Autostereoscopy: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now,
and Where Are We Going?
Andy Davies
School of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS),
University of Southampton
aed1g10@ecs.soton.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Autostereoscopic, or ‘glassless-3D’, displays have been around
conceptually since the times of Euclid in 280 BC, but are now
emerging as a hyper-realistic, high-quality alternative to traditional
‘two-dimensional’ displays. However, multiple drawbacks are
preventing them from becoming commonplace and aiding the many
applications that could truly benefit from such technology, such as
science, medicine, and entertainment. This paper evaluates the
history, current state, and research of autostereoscopy and attempts
an informed prediction of when and where the technology will
begin to see greater use. This forecast helps shed light on previous
trends and gives insight for researchers and manufacturers looking
to invest time and money into autostereoscopy.
Keywords
Stereoscopy, Autostereoscopy, Parallax Barrier, Lenticular Array,
3DTV.
1. INTRODUCTION
Stereoscopy, or ‘3D display’, is any method used to deliver
seemingly three-dimensional imagery to a viewer such that they can
decipher depth information from two separate images delivered to
each eye and perceive the scene as if it was in real 3D space. At
present, the most common method of separating the views for each
eye is by use of headwear or glasses; common types of glasses are
the iconic red-cyan anaglyph glasses, static polarised filter glasses,
and active-shutter LCD glasses. The problem with these is that they
require the user to wear the glasses which is encumbering.
Autostereoscopy (glassless-3D) is an area of ongoing research that
uses alternative mechanisms to split the images and deliver them to
the user. A rich history precedes autostereoscopy; 3D displays have
appeared in various forms over the years but the technology has
never quite caught on, until now. Section 2 considers this history,
explores the science behind the techniques, and discusses systems
currently available on the market. There are still many limitations
refraining the technology from being fully accepted by areas that
could benefit; Section 3 explains the issues that exist as well as
evaluating current research projects that are helping to address the
problems. An analysis of present and future application domains is
also provided in order to predict where the technology is destined,
thus completing the journey through past, present, and future.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 A History of 3D – Where Have We Been?
The idea of stereoscopy has existed for a long time. Records of the
concept go back as far as 280 BC; Greek mathematician Euclid
realised that presenting a disparate image to each eye allowed the
viewer of the image pair to perceive depth from the disparity in the
two views [20]. Two millennia later, in 1903, the first ‘parallax
stereogram’ was patented by Frederic Eugene Ives [7, 20]. Within
his patent, he detailed a parallax barrier system not dissimilar to
those in use today, comprising a fine-grade, or fine-‘pitch’, plate of
vertical slits overlaid onto a specially prepared photograph; the
photo was a vertically interleaved image of a left and right view
such that, when combined with the slit plate, one can see the image
in ‘3D’. Ives’ system suffered a major limitation in that the user’s
viewing position was restricted to a single lateral position and
distance from the image, however, in 1918, Clarence Whitney
Kanolt proposed a simple extension to Ives’ approach by reducing
the pitch ratio of the slit array, thus greatly widening the field of
view [21]. This system is far more akin to modern parallax barrier
displays. Apart from some minor experimentation by Ives in 1928,
this method remained largely unaltered for many years to come.
A while later, in the 1960s, Rawson 1969 [18] began to experiment
with autostereoscopic display technology. He reflected that “as
technology advances, the interactions between [humans] and
machine[s] become more complex” and that “a reliable threedimensional [human]-machine interface could help alleviate some
of the complexity” but, until that point, such technology had
“eluded technologists.” The motivation behind such an interface,
he went on to explain, is that many professionals, such as
astronauts, air traffic controllers, and submarine commanders, work
with inherently three-dimensional data on a daily basis and, because
idealistic display technology had yet to come to fruition, they were
“forced to make unnatural compromises”.
Eric G Rawson developed a novel volumetric display that provided
functional (albeit limited) autostereoscopy [18]. By stretching a thin
sheet of Mylar coated in aluminium until taut and then applying
acoustic pressure from a speaker, driven by a 15-60 Hz sine wave,
the mirror oscillates continuously through varying depths
(displacement amplitude). Combining this reflective oscillator with,
say, a CRT displaying a tailored image sequence, it becomes
possible to view an image that exerts true volume, due to the effects
of persistence-of-vision. He did, however, highlight some severe
limitations of this technique, such as the generated images could
only ever be “phantom”/transparent images suggesting that these
displays may be most successful for applications where symbolic
data is used, as opposed to displaying photorealistic imagery.
