A Survey of 3DTV Displays: Techniques and Technologies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 17, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007 1647 A Survey of 3DTV Displays: Techniques and Technologies Philip Benzie, Member, IEEE, John Watson, Senior Member, IEEE, Phil Surman, Ismo Rakkolainen, Klaus Hopf, Hakan Urey, Member, IEEE, Ventseslav Sainov, and Christoph von Kopylow (Invited Paper) Abstract—The display is the last component in a chain of ac- both vertical and horizontal parallax and several viewers are able tivity from image acquisition, compression, coding transmission to see a 3-D image that exhibits no accommodation/convergence and reproduction of 3-D images through to the display itself. rivalry. However, the principal disadvantages of these displays There are various schemes for 3-D display taxonomy; the basic are: the images are generally transparent, the hardware tends categories adopted for this paper are: holography where the image to be complex and non-Lambertian intensity distribution cannot is produced by wavefront reconstruction, volumetric where the be displayed. Multiple image displays take many forms and it is image is produced within a volume of space and multiple image likely that one or more of these will provide the solution(s) for the displays where two or more images are seen across the viewing first generation of 3DTV displays. field. In an ideal world a stereoscopic display would produce Index Terms—Holography, TV, 3-D displays. images in real time that exhibit all the characteristics of the original scene. This would require the wavefront to be reproduced accurately, but currently this can only be achieved using holo- graphic techniques. Volumetric displays provide both vertical and I. INTRODUCTION horizontal parallax so that several viewers can see 3-D images that HE DISPLAY is the last, but not the least, significant as- exhibit no accommodation/convergence rivalry. Multiple image Tpect in the development of 3DTV and vision. As has been displays fall within three fundamental types: holoform in which outlined in other papers in this issue, there is a long chain of a large number of views give smooth motion parallax and hence a hologram-like appearance, multiview where a series of discrete activity from image acquisition, compression, coding transmis- views are presented across viewing field and binocular where only sion and reproduction of 3-D images before we get to the display two views are presented in regions that may occupy fixed positions itself. or follow viewers’ eye positions by employing head tracking. The concept of a 3-D display has a long and varied history Holography enables 3-D scenes to be encoded into an interference stretching back to the 3-D stereo photographs made in the late pattern, however, this places constraints on the display resolu- 19th century through 3-D movies in the 1950’s, holography tion necessary to reconstruct a scene. Although holography may ultimately offer the solution for 3DTV, the problem of capturing in the 1960’s and 1970’s and the 3-D computer graphics and naturally lit scenes will first have to be solved and holography virtual reality of today. The need for 3-D displays and vision is unlikely to provide a short-term solution due to limitations in grows in importance by the day, as does the number of applica- current enabling technologies. Liquid crystal, digital micromirror, tions such as scientific visualization and measurement, medical optically addressed liquid crystal and acoustooptic spatial light imaging, telepresence, gaming, as well as movies and televi- modulators (SLMs) have been employed as suitable spatial light sion itself. Many different methods of 3-D displays have mani- modulation devices in holography. Liquid crystal SLMs are gener- ally favored owing to the commercial availability of high fill factor, fest themselves over the last few decades, but none has yet been high resolution addressable devices. Volumetric displays provide able to capture the mass market. Much of development in 3-D imaging and displays of the latter end of the 20th century was spurred on by the invention of holography, and this was the Manuscript received March 8, 2007; revised June 15, 2007. This work was supported in part by EC within FP6 under Grant 511568 with the acronym catalyst which led to some of the significant advances in au- 3DTV. This paper was recommended by Guest Editor L. Onural. tostereoscopic and volumetric methods, whereas, advances in P. Benzie and J. Watson are with the School of Engineering at the Univerity techniques of virtual reality have helped to drive the computer of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]). P. Surman is with the Imaging and Displays Research Group (IDRG) at De and optics industries to produce better head mounted displays Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, U.K. and other 3-D displays. I. Rakkolainen is with Tampere University of Technology, Tampere 33101, Many approaches have been outlined from simple