Thanks for the info -- I had assumed this was the case[0].

When I looked at the animations/video, I thought it was really slick and as I read more about the tech it appeared to be as I expected, but I'm not sure if I should be disappointed by that.

I think it was quite intelligent for the company to offer a smaller, relatively inexpensive ($249 early-bird isn't bad) display because I fully expect it'll be impossible to properly evaluate the quality of the tech without actually seeing it live. The few times I've played with some of the more exotic screens (even oddball LCD screens like the promising, but brief IGZO LCD panels) are very difficult to evaluate. The videos are usually far from what it looks like in-person (and I'd wager about 75% of the time, the video makes displays look worse than it is).

I'm curious if you can speak to the down-sides of doing things this way. Were this screen a "real holographic display" but with the similar constraints[1], would it be substantially better? From the videos, I get the impression that this screen can only display 3D within the bounds of the "box", so if a real holographic display behaved similarly, what could it do that an autostereoscopic screen cannot?

I'm curious because I was left behind during the 3D craze (that disappeared, as I predicted, a few years later). I can handle about 30 minutes of 3D-glasses before I start getting the early symptoms of Migraine. I was hopeful when the TVs came out that I might be able to watch Avatar[2], finally, but I tried various sets with different types of 3D glasses (active/passive, I recall?) and they felt more uncomfortable than at the theaters[3]. I've never been diagnosed with lazy eyes/other eye problems, but I feel like my eyes go cross-eyed with the glasses on.

I'd have to see this, physically, to be comfortable with buying it. At the price-point of their smaller option, that's getting pretty close, though. If they had a very convenient/complete return policy, I'd probably check it out.

[0] That's not to diminish the value of the comment, I had only assumed it was some form of "Glasses-free 3D", but know nothing about the tech or how it works.

[1] As in, the dream is a "projector like" screen where a hologram could just be displayed in an arbitrary location in a room, is out.

[2] I have not seen it, yet. When it had finally died down in theatres, I had read that the story was "not very interesting/creative" and "kind of dumb". This was supported by the fact that everyone I know who went to see it told me nothing about what the movie was about and not one of them mentioned anything they liked about the "story". I think the best summary I received was from a close friend who said "I left the theater and 'the world' seemed a little less real" and I was interested to see the result of this camera that was invented for the purpose of filming that movie, but I haven't seen a second of it, yet.

[3] I thought it was normal to feel "off". I call it "almost dizzy" because I don't feel off balance, it just feels like it takes an amazing amount of effort to pinpoint objects with my eyes -- screen or otherwise -- with any kind of 3D glasses on. I wear a very low prescription pair of glasses (not required for driving, I'm nearly 20/20) and other than really cheap sunglasses, I generally have no difficulties otherwise.