Naked-eye light field display technology based on mini/micro light emitting diode panels: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Scientific Reports

Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 24381 (2024) Cite this article

356 Accesses

Metrics details

The light field display technology based on panel light modulation has obvious industrial advantages. However, light field displays still causes discomfort for users in practical applications, due to issues such as angle of view, number of viewpoints, and crosstalk, etc. As a new type of high performance 2D display technology, mini/micro light emitting diode (MLED) has the potential to provide higher quality 3D display effects, but it may also bring new technological challenges. This paper provides a detailed investigation of technical principles and the latest research progress in light field display technology based on panel light modulation, and analyzes the industrial and academic research difficulties, which are brought about by the combination of MLED and naked-eye light field display. This paper is the first to complete a technical review specifically focused on MLED and naked-eye light field display, which is expected to accelerate the technological development and application process of naked-eye light field display based on MLED panels.

As the metaverse approaches, immersive audiovisual experiences are receiving increasing attention from the public. The currently widely used flat screen displays cannot provide a truly immersive experience, because they cannot provide stereo visual information such as binocular disparity, convergence, and adjustment, etc. Naked-eye 3D display technology1 is a display technology that can provide viewers with three-dimensional visual cues without any wearable devices. This display technology is expected to provide a more immersive experience in scenarios where multiple people are watching. By adding auxiliary devices to traditional 2D display structures, 2D screens that originally only provided isotropic light can present spatial directional information of light, thereby providing a sense of distance and stereoscopy for the human eye.

Naked-eye 3D display can generally be divided into two types of technical solutions: one is based on binocular parallax display, and the other is based on light reconstruction display. The display technology based on binocular parallax uses barrier grating2, cylindrical lens, or directional backlight3 to output different views to the left and right eyes, thereby deceiving the human eye to form a sense of three dimensionality. Barrier gratings and cylindrical lenses are both display solutions for space-division multiplexing, where the display provides the desired image by different light paths for both the left and right eyes simultaneously. Directional backlight is a display scheme of time-division multiplexing4, where the display only presents corresponding disparity maps to the left and right eyes at different times. Due to only providing binocular parallax information, the above three methods may cause dizziness when viewed for a long time, which is caused by vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC). In addition, these methods have strict requirements for the distance, orientation, and angle of the viewer. Once a certain item is not met, there will be a problem where some areas are displayed incorrectly, making it difficult to ensure the viewing effect for a large audience.

The display technology based on light reconstruction can provide additional 3D visual clues beyond binocular parallax5. This type of technical solution includes two steps: recording and reproducing, that is, first recording the optical information of the displayed object, and then reproducing the information using the corresponding display method. The specific technical solutions include holographic display, volumetric 3D display, integral imaging display, and light field display. The object that holographic display6 needs to record and reproduce is the wavelength and phase information left at the recording point, when the target is illuminated by different frequencies of light. The object that needs to be recorded and reproduced in volumetric 3D display is essentially the real voxel information displayed in space7,8. The object that integral imaging display9 needs to record and reproduce is the position and angle information of spatial pixels refracted under different lenses. The object that light field display10 needs to record and reproduce is the incident position, incident angle, wavelength, and time information of any light ray in three-dimensional space. Compared with 3D displays based on binocular parallax, display technologies based on light reconstruction can present continuous or quasi continuous viewpoint images within a certain angle range, rather than being specially customized images for the left and right eyes.

The potential of light field display schemes is greater than that of the other three types of schemes11. This is because the light field display (1) can provide almost all three-dimensional visual clues; (2) has lower production and maintenance costs; (3) can obtain a larger depth of field range; (4) requires smaller computing power compared to holographic displays; (5) is more compatible with the current screen display ecosystem (meaning it has a wider range of applications). Especially the light field display technology based on panel light modulation12 has more obvious industrial advantages. However, the angle of view, number of viewpoints, and crosstalk of light field display are limited by resolution, refresh rate, and light collimation, which can still cause discomfort for users in practical applications.

