (depending on precisely where you're sitting). The constraints on where and how you sit would appear to be insufferable. Tilting your head to the side will kill the feature.

That the format probably isn't compatible with existing 3D content is more a fault of poor choices made early on given that they've known for 50 years what it was going to take to implement autostereoscopy. I'm thinking that the adjacency of pixels really messes with the backlighting that essentially has to be at the same level for each view.