2.2 The Techniques
Stereoscopy’s fundamental principle is that two different images,
usually of the same subject from slightly separated viewing angles,
are delivered to each eye individually, allowing the brain to
reconstruct a natural 3D scene the same way it would when viewing
the real world. Autostereoscopy is simply a medium for facilitating
this split-image delivery. To provide an autostereoscopic view, two
distinct images need to be visible from (at least) two distinct angles
and there are two primary methods of doing this: parallax barrier
and lenticular lens arrays [6]. Other very different approaches
include holographic [12], volumetric [17], and light-field (integral
imaging) displays [18, 21], but this paper will focus on the primary
two methods as they are the most common and practical [17].
2.2.1 Parallax Barrier
The parallax barrier, typically implemented using liquid crystal
(LC), owing to its ability to be easily ‘switched-off’ [9], is formed
of a series of vertical, interleaved opaque and transparent strips that
obscure specific portions of an LCD (liquid crystal display) screen
at a certain, precalculated distance in front of it [20]. As Figure 1
(a) illustrates, due to the effects caused by parallax1, each eye can
only see specific columns on the display such that neither eye can
see those the other eye can see [21]. By creating an image on the
screen, where alternate pixel columns are formed from two separate
views, each eye is delivered a reconstructed, single image; together,
these images allow the brain to perceive scene depth using the
disparity information. As a result of the repeated barrier pattern, the
scene can also be correctly viewed in a number of different lateral
positions, often called ‘repeated zones’, at the same distance from
the screen, providing some limited multi-user viewing [20].
(a)
public attitude towards the technology up until now. This is mostly
attributable to poor marketing that focused on the novelty element,
although it could be argued that we should fully accept it now that
quality is emphasised. Due to recent advances in CGI (computergenerated imagery) and other special effects, 3D viewing has
matured from a gimmick into a high-quality, natural viewing
experience. The main turning point which reawakened 3D was
James Cameron’s 2009 blockbuster Avatar 2, where the audience
were taken on an ultra-realistic trip to a different world and
immersed in extraordinary visuals.
So with the new high-grade stereoscopic technology and content
being created, what autostereoscopic devices are currently
available? In 2011, Nintendo released the world’s first autostereo
gaming system: the Nintendo 3DS [19] (Figure 2). As a result of
the glasses-free 3D, this system provided a uniquely immersive, yet
convenient, gaming experience, the likes of which had never been
seen before. Back in 2002 we saw the first feature phone to sport an
autostereoscopic display – the Sharp Mova SH251iS [13]. For the
remainder of the decade, developments in the area of 3D-capable
mobile phones were largely dormant. In summer 2011, the first
modern smartphones, such as the LG Optimus 3D [15] and HTC
Evo 3D, were released featuring more mature parallax barrier
displays designed for mobile gaming and stereo movie watching.
(b)
Figure 1. Images (a) and (b) are diagrams demonstrating the
basic operation of parallax barrier and lenticular array
methods respectively. Adapted from [9].
A simple extension to the stereoscopic parallax barrier approach is
the parallax panoramagram which provides automultiscopy (two or
more simultaneous views). Rather than just two images being
interspersed, any number can be displayed meaning that multiple
views can be seen in the various horizontal positions where the
‘repeated zones’ would usually exist [17, 20]. A novel use for this
effect is to display more than two different angles of the same scene
(possibly rotating or moving sideways) and, by traversing the
different views, the user can ‘look-around’ the scene [16].
2.2.2 Lenticular Array
Though quite different in implementation (utilising light refraction
instead of the effects of parallax), a lenticular lens sheet is the
functional equivalent of a parallax barrier, separating interwoven
pixel strips to be observed from differing angles [16, 20]. A
lenticular lens is constructed as an array of cylindrical lenses into a
planar sheet that can then be mounted to an LCD display for
autostereoscopic viewing [17, 20]. The differences in mechanics,
and similarities in purpose and function, between the barrier and
lenticular approach can be seen in Figure 1.
2.3 Current Commercial Systems – Where Are
We Now?
For a technology with such a long history, autostereoscopy, and
indeed 3D as a whole, has not yet found its way into general
acceptance. In the last century there have been many failed attempts
to introduce 3D as ‘the next big thing’ in television and movies, but
it “has [always] been seen [by the majority to be] a gimmick more
than something that truly enhances the watching experience” [14].