As a disruptive display medium that has rapidly developed in recent years, MLED13 (especially Micro-LED using micro nano process) leads liquid crystal display (LCD) in performance in multiple aspects such as brightness, resolution, refresh rate, and seamless splicing. However, MLED technology is still in a period of rapid development, and there are many technical issues that need to be solved14, includes packaging with high stability and efficiency, full-color pixelation, and yield for massive transfer, etc. The solutions to these technical issues are not mature enough, resulting in disadvantages of MLED in light field display in terms of pixel deviation, SLM (surface light modulation) installation, and pixel arrangement, etc. Meanwhile, the new changes in MLED have also brought new challenges to naked-eye light field display, such as color difference, crosstalk caused by stitching seams, viewpoint design adapted to sub-pixel, thermal distortion, and high refresh rate driver, etc.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the industrial and academic research difficulties in the combination of MLED and naked-eye light field display, and to provide dual suggestions for industrialization and academia to accelerate the application of naked-eye light field display technology based on MLED panel. In the rest, we briefly introduced various technical solutions for naked-eye light field display, including their technical effects, advantages, and disadvantages, etc; Then, we investigated the latest technology of light field display based on panel light modulation, and analyzed the current technical problems of naked-eye light field display; Last, the future development challenges of MLED and naked-eye light field display were discussed from the perspectives of industrialization and academia. The fifth part summarizes the entire paper and provides reflections on technological trends.

In our knowledge base, the vast majority of commercial stereoscopic display technologies are implemented on the basis of high-resolution display panels. Therefore, we set the goal of literature research to search for academic research and technical reports on the combination of MLED and light field display, in order to analyze the potential opportunities and problems of MLED in naked-eye light field display.

The specific selection criteria are set as follows:

Does it conform to the theme of naked-eye field display?

Is its 3D effect based on the principle of surface light modulation?

If question 2 is not satisfied, is it a review of light field display?

Is it a highly cited literature?

If question 4 is not met, is it a milestone in the corresponding technical roadmap?

If question 4 is not satisfied, is it published after 2019?

Does it use LED or LED panel?

Is the purpose of using LED or MLED to improve existing technological deficiencies?

As shown in Fig. 1, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed according to the guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA).

Flowchart of a selection of studies for a systematic review and meta-analysis of naked-eye light field display and MLED.

Our database source is Google Scholar, Web of Science, Engineering Village, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink. Searched by combining the following keywords: naked-eye or glass-free, light field display, light modulation, 3D display, LED or Mini-LED or Micro-LED. The search result is 6330. Through automatic filtering and sorting (with dimensions of “Year”, “Review”, “Citation”, “Relevance”), we found 232 research records. Subsequently, based on the title and abstract, we removed low correlation and duplicate literature, and selected 119 studies that qualified for full-text evaluation. According to the introduction and conclusion, we have removed 41 items beyond our interests, 2 non-technical literature items, and 3 items that were not full-text searched, leaving 73 studies for full-text evaluation. Finally, based on the correlation between the study and MLED, 14 studies that best fit the theme were selected for mate analysis, as shown in Table 1.

The concept of Light Field (LF) was proposed by Alexander Gershun in 1936, which mainly referred to the spatial radiation that could be described by three-dimensional vectors about the spatial position15. Parry Moon proposed “Photic Field” (PF) in 1953, emphasizing the collection of rays that reach a point in space16. Due to the principle of reversible optical path, PF and LF are actually the same, as shown in Fig. 2. If all the light rays radiating from the surface of an object to a certain point in space can be reproduced, then the true image of the object can be observed at that point.

Description of light field in different dimensions.

In 1991, Landy et al. proposed a seven dimensional plenoptic function to describe any light ray in space, i.e.

where x, y, z are three spatial coordinates of the emitting/incident point of the light ray; θ and \(\phi\) are the angles of emitting/incident of the light ray; L is wavelength; T is the time of light emission/incidence.

