Aurelito

His middle name is Hussein.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Aurelito So are you trying to create as many lock-worthy topics as possible?

How is this thread infringing the rules? Explain please.

@CptBedlam said:

@Aurelito: No, autostereoscopic 3D is regular 3D. Without 3D glasses, the image is split by the screen (left eye sees pixel 1,3,5... ; right eye sees pixel 2,4,6 ...) ... one image for each eye but you have to be positioned at a certain angle and distance. What companies are working on for years now is increasing the amount of possible viewing angles.

Why would they? God I hate consumerism. They can work on better 3D glasses. LG has sweet polarized ones and Samsung has super shutter ones, and they have been managing the price lately. This TV will crash the 3D market because it'll obviously be very, very more expensive.

@WilltheMagicAsian said:

Just as bad as regular 3D with the added bonus of needing to be at a certain angle to even see the 3D. I really doubt it will track well enough and even so, how does it perform with multiple faces?

autostereoscopy means putting a narrow filter consisting a few lenses in front of the viewer's eye. I doubt it'll even work like regular 3D. See 3D pictures have two side-by-side frames, and one eyes must see each one separately to achieve the effect. Without glasses, 3D projection is not actually 3D, it's just adding fake depth to the screen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/17313487

What do you guys think?

Get a dirt bike. Girls love dirt bikes.

I like it the way it is. God knows how many evil science corporations exist in the HL universe. They cant interconnect all of them.

Gallery

Note: these pictures are to be seen with red/cyan glasses, not red/blue glasses.

@Winternet said:

I open 4chan and go "Oh, right. There is more disturbed people than me" and go back to what I was doing.

I start half of those threads.

Is that because console networks don't allow Battle.net?