The cliché “looks like it’s coming right at me!” nicely sums up the
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/
Figure 2. The Nintendo 3DS, released in February 2011. The
top screen is an 800 × 240 pixel LCD display with an active
parallax barrier, controlled by the variable slider to the right
of the screen [19]. Taken from [1].
A commonality between these available devices is that they are all
primarily personal/single-user. Autostereoscopic TVs and monitors
exist but they are very expensive; a search using Google Shopping
reveals that, from the start of January 2014, the price of a glassesfree 3DTV can typically cost anywhere in the range of £2,000£30,000. The reason so many devices on the market are single-user
is because it is cheaper and simpler to implement effectively for just
one user; a user can position the screen perfectly so that they are in
the ‘sweet spot’ and not in the repeated static interference regions.
Static parallax creates multiple repeated zones from where the
image can be correctly viewed but it is not possible, as a user, to
specify where these regions will fall, meaning that multiple users
are forced to sit in these specific locations. It could be because of
these reasons that 3D and autostereoscopy have not yet found their
way into commonplace domestic appliances. In the next section,
this and other current limitations are discussed in greater detail.
3. THE RESEARCH
3.1 Issues with Current Methods
3.1.1 Brightness Efficiency
Arguably the biggest issue with the parallax barrier approach is also
the most obvious. It works by blocking some of the light to each eye
so that each sees only the intended information; this inevitably
means some of the light is wasted [21] by hitting the LC strips, so
much so that the brightness efficiency is reduced to 22.4% [3, 7]. In
this situation, the design engineer either accepts the severe loss in
brightness or, more often, they will increase the brightness output
of the display to compensate for light lost to the barrier. This
evidently consumes more power which is particularly disastrous for
mobile devices where battery life is already limited. This efficiency
problem is almost non-existent for lenticular arrays as nearly all the
light is refracted towards the user, so little light output is wasted.
3.1.2 Display Resolution
Another obvious effect, applicable to any autostereoscopic device
is as follows: the pixel columns alternate between views, since they
share the same LCD display panel, sending half of the columns to
each eye, thus, the display resolution is effectively halved [5, 12,
15, 17]. Some devices come equipped with non-standard display
panels, such as on the Nintendo 3DS (Figure 2) which has twice the
usual horizontal resolution to compensate for the drop in detail [17].
3.1.3 Crosstalk
Ideally, for any stereoscopic system, the right eye should not see
any information intended for the left eye and vice versa [6], but alas,
it is impossible in practice to completely eliminate this interference
between adjacent views in autostereoscopic systems. It is a
prominent research goal to reduce this crosstalk (‘ghosting’ [15])
effect. Unavoidable human movement when viewing, limits of
manufacturing accuracy, unwanted diffraction [16], and many other
factors add to this undesirable channel bleed. Another unfortunate
side-effect paired with the standard approaches is that in between
the repeating viewing ‘sweet spots’ are repeating zones of
discontinuity [8] where there is severe overlapping of the two
views, meaning each eye sees a significant amount of information
destined for the other eye, which is seriously jarring for the user.
Consequently, the user generally has to remain fairly motionless in
a single spot for the viewing experience to be genuine. One perhaps
not so obvious hindrance exclusive to barrier methods is that as the
pitch of the transparent sections approach the wavelength of the
lowest-frequency visible light emitted from the display, unwanted
diffraction begins to occur [21]. This alters the angle at which the
light escapes the barrier, increasing crosstalk further.
3.1.4 Moiré Patterns
Both parallax barrier and lenticular array techniques fall victim to
Moiré patterns3 [12] due to the two overlapping planes of repeated
patterns interfering with each other: the vertical LC barrier slits and
the pixel grid [17, 20]. These patterns are fundamentally tricky to
avoid because of the nature of these methods as they both utilise
similar repeating patterns on top of a grid display structure.
3.1.5 Multi-user Viewing
The most debilitating element deterring consumers from 3DTV is
the current lack of an effective multi-user autostereoscopy system
that does not burden the user in any way. Kooima et al. 2010 [8]
state in their research that there are a few multi-user and multichannel systems in existence in the market but that “before [they]
will find broader use, they must be scaled up to provide wider
comfortable viewing areas for larger groups of people”.