To reduce the computational cost of light ray reconstruction, Levoy proposed a four-dimensional light field model17. The new model assumes that the intensity of light does not decay when propagating in free space. Therefore, the change of wavelength and time can be ignored, and the light ray can be expressed only using geometric relationships:

where xy and uv are taken from two points on two non coplanar planes, as shown in Fig. 3.

The process of recording and reproducing light field.

The four-dimensional light field model cannot fully describe all rays in space, such as rays parallel to the xy plane and uv plane. But for the description of the light received by the human eye, the four-dimensional light field model is sufficiently comprehensive. The xy plane in Fig. 3 can be understood as the central plane of the lens, and the uv plane can be understood as the retinal imaging plane. As for the parallel lights that the model cannot describe, the human eye cannot capture them either.

Through the definition and model of light field, it can be known that light field display technology is actually “a display technology that can display the light field”. It is not another 3D display technology on par with existing binocular parallax 3D displays and light reconstruction displays. But rather, it is a technology that presents the surface light field information of the observed object in different directions and positions on an anisotropic screen.

There is currently no unified classification standard in the academic community for light field display technology. In this paper, we only consider display technologise that can provide anisotropic light and require processing of light field information into multi view layers (or slices).

According to different generating ways of anisotropic light ray, this paper divides light field display technology into “light field display technology based on light source control” and “light field display technology based on surface light modulation”. The light field display technology based on light source control refers to scanning light field display18, vector light field display19, and array light field display20. Scanning light field display uses multiple projectors to form light field images on a rotating screen. The vector light field uses a multi-directional backlight to generate anisotropic light rays. The array light field uses a directional projection array to present a 3D effect on a curved screen/screen. Although the three have different forms, fundamentally, control of light depends on the direction of the light source.

The light field display technology based on surface light modulation refers to integral imaging light field display21, compressive light field display22, and diffraction light field display23. Integral imaging light field display is a true 3D display based on the principle of integral imaging. Compressive light field display is a 3D display technology based on multi-layer liquid crystals or multi-layer modulators. Diffraction light field display utilizes surface controlled light devices, such as lens and gratings, to generate anisotropic light. Essentially, all three of them rely on light modulators attached to the light source. From a theoretical perspective, the light field display technology based on surface light modulation is the most closely integrated technical solution with current screen display methods. Because it is not only compatible with LCD, but also suitable for display technologies such as digital micro mirrors (DMD), liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), light-emitting diodes (LED), etc.

All light field display systems use a finite number of fields of view to approximate the actual “light field” that is continuously distributed in space. By discretizing the collected continuous light field along spatial, angular, and temporal axes, a light field function characterized by a limited number of views can be obtained. Then, the 3D effect can be reproduced by an anisotropic light field display device. Therefore, the light field display system can provide the correct 3D effect to any angle within its field of view, by providing sufficient, smooth, and continuous light field layers. Therefore, some literature also refers to light field display technology as “Super Multi View (SMV)” display technology24.

Integral imaging display technology was developed by G. Lippmann in 190821. This structure can be considered as the standard form of light field acquisition and presentation. Firstly, it is necessary to use an camera array to capture the displayed object, and then use a lens array that matches the parameters of the acquisition to adhere to the 2D display, forming an integral imaging display. According to the principle of reversible optical path, load the collected image array on the integral imaging display, and then a 3D image can be reconstructed.

The advantages of integrated imaging display are full parallax, full color display, quasi continuous viewpoint, and compact structure. However, integral imaging display technology has limitations between resolution, angle of view, and depth of field. The cutting-edge research in this field is mainly focused on solving this problem.

