> With the DuMont Duoscopic, two different channels were broadcast on a single screen. To the naked eye, the images appeared superimposed on one another. But a viewer who wore polarized glasses or looked at the screen through a polarized panel saw just one of the images.
So it would have been possible for two TV stations to team up and do a 3-D simulcast!
And it was built in 1954, the same year that Hitchcock's 3-D movie "Dial M for Murder" came out!
I highly doubt such a thing ever happened, but it would have been cool if it did.
That was completely stupid; I can't think of a single advantage that has over just buying two TVs.
- reliablity: one TV breaks, you have a defective unit, instead of one good unit and one bad unit.
- reliability: if there are any shared components (like power transformer, rectifier), you have zero TVs when they blow.
- space: two TVs are easier to fit into a room than one combined behemoth.
- weight: easier to transport two.
- placement: multiple people wanting to watch a different program don't necessarily want to hear the audio of the other program or have it in their field of vision.
- choice: choose any two TVs on the market, versus one of a handful of specialized two-in-one units. Maybe you want one larger one and one smaller one, etc.
That was not just Sony SimulView, the whole late stage of the 100/120 Hz 3D-TV hype lived on that promise before everything went back to 60hz for another 5 years.
Had an LG that even came with those light passive polarizers tech Dual Play glasses that were never used.
Ultimately that novelty came probably too early to mature to acceptable results on 1080p sources and edge-lit LED 1080p panels of that era, if it was ever meant to be.
Might be wortwhile to reintroduce them on 4k with sunlight challenging mini-LEDs as a differentiator vs less brighter OLEDs for more than acceptable results at 3840x1080 and consoles being able to push out that kind of resolution.
Currently console support for splitscreen multiplayer seems to be a dying art over the last decade. But you could still multiplex 2 sources into the same screen though.
Then again there is no replacement for Kinect-like tech either either in current consumer market offerings, I would still take that over most VR experiences in terms of setup/social friction and local/couch coop.
There is something fascinating about people from history who had an idea to do something which is now just normal, but the technology just wasn't there (and people probably thought they were mad).
I guess that's why I enjoy reading Hacker News comments
You're both right. The initial prototype with essentially 2 separate side-by-side TVs was from 1945. But the more interesting (IMO) approach was the 1954 "Duoscopic" version that showed 2 programs on the same screen, and each viewer looked through a polarized panel (and had their own headphones) to view their particular program: https://www.earlytelevision.org/pdf/dumont_duoscopic_brochur...
Occasionally I put on multiple programs. Movies in one room, an audio book in another, music in another, etc. Your mind drifts to what is interesting. Lights strobing. Working on 5 different home projects in parallel. It's a vibe.
adrianmonk – 56 minutes ago
So it would have been possible for two TV stations to team up and do a 3-D simulcast!
And it was built in 1954, the same year that Hitchcock's 3-D movie "Dial M for Murder" came out!
I highly doubt such a thing ever happened, but it would have been cool if it did.
kazinator – 2 hours ago
- reliablity: one TV breaks, you have a defective unit, instead of one good unit and one bad unit.
- reliability: if there are any shared components (like power transformer, rectifier), you have zero TVs when they blow.
- space: two TVs are easier to fit into a room than one combined behemoth.
- weight: easier to transport two.
- placement: multiple people wanting to watch a different program don't necessarily want to hear the audio of the other program or have it in their field of vision.
- choice: choose any two TVs on the market, versus one of a handful of specialized two-in-one units. Maybe you want one larger one and one smaller one, etc.
- price, quality: strongly related to choice.
qingcharles – 5 hours ago
https://www.co-optimus.com/article/6221/e3-2011-eyes-on-the-...
mxfh – 4 hours ago
Had an LG that even came with those light passive polarizers tech Dual Play glasses that were never used.
Ultimately that novelty came probably too early to mature to acceptable results on 1080p sources and edge-lit LED 1080p panels of that era, if it was ever meant to be.
Might be wortwhile to reintroduce them on 4k with sunlight challenging mini-LEDs as a differentiator vs less brighter OLEDs for more than acceptable results at 3840x1080 and consoles being able to push out that kind of resolution.
Currently console support for splitscreen multiplayer seems to be a dying art over the last decade. But you could still multiplex 2 sources into the same screen though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzn9g3eMydo
Then again there is no replacement for Kinect-like tech either either in current consumer market offerings, I would still take that over most VR experiences in terms of setup/social friction and local/couch coop.
jmkni – 5 hours ago
I guess that's why I enjoy reading Hacker News comments
detourdog – 3 hours ago
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/History/Tube...
fracus – 6 hours ago
bryanlarsen – 5 hours ago
arlia – yesterday
pseudolus – yesterday
hn_throwaway_99 – 8 hours ago
SoftTalker – 7 hours ago
seeknotfind – 6 hours ago