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern
3.1.6 Subjective Physiological Problems
For all the benefits stereoscopy brings, many struggle to watch the
displays for prolonged time periods because it causes discomfort
and can require more effort than standard 2D [2]. Obrist et al. 2012
[14], found 12% of the 625 children in their study said watching
3DTV was “exhausting”, 12% said it demanded a “strong need to
focus”, and 4% even described it as “unpleasant”. People often
report suffering headaches from sustained viewing [22], so if the
technology is to find its way into consumer acceptance, it must first
shed the distressing side-effects that deter users from 3D.
3.2 Research into New Methods
There is much active research on autostereoscopy: some research
efforts aim to directly combat the issues detailed in Section 3.1;
others propose entirely new, novel methods. Not all improvements
are compatible with all others but each new development is a step
closer to the goal of a truly unencumbering stereoscopic system.
3.2.1 Varrier
In the mid-noughties emerged a revolutionary VR (virtual reality)
platform that set a new standard for what autostereoscopy research
should achieve. Sandin et al. 2005 [20] developed the Varrier™
system out of necessity for the VR field. It is a large, user-tracking,
high-resolution, parallax barrier, tiled display which does not
require the wearing of any additional equipment by the viewer.
Interestingly, for such a revolutionary autostereoscopy product, the
authors heavily focus on the device as a VR tool, almost as if they
do not quite recognise the significance of their contribution to the
field. Indeed, the following year, the research team released a paper
debuting their follow-up product – the ‘Personal Varrier’ [17] –
where the field of interest had shifted more to autostereoscopy,
suggesting they had identified the importance their work has for the
field in general. Both systems were motivated by the need for highquality scientific visualisation in order to make sense of complex
data in real-time. Varrier ‘mark I’ achieved this to a degree “but its
size, complexity, and cost [made] it difficult and expensive to
transport to conferences” and the like. As a solution, Personal
Varrier was developed as a small form factor (single panel),
condensed version, with powerful user-tracking of its own, making
it more suited for personal desk use. The principal importance of
this body of work is that it highlights the potential for user-tracking
in autostereoscopic displays as it largely removes the issue of
crosstalk and repeating confusion zones by redirecting the views as
the user moves in space, in real-time, so that they theoretically
cannot enter dead space and see information in the wrong eyes.
3.2.2 Sensor-based Software Adjustment for Mobile
In the realm of research that directly benefits consumers, Paprocki
et al. 2012 [15] innovatively utilise smartphones’ inbuilt sensors,
namely the gyroscope and accelerometer, to determine the current
pitch (forward/backward tilt angle) of the screen then use software
to shift pixel columns to compensate for pitch change – minimising
disruption to viewing when playing games that require moving the
phone. This method works because, as the wrong pixel columns
become visible when viewing from the wrong angle, software can
shift the displayed columns so that the correct ones are always
visible. It is a simple, practical, and effective improvement that can
easily be implemented on existing devices, making it difficult for
the user’s gaze to enter the troublesome repeating crosstalk zones.
3.2.3 Diffractive Optical Elements
Recall in Section 3.1.3, Sexton 1992 [21] explains the occurrence of
unwanted diffraction as the pitch of the parallax barrier approaches
the light’s wavelength; while this was previously described as an
issue, Chen et al. 2010 [4] embrace it. They proposed a ‘diffractive
optical element’ (DOE) [3, 6] which is, in essence, a series of very
fine-pitch slits for each sub-pixel of the display panel so that the
light is diffracted (‘bent’) towards each eye. Using this method,
many of the drawbacks of parallax barrier and lenticular arrays are
avoided. Since each sub-pixel displays a different colour of light
(red, green, blue), they emit different light wavelengths thus each
colour requires a different pitch of ‘blazed grating’, as Chen et al.
2012 [3] call it, so that the diffraction angles are as closely matched
as possible. On average, this process is 1.68-2.47 times more
efficient than the classic parallax barrier approach [3], meaning
much more of the emitted light is actually received by the eye.
Crosstalk between views is a mere 5% (Deng et al. 2013 [6]) – a
vast improvement on the previous methods. DOEs show great
promise for high-fidelity autostereoscopy with fewer compromises.