X. Sang et al.25 used time-division multiplexing to increase spatial resolution by four times on an integral imaging display composed of a directional diffusion screen (essentially an LCD and optical waveguide), a microlens array, and a holographic scattering film (essentially a surface granular light scattering film). This is because with the help of human visual persistence, the sampling rate is indirectly improved through signal multiplexing, thereby increasing the spatial resolution of 3D images. Q. Wang et al.26 placed a scattering film between the screen and the microlens array, rearranged the RGB sub pixels in order, and used space division multiplexing to increase the resolution of color display by 2.7 times. H. Chen et al.27 proposed a deep learning light field rendering technique based on spatio-temporal composite, which further improves resolution on integral imaging displays.

In addition to channel multiplexing, there is also the idea of improving spatial resolution by increasing aperture ratio. Some teams have used microlens arrays with larger aperture ratios28,29 to improve angular resolution, and have also achieved good results. F. Wu et al. 30 optimized the width of the vertical point light source, increasing the aperture ratio from 1.7% to 3.3% and increasing the spatial resolution in the vertical direction at the same viewpoint. H. Deng et al.31 designed an anisotropic backlight element with a specific scattering direction in order to achieve more precise control of the emitted light from voxel points and optimize spatial resolution, based on the idea of improving the virtual aperture ratio.

The angle of view of integral imaging display technology satisfies the following relationship:

That is, the larger the size of lens element p, the smaller the focal length f, and the smaller the imaging distance l, the larger the angle of view θ. But such a conclusion is clearly contrary to the way of improving spatial resolution. At present, there are roughly two ways to increase the angle of view: one is to physically increase, i.e., to increase the output angle of view of 3D display screens; Another is virtual increase, which utilizes eye tracking technology to enhance the dynamic range of human eye viewing.

In terms of physical increase, E. Kim et al.32 used a biaxial prism in combination with a micro-lens array and a holographic film. This scheme can increase the angle of view without losing resolution, doubling the viewing angle of traditional integrated imaging 3D displays. However, this scheme loses brightness and turns the field of view area facing the center into a viewing blind spot. F. Yang and W. Fan et al.33 addressed the issue of brightness loss by optimizing the biaxial prism structure, changing the focal point of the optical path, improving the light output efficiency, and thereby increasing the brightness at the viewpoint. Q. Wang et al.34 proposed a desktop light field 3D display using a composite lens array and flat panel structure. The reverse design scheme was adopted, and the composite lens array was designed to be composed of multiple three piece composite lens units. In the case of limited spatial information, the radial perspective of this scheme is improved to 68.7°.

In terms of virtual increase, Javidi et al.35 achieved real-time rendering of integral imaging display systems, expanding the dynamic angle of view using an eye-tracker. NHK36 combined integral imaging display, eye tracking, and directional backlight display, to overlay the viewing areas of the left and right eyes in a time-division multiplexing manner. This scheme simultaneously improves spatial resolution and angle of view, with a horizontal expansion of 2.9 times to 81.4° and a vertical expansion of 1.7 times to 47.6°. The depth of the external scene has also been nearly doubled. Based on eye tracking and integral imaging projection technology, C. Schlick et al.37 achieved augmented reality projection on a transparent display board through a designed disparity rendering algorithm.

Reducing the lens element size p can effectively enhance the depth of field of integral imaging display, but at the same time, it will reduce the angle of view and lower the brightness of the imaging. Q. Wang et al.38 attempted to use a colloidal scattering layer for continuous reconstruction of discrete pixels in the central depth plane. Without changing other parameters, the depth of field is increased from 15 mm to 25 mm. This also indicates the positive effect of the scattering layer on producing clear and continuous image quality, but it also increases the size of the display system.

X. Sang et al.39 attempted to improve image quality based on both algorithms and hardware. They combined RGB preprocessing, achromatic images, micro lens arrays, and depth of field effects, and established an end-to-end convolutional neural network model. By optimizing the diffraction optical elements, the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) has been improved by 10 dB, but the portability and stability of this scheme still need further verification. The team has done a lot of optimization work in improving image quality, such as frequency domain processing of images40, optimizing disparity maps through camera acquisition and correction41,42, controlling pixel brightness through scattering angle optimization43, and improving the accuracy of light field reconstruction using compression fitting methods44. Recently, the team45 achieved an integral imaging display system with a depth of 50 cm by using a collimated backlight and a reverse aspherical cylindrical lens array to reduce beam aliasing and crosstalk in the light control unit.