stereo Finland and also with Fogscreen Inc., Helsinki 00180, Finland. K. Hopf is with the Fraunhofer-Institute for Telecommunications—Heinrich- with anaglyph glasses through to full parallax holography. Hertz-Institut (HHI), Berlin 10587, Germany. What technology is applied in a given circumstance will largely H. Urey is with the Optical Microsystems Laboratory, Department of Elec- depend on the application itself. For example, it maybe that a trical Engineering, Koc University, Sariyer 34450, Istanbul. V. Sainov is with the Central Laboratory of Optical Storage and Processing full parallax, full color, interactive holographic display would of Information, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (CLOSPI-BAS), P.O. Box 95 be used in air traffic control but that an autostereo-display is Sofia, Bulgaria. more appropriate for low level computer aided drawing (CAD) C. von Kopylow is at Bremer Institute fuer Angewandte Strahltechnik GmbH, Bremen D-28559, Germany. applications. What is clear is that no single approach is likely Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSVT.2007.905377 to dominate and it will be the application which will determine 1051-8215/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE 1648 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 17, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2007 which technology is adopted. The form that such displays Binocular asymmetries, the difference between the left and would take is one aspect which needs considerable thought and right images of a stereo pair, cause viewing discomfort and limit is a major factor in consumer acceptance. Will the consumer the widespread use of stereo image based displays. The fac- want to see “Star Wars” images in a central table or will a flat tors that determine viewing comfort most strongly are vertical panel in the corner of a room suffice? disparity and crosstalk between the left and right images. Even small amounts of each can cause noticeable discomfort [5]. II. 3-D DISPLAYS AND ASSOCIATED PERCEPTION FACTORS There are many solutions offered to reduce the impact of The technologies currently being pursued for 3-D display can human factors on the acceptance of 3-D images, such as eye- be broadly divided into the following categories, although there tracking, adaptive optical systems [6], or physically moving the are various other methods of classification used and the termi- source-location in scanned beam displays, and controlling the nology is not always clear. amount disparity and keeping it within a “comfortably view- • Autostereoscopic displays (Sections III–V). able” range [7], [8]. For the presentation of a completely real- • Volumetric displays (Section VII). istic image, the angles subtended by objects in the image should • Holographic displays (Section VIII). be the same as in real life so that the image is orthoscopic, Strictly speaking, the term “autostereoscopic” could be ap- but this is difficult to achieve for small displays [9]. For op- plied to all of the first three categories above, since it describes timum viewing of TV, the viewing distance should be about those displays which create a stereoscopic image without the three times the picture height [10]. Another related phenom- need for any form of special glasses or other user-mounted de- enon is the “puppet theatre” effect, which manifests itself by vice. However, it is usual to restrict the term to cover displays objects in the image occupying a smaller region on the retina such as binocular (single user), multiview (multiple discrete than they would in a natural scene [11]. This is intrinsically stereoscopic views) and holoform systems where only multiple no more disturbing than viewing the miniaturized 2-D images 2-D images across the field of view are considered. Autostereo- that we currently seem to find acceptable. It can be reduced by systems are limited by the number of viewers and eye or head “toeing-in” the cameras so that their axes cross at the subject dis- tracking is usually needed. In holographic displays the image tance [12] and results in zero disparity. The brain, however, can is formed by wave-front reconstruction, and includes both real adapt to and correct for a wide range of ocular distortions and and virtual image reconstruction. In holography the 3-D scene is the question arises as to whether these effects are as important encoded into an interference pattern, this requires a high resolu- as is commonly thought. We will quite happily watch a distorted tion recording medium and replay medium which place severe 2-D image, without this really bothering us [13]. The improve- constraints on the display technology employed. Nonetheless, ment afforded by 3-D over monoscopic images has been widely holography can be deployed in reduced parallax (e.g., stereo- reported. Pastoor, for example, states that the overall psycho- holography or lenticular) systems, which relax some of the con- logical impact of a 3-D screen is equal to flat images twice their straints.