3.2.4 Random Hole Display
A radical twist on barrier autostereoscopy is random hole display
(RHD). Where a standard parallax barrier consists of an array of
vertical slits in order to create parallax, as the name would suggest
RHD features a barrier sheet of random (Poisson disk distribution4)
holes to allow for ‘see-through’ to the LCD panel behind it [12].
This design is unique in that it eradicates the repeating crosstalk
zones and Moiré patterns, replacing them with less disagreeable
high-frequency noise. While still in its infancy, it is an innovative,
alternate method that can make yet one more astonishing claim: it
is capable of presenting multiple views to arbitrary, user-specifiable
locations simultaneously – a huge breakthrough that could, one day,
lead to configurable multi-user autostereoscopy (ideal for 3DTVs).
Figure 3 shows the system in action with two pairs of stereo views
simultaneously directed to two users at different viewing distances.
and advertisement boards, where the user’s interest will be grabbed
for a short period requiring little effort on their part (since they are
usually already moving around) to align themselves to a good
viewing position, before swiftly moving on after the message has
been communicated. Conversely, this means they are not always
appropriate for other uses (lecture theatres, home use, etc.), owing
to the viewing positions often being immovable. It is foreseeable
that these tiled displays will be used in their current form within the
next 10 years; they are already fairly mature and research is ongoing
into improving the experience by utilising user tracking [8].
3.3.2
Science and Medicine
Christopher et al. 2013 [5] write that recent advances to 3D display
technology have allowed for it to be used in surgical operating
rooms, and highlight how it is aiding neurosurgery by displaying a
real-time stereo video feed from a 3D camera for image guided
surgery (IGS). A secondary benefit is for training medical students
who will perform surgery in future [5]. Several studies, including
Leung et al. 2012 [10], have shown that the use of 3D imagery in
education (Section 3.3.3) greatly enhances the learning experience
and overall information retention. It is not solely neurosurgery that
has been reported to benefit; ophthalmology applications as well as
liver, heart, and skull surgery have all used autostereo IGS in recent
times [5]. Other scientific fields, such as cartography [11], have also
reported benefitting. Theoretically, there is no reason why any form
of scientific research could not gain from these technological aids;
scientists and medics are generally less stubborn than consumers to
accept new technologies and methods if they are shown to improve
a process and ultimately help more people. Autostereoscopy is only
going to grow in use, acceptance, and further research, as it shows
a clear benefit to many fields. Current limitations are those which
apply to all applications, where the display resolution is reduced
and depth can sometimes be perceivably “too shallow” [5].
3.3.3 Education
Figure 3. Images (a)-(d) show four simultaneous views of the
RHD. While there is significant interference between views,
the unique content of each is clearly seen. Taken from [12].
3.3 Future Application Domains – Where Are
We Going?
3.3.1 A Public Setting
Kooima et al. 2010 [8] draw our attention to the potential value of
autostereoscopy in a public context, with various use cases that
would benefit. The only multi-viewer, multi-channel displays that
currently exist on the market are limited by their small size. The
solution given allows for many of these “off-the-shelf” displays to
be combined to create large, scalable displays that provide more
comfortable viewing for bigger audiences. In order to achieve the
same immersive experience as before, but with an array of lenticular
displays, several software techniques are used to bring the cluster
into display union; on their own, they behave as individual displays,
with their own independent fields of view (FOVs). To view them as
a cohesive unit that behaves as one, their FOVs “must be brought
into alignment” and converge to the same viewing locations “at the
plane of focus”. This calibration process means that the repeated
crosstalk zones still exist but they are consistent across all displays,
so this is outweighed by the increased number of ‘good’ viewing
zones, making it more multi-user friendly. These kinds of display
systems are appropriate for use in galleries, museums, exhibitions,
4
In the Poisson disk distribution, random points have a minimum
separation distance from each other [12].
In recent years, research has been published as to the benefits of
using stereo imagery in academia, but wearing two sets of glasses
was an issue; Leung et al. 2012 [10] conducted a case study using
autostereoscopic displays in a Hong Kong primary school, where
many students require prescription glasses, and found that, with
glassless-3D learning material, the students were generally better
behaved, concentrated a lot more, and learnt new concepts quicker
because they were more engaged and group discussion flowed
better as a result of being able to keep proper eye contact.
Figure 4. Primary school students’ drawings of the T4
bacteriophage from memory. Only 17 out of 25 in the 2D class
could recall the image (left) but all those in the 3D class were
able to correctly recall it (right). Adapted from [10].