Due to the light modulation effect of the lens array, the integral imaging display system cannot achieve 2D/3D arbitrary switching, so it needs to be processed by specialized algorithms or hardware coordination. Q. Wang et al.46,47 achieved a 2D/3D switchable integral imaging display based on a polarized liquid crystal micro lens array. By controlling the polarization direction of the light, the effect of 2D/3D switching was achieved. H. Deng et al.48 also used a multi-layer lens array and further improved the display range of depth of field. Y. Zhang et al.49 developed a flexible liquid crystal thin film lens, which is equivalent to glass when not powered on. When powered on, it can achieve lens refraction, thereby achieving 2D/3D switching in integral imaging display systems.

The cutting-edge research directions in the field of integral imaging displays are shown in Table 2. The future of integral imaging display technology points to two aspects: hardware and software. In terms of hardware, it may require further improvement in the processing and manufacturing capabilities of Micro-LED, ultra-high resolution liquid crystals, and micro lens arrays; On the software side, it also needs to be combined with eye tracking and light field rendering technologies.

Overall, integral imaging display is indeed an important type of 3D technology. At present, successful applications have been achieved in desktop display, projection display, and other scenarios, such as commercial performances based on integral imaging aerial projection50, and medical surgeries based on integral imaging display, eye tracking, and gesture interaction51. However, in the wider application range of vertical screen displays, integral imaging displays still face problems such as large thickness and small three-dimensional image proportions.

Compressed light field display is derived from the multi layer liquid crystal display technology launched by PureDepth in 2009. At that time, the prototype used two layers of LCD to build a display system that could display three-dimensional effects, but did not provide a display principle. D. Lanman et al. first explored the principle of stacked liquid crystal displays based on the principle of parallax barriers in 2010. They view stacked LCD panels as spatial light modulators, which improve spatial resolution and display brightness compared to traditional grating schemes. Since 2011, G. Wetzstein, D. Lanman, and others have successively proposed theories such as stereo tomography, tensor decomposition, and light field compression22, attempting to explain the reasons for the three-dimensional effect of multi layer liquid crystals and guide their design. With the integration of light field technology, multi layer liquid crystal technology and its ideas have been extended to various 3D display methods, including near eye display52, stereo projection53, and turning car headlights54.

Compressive light field display technology has the advantages of not losing resolution and being able to combine 2D and 3D effects simultaneously55. Therefore, it is the core of compressed light field display technology to present clearer 3D information faster and more accurately within a limited number of layers and achieve precise control.

The low transmittance limits the number of liquid crystal layers in compressive light field displays to three. G. Lv et al.56 constructed a compressive light field display system with a digital micro mirror projection and a 6-layer transparent plane, utilizing a polymer stabilized cholesteric structure (PSCT) with a transmittance greater than 80% and a response time less than 1 ms. The experiment demonstrated the effect of increasing the number of layers on improving the 3D effect. Subsequently, the team built a hybrid compressed light field display system based on double-layer Mini-LED and 4-layer polarized liquid crystal57, which increased the depth of field while increasing the brightness to 348 nits. At the same time, compared to the previous digital micro mirror projection scheme, the size was significantly reduced.

H. Deng et al.48 combined the advantages of compressive light field technology and used multi-layer micro lenses for light modulation, reducing light attenuation and improving the depth of field. J. Yonchan et al.58 also used the principle of stacked imaging to achieve light field projection display by combining 8-layer images with a micro lens array spaced at 2 mm intervals. However, the authors claim that the system still has significant artifacts.

