Killiana1a said:
|
This doesn't make sense. Like, at all.
a) Nintendo did not invent parallax occulsion based displays. They are merely early adopters, and they can be early adopters because they only needed an extremely small display on a handheld console and that's the only size where the tech makes economic sense right now and where the existence of a single good direction of observation is not an issue.
b) What whould "try to do it with their next console" mean? That they would start making and selling TVs when this tech matures? I can't really see that.
On the other hand Sony among others will build such TVs - such panels are being demod by various builders in bigger sizes. Various problems have to be solved first though, such as there being a good enough number of hot spots from where you can watch the screen and see a correct image. And guess what? Once such a TV exists, you will be able to connect your PS3 or 360 or PC to it and run any of the current and future 3D-enabled games.
c) There's no "big question", just ignorance on the subject. The only way you can have 3D out of a normal TV screen is by using the anaglyph technique (colored glasses). 3D means having your eyes receiving two different images, thus you have to separate them temporally (shutter glasses), by polarization (polaroid filter glasses) or by angle (e.g. the parallax occulsion or lenticular systems). The console generates the two images, it does not care about how the display delivers it, and it can't magically change how the display can deliver light to your eyes just because it's able to render two images instead of one.