The children of two classes, shown the same material in 2D and 3D
respectively, were asked to recall and draw the T4 bacteriophage
shown to them (Figure 4). Only 68% of the 2D class were able to
remember the image correctly but all of the 3D class recalled it and
in much greater detail [10]. Uptake of new technologies in the
education sector is often tentative and slow, but are ultimately
embraced after time if shown to improve learning; this study is
indicative of successful implementation. These systems will
predictably begin appearing following a similar trend to systems in
the public domain. Schools generally have smaller budgets than
public bodies, so the uptake will be slower but should gain traction
when autostereoscopy becomes more affordable.
hesitant to produce enough content, leading to some 3D channels
ceasing broadcasting. Research into multi-user viewing has shown
promise for the future, where viewing locations can be arbitrarily
allocated [12], especially if this can, one day, be combined with
head-tracking systems.
3.3.4 Home Entertainment
The future of consumer 3D technology is unclear and could go
many ways, but based on the evidence explored, a ‘golden era’ of
stereoscopy is yet to come and it could be from 5, “up to ten or
twenty” [14] years from now. All we know is that the technology
has remained tenacious throughout the years (appearing in waves
of partial acceptance followed by subsequent obscurity), research is
ongoing, and people continue to want high-quality television and
programming, even if 3D as a format temporarily fades from the
limelight. If such an era were to arrive, 3D media’s total acceptance
in the home as the de facto standard could cause a surge in content
production giving a healthy boost to the 3D movie industry, as well
as indirectly increasing public awareness and corporate sponsorship
for research products, leading to growth in other domains also.
While 3D has seen limited adoption in the household, the most
prolific industry that consumers are exposed to is the film industry.
However, “3D is expected to transition from cinema to personal
consumer electronics” a lot more in the coming years [14]. TV is
the focal point of many domestic/family/group activities and thus
3DTV is perhaps the most crucial area in which success will be
determined. Obrist et al. 2012 [14] propose the notion that children
are the key to breaking the acceptance barrier in homes, as they are
undeniably a large demographic of electronics users, and go as far
as to refer to them as “change agents”. While they do not consider
other major factors, they do put forward some interesting points
worth considering. In their study of over 600 children they found
that three-quarters of them would like to watch 3DTV at home, the
older ones describing it as “more realistic” compared to 2D.
However, the study is somewhat limited in that it only considers the
youth demographic; children may be heavy electronics users –
indeed their bedrooms “contain the second highest number of
media in the home just after the living room” – but it is their
parents/carers that will be purchasing the technology. The children
may be able to superficially influence the buying decisions but the
adults’ decision will ultimately be based on whether they think it is
a worthwhile investment. Although, by the time autostereoscopy is
more readily available, said children may have already grown up to
be purchasing consumers themselves and thus could potentially be
looking to buy such technology. The study also only considers short
viewing sessions hence it does not say much for people wanting to
watch 3D at home for longer time periods, which is a commonplace
activity, so the study’s findings should be taken with just a pinch of
salt when inferring predictions about future adoption.
Lee et al 2007 [9] interestingly observed that 3DTVs must be
convertible between 2D and 3D ‘modes’ in order to sufficiently
penetrate the display market – that they must be first and foremost
marketed as high-quality 2D TV sets but with the added ability to
also display 3D content. Very recently, due to the somewhat halfhearted consumer uptake of 3DTV, other display technologies, for
instance 4K, have taken the limelight as the pioneering formats, as
illustrated by this year’s line-up of TVs and monitors at the
Consumer Electronics Show5 (CES) where 3D already seems
largely forgotten. Arguably the greatest factor delaying the uptake
of 3DTV is that multi-user autostereoscopic viewing is still poorly
supported, and in some ways is more restrictive than needing to
wear 3D glasses. Other hindering factors are the headaches and
discomfort experienced by some viewers (Section 3.1.6), and that
autostereoscopic TV sets are currently far too expensive for the
average consumer (Section 2.3) meaning that options are generally
limited to 3DTVs that rely on cumbersome glasses for delivery.
Obrist et al. 2012 [14] remind us that people tend not to buy new
technical equipment if their current pieces are still working – thus
3DTVs are having to compete with existing, operational sets in the
home, leading to tentative adoption and very slow uptake in market
share. They also noted that the film industry was in a ‘chicken-andegg’ situation where it was not known whether the content should
come first or the projectors; this is currently the situation for 3DTV.