Simulating infinite layers of data with finite layers will inevitably result in bias. S. Mansi et al.59 used CNN network to optimize multiplicative compressive light field allocation schemes. Through low rank multiplication layer structure analysis and Block Krylov singular value decomposition, the redundancy of light field data is effectively eliminated without losing spatial correlation, achieving faster and refined presentation. On this basis, the team60 proposed a more accurate light field encoding scheme, which achieved higher efficiency. L. Zhu et al.61 proposed a new deep learning tensor decomposition method based on bidirectional network structure. The overall display effect was improved by utilizing a depth assisted calibration model, which considering the relationship between reconstruction quality and depth of field.

X. Liu et al.62 optimized the display performance of compressive light field display systems using eye tracking technology. Adaptively adjusting the brightness of pixels on different layers based on the viewer’s position and achieving GPU acceleration of the algorithm63. The team64 also proposed an additive light field display method using weighted algebraic reconstruction. Solved the problem of poor imaging quality uniformity in compressed light field displays under large viewing angles. The experiment shows that when the dynamic perspective exceeds 50, the peak signal-to-noise ratio of the 3D image exceeds 30 dB.

From a technical implementation perspective, the mixed use of multiple display principles has become a technological development trend to improve the performance of compressive light field displays. At the same time, algorithms such as allocation, rendering, and encoding are becoming increasingly important in enhancing 3D effects, and the application of technologies such as deep learning and eye tracking is also increasing.

Setting a lens or grating in front of the display can generate anisotropic light. X. Sang et al.65 used a lens array to construct a light field display with a wide viewing angle and high viewpoint density, with a full parallax viewing angle of 96° and 44100 viewpoints. H. Joonku et al.66 implemented a high-resolution desktop light field display with a viewing angle of 40° and a number of views of 400 based on similar principles. Subsequently, the team reverse designed the lens array67, expanding the full parallax viewing angle of desktop projection light field displays to 107°, which basically meets the actual top-down viewing needs.

The display principle of grating is developed from the principle of barrier grating or cylindrical lens binocular parallax display68. By tilting the cylindrical lens and outputting a specific light field slice, the light field information can be displayed. This form can be understood as a kind of 1-D integral imaging light field display69. To increase the light modulation ability of the lens, researchers attempted to reduce the size of the cylindrical lens and used lens gratings with different surface morphologies70. The commonly used lens gratings include dot gratings, cylindrical mirror gratings, nanogratings, etc. At present, the vast majority of commercialized light field displays use cylindrical mirror gratings and dot gratings71.

F. David et al.72 from HP Labs first proposed a diffraction light field display based on nanogratings. L. Chen et al.73 achieved a light field display with 36 viewpoints, 160° field of view, and 4.32 million unit pixels based on the principle of nanogratings. Subsequently, the team proposed a light field 3D display with spatial variation resolution to increase the resolution of 3D display74. Under the joint modulation of pixel density and view arrangement, full color three-dimensional display with uneven information distribution has been achieved. The obtained prototype has a 140° viewing angle. The team has also carried out related work in improving brightness. A diffraction light field display was constructed using a specially designed interleaved grayscale diffraction lens75. The light attenuation of this structure is only 82%, but the viewing angle is only 9°. However, the micro nano manufacturing process and cost have become the biggest technical challenges of this solution12,23.

Overall, the grating thickness in diffraction light field display is in the millimeter level, which can be well adapted to existing display screen structures. However, due to the inability to adjust the grating structure, this scheme also sacrifices resolution in 2D display. This may also be the reason that restricts its expansion on the consumer side.

Although the academic community has high expectations for light field display technology, it now appears that each light field scheme has shortcomings. Especially the inherent disadvantages of light field display, such as high computational complexity and power consumption, have added many challenges to the commercialization path of light field display technology11. At present, naked-eye light field displays face at least four common technical challenges.

