I guess that's why I enjoy reading Hacker News comments
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/History/Tube...
https://www.co-optimus.com/article/6221/e3-2011-eyes-on-the-...
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.
- 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.
- space: one very large is smaller than two large tvs. (TV's were quite big.)
- weight: given all the wood and accessories, a big multi TV is far lighter than both combined
- placement: the room doesn't have to be setup to have two different viewing spots. Folks can look in the same direction.
- placement: "Separate audio could be played with or without earpieces," so sound can work fine even for multiple viewers
- choice: of this caught on & was optimized, there would have been lots of choices about which polarized tv you wanted to buy.
- quality: also strongly related to adoption.
Being completely negative is oh so often being completely stupid.
I absolutely can see a desire and want for a multi- iew screen like this, then, and now.
Some TVs were big, but small TVs existed also. E.g search for 1948 Sentinel 7" TV. Actually, it took a while for wide fan-out CRT's to be developed for the really large CRT screens. Early CRT's were long and narrow, like the tubes in oscilloscopes.
If we combine two TV boxes into one, how much weight do we save? A rectangular box has 6 faces. We lose only one face from each box to combine them together, and two legs (though the combination might need slightly bigger legs). If there are some shared power supply components that cuts weight; perhaps the power transformer and whatnot do not have to be 2X heavier.
Say the result is 1.8 times as heavy as two individual units with the same picture tube size. That's still a 1.8x heavier lift you cannot split into two lifts and two trips when moving. There is a reason why moving boxes are only so and so large.
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.
arlia•7mo ago
pseudolus•7mo ago
hn_throwaway_99•7mo ago
SoftTalker•7mo ago