It is in a state of limbo where content providers have been too
5
http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=ces+2014+tv
3.3.5 The Motion Picture Industry
Recent advances in special effects and CGI have pushed 3D into
mainstream cinema [14]. Children and regular moviegoers are a
large portion of the revenue generated in ticket sales. In Obrist et
al. 2012, 95% of children said they ‘liked’ 3D, so young people are
likely to choose a movie in 3D at the cinema – especially since they
cannot afford 3DTVs for themselves – one of the main reasons for
3D movies being offered alongside many of their ‘traditional’ 2D
counterparts. 3D6 animated movies such as Pixar’s Toy Story 3
have helped this adoption further. Since the release of Avatar in
2009, the number of films available to watch in 3D has increased
threefold. As cinemas now possess the high-production content,
technology, and interest needed to succeed in hosting 3D films as a
profitable venture, it is likely that this trend will continue to grow,
approaching (though not exceeding due to the viewing restrictions
from Section 3.1) the levels of production for 2D films.
3.3.6 Future Predictions
The future direction of each application domain is visualised in
Figure 5. The general trend is that most fields will tentatively adopt
stereoscopy and autostereoscopy over the next few decades
followed by another wave of acceptance in-line with technological
advancements and new, exciting content pushing towards a new
paradigm where autostereoscopy is the default display technology.
Figure 5. Forecasted adoption/use of stereoscopy and
autostereoscopy with time. Please note, the chart is not
necessarily to scale and past trends are an approximation
informed by qualitative evidence presented in this paper.
6
‘3D’ in this sense refers to the animations occupying virtual threedimensional space instead of traditional ‘flat’ 2D animations, as
opposed to viewing stereoscopically.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has detailed autostereoscopy’s history, analysed its
current state, and has explored where it could go in future. How the
two primary image delivery methods, parallax barrier and lenticular
arrays, function, and the commercial systems available today have
been discussed, but there are many limitations. Current research is
beginning to overcome a lot of these issues using novel, new image
delivery mechanisms. Many application domains are set to benefit
from autostereoscopy, offering improvements over 2D and standard
stereoscopic viewing, with some areas already embracing the
technology. 3DTV and the film industry have seen fluctuation in
public acceptance over the years – 3DTV, in particular, is starting
to lose ‘vogue’ again, but this downwards trend should rescind in
about 20 years and the technology should become ubiquitous. In
summary, we are not quite there yet but autostereoscopy will surely
supersede 2D as the accepted format within the next half-century.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Amos, E. 2010. A Nintendo 3DS in Aqua Blue, Photo Taken
During the 3DS Launch Event in NYC. Wikimedia
Commons. Retrieved January 9, 2014 from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nintendo-3DSAquaOpen.jpg
[2] Cellatoglu, A. and Balasubramanian, K. 2013.
Autostereoscopic Imaging Techniques for 3D TV: Proposals
for Improvements. Journal of Display Technology. 9, 8
(August. 2013), 666-672.
[3] Chen, C., Deng, Q., Lin, B., and Hung, W. 2012. Quartzblazed Grating Applied on Autostereoscopic Display.
Journal of Display Technology. 8, 8 (August. 2012), 433438.
[4] Chen, C., Tang, J., and Wu, W. 2010. Fabrication of the
Novel Multi-D-shape Fiber Sensor by Femtosecond Laser
Machining with the Diffractive Optical Element. In
Proceedings of the Symposium on Design, Test, Integration,
and Packaging of MEMS/MOEMS (Seville, Spain, May 5 –
7, 2010). DTIP ’10. EDA Publishing Association, Grenoble,
France, 382-286.
[5] Christopher, L., William, A., and Cohen-Gadol, A. 2013.
Future Directions in 3-dimensional Imaging and
Neurosurgery: Stereoscopy and Autostereoscopy.
Neurosurgery. 72, suppl. 1 (January. 2013), 131-138.
[6] Deng, Q., Su, W., Chen, C., Lin, B., and Ho, H. 2013. Full
Color Image Splitter Based on Holographic Optical Elements
for Stereogram Application. Journal of Display Technology.
9, 8 (August. 2013), 607-612.
[7] Ives, F. E. 1903. U.S. Patent Number 725,567.