Resolution constraint is the contradiction between spatial resolution and angular resolution. In terms of viewing effect, it is manifested as insufficient information content. Although most light field display systems can only provide horizontal parallax, the amount of data required to reconstruct the light field is still enormous. If an increase in relative information is used, such as through human eye tracking76, the requirement for panel resolution can be reduced, but it is also only suitable for single person viewing.

Image crosstalk refers to the problem where an image from a certain angle of view enters an adjacent viewing area, causing image blurring and ghosting. Severe crosstalk can lead to difficulty in fusing stereo images to form clear 3D images, resulting in distortion and visual fatigue and discomfort during observation. The magnitude of image crosstalk essentially depends on the strength of multi angle light manipulation ability, which is closely related to the design and preparation of the light modulator. In addition, installation gaps, thermal deformation, optical manufacturing errors, etc. can all cause crosstalk.

Light field display requires high-precision light modulators. For example, pixel by pixel adjustment of nano optical elements, refraction projection electrorheological devices (i.e. liquid crystal), micro lens arrays, wavefront modulated holographic optical elements, etc. Due to high precision, complex structure, or special materials, the process cost is relatively high. In addition, light-emitting devices need to meet the conditions of narrow divergence angle of the outgoing beam, high uniformity, large area, light and thin structure, easy processing, and low cost. The design and preparation of these light-emitting devices are also a challenge, not just for emitting light. In addition, due to the requirements of refresh rate and response time, rendering 3D models requires a great deal of computing power, which increases computational costs.

The poor viewing comfort77 has affected the acceptance of light field display among the public. One important reason is that light field displays face the challenge of eliminating VAC78. The essence of the conflict in convergence regulation is the lack or inconsistency of the two kinds cues of “binocular convergence” (convergence) and “monocular focus” (accommodation). In theory, as long as the viewpoints are dense enough (at least 5 viewpoints are received by a single eye), the 3D objects presented by a light field display will form correct monocular focusing information in the brain79. However, due to differences in pupil distance and viewer mobility in actual displays, it is difficult for light field displays to completely eliminate VAC like Maxwell imaging80 and multifocal displays81 in near eye displays. At present, there are almost no 3D display system designs based on VAC quantitative analysis82,83.

In the light field display system, the performance of the panel is an important factor affecting the light field display effect. Considering the resolution, crosstalk, cost, and comfort, the performance requirements for light-emitting components in light field displays can be expressed by the following 13 performance indicators: pixel density, refresh rate, luminous angle, brightness, color gamut control, dynamic range, splicing seam, pixel deviation, SLM installation, pixel arrangement, preparation cost, power consumption, and thickness.

Pixel density Involving display resolution (PPI). The higher the PPI, the more it can compensate for the resolution loss of multiple views;

refresh rate Involving response time. The faster the refresh rate, the more suitable time division multiplexing technology is;

luminous angle84 The luminous angle affects the field of view angle limit due to the thickness of the packaging layer. The thinner the packaging layer, the greater the luminous angle, which is more conducive to expanding the field of view angle;

brightness Related to the application range of the display system. The higher the brightness, the more scenarios are applied;

color gamut Pay attention to the color depth of the light-emitting components. The deeper the position, the more colors can be obtained, and the more detailed the 3D display will be;

dynamic range Focus on the accuracy of driving and control. Accurate driving and control can generate greater contrast, which is beneficial for displaying 3D clues such as shadows and occlusion;

splicing seam Pay attention to explicit crosstalk effects. Similarly, pixel bias focuses on the crosstalk effect at details;

pixel deviation Pay attention to the positioning deviation of sub pixels in the panel manufacturing process. The smaller the positioning deviation, the smaller the image crosstalk caused in the light field display;

SLM installation Pay attention to the flexibility and cost of installing optical modulation devices in 3D displays;

pixel arrangement Pay attention to the uniformity of the pixel arrangement of light-emitting components. The uniform arrangement of sub pixels is beneficial for SLM design and manufacturing;

preparation