[8] Kooima, R., Prudhomme, A., Schulze, J., Sandin, D., and
DeFanti, T. 2010. A Multi-viewer Tiled Autostereoscopic
Virtual Reality Display. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM
Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
(Hum Hong, Hong Kong, November 22 – 24, 2010). VRST
’10. ACM, New York City, USA, 171-174.
[9] Lee, B., Choi, H., Kim, J., Kim, Y., and Cho, S. 2007. Status
and Prospects of Autostereoscopic 3D Display Technologies.
In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the IEEE
Lasers and Electro-optics Society (Lake Buena Vista, USA,
October 21 – 25, 2007). LEOS ’07. IEEE LEOS, Piscataway,
USA, 354-355.
[10] Leung, H., Lee, H., Mark, K., and Lui, K. M. 2012.
Unlocking the Secret of 3D Content for Education. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (Hum
Hong, Hong Kong, August 20 – 23, 2012). TALE ’12. IEEE,
New York City, USA, (W1C) 13-15.
[11] Moellering, H. 2012. Perspectives on 3-D Visualization of
Geodata and Future Prospects. In True-3D in Cartography:
Autostereoscopic and Solid Visualisation of Geodata, M.
Buchroithner, Ed. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and
Cartography series. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1-22.
[12] Nashel, A. and Fuchs, H. 2009. Random Hole Display: A
Non-uniform Barrier Autostereoscopic Display. In
Proceedings of the 3DTV Conference: The True Vision –
Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (Potsdam,
Germany, May 4 – 6, 2009). 3DTV-Con ’09. IEEE, New
York City, USA, 1-4.
[13] Norris, A. 2002. The Return of 3D. The Guardian. Retrieved
January 9, 2014 from
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2002/dec/06/mobile
phones.ashleynorris
[14] Obrist, M., Wurhofer, D., Gärtner, M., Förster, F., and
Tscheligi, M. 2012. Exploring Children’s 3DTV Experience.
In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on
Interactive TV and Video (Berlin, Germany, July 4 – 6,
2012). EuroITV ’12. ACM, New York City, USA, 125-134.
[15] Paprocki, M., Krog, K., Kristoffersen, M. B., and Kraus, M.
2012. Software-based Adjustment of Mobile
Autostereoscopic Graphics Using Static Parallax Barriers. In
Proceedings of the International Working Conference on
Advanced Visual Interfaces (Capri, Italy, May 22 – 26,
2012). AVI ’12. ACM, New York City, USA, 295-298.
[16] Park, D., Kim, K., Lee, C., Son, J., and Lee, Y. 1995.
Lenticular Stereoscopic Imaging and Displaying Techniques
with No Special Glasses. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Image Processing (Washington, D.C., USA,
October 23 – 26, 1995). ICIP ’95. IEEE CS, Washington,
D.C., USA, 137-140 vol. 3.
[17] Peterka, T., Sandin, D., Ge, J., Girado, J., Kooima, R., Leigh,
J., Johnson, A., Thiebaux, M., and DeFanti, T. 2006. Personal
Varrier: Autostereoscopic Virtual Reality Display for
Distributed Scientific Visualization. Future Generation
Computer Systems. 22, 8 (October. 2006), 976-983.
[18] Rawson, E. 1969. Vibrating Varifocal Mirrors for 3-D
Imaging. IEEE Spectrum. 6, 9 (September. 1969), 37-43.
[19] Ross, D. (Ed) 2011. The Teardown: The Nintendo 3DS
Games Console. Engineering & Technology. 6, 8
(September. 2011), 94-95.
[20] Sandin, D., Margolis, T., Ge, J., Girado, J., Peterka, T., and
DeFanti, T. 2005. The Varrier™ Autostereoscopic Virtual
Reality System. In Proceedings of the 32nd International
Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques (Los Angeles, USA, July 31 – August 4, 2005).
SIGGRAPH ’05. ACM, New York City, USA, 894-903.
[21] Sexton, I. 1992. Parallax Barrier Display Systems. In
Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium on Stereoscopic
Television (London, United Kingdom, October 15, 1992).
IEE Colloquium on Stereoscopic Television. IEE, London,
United Kingdom, (5/) 1-5.
[22] Williams, C. 2011. 3D Films, TV and Video Games ‘Cause
Nausea and Headaches’. The Telegraph. Retrieved January 9,
2014 from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8272497/3D-filmsTV-and-video-games-cause-nausea-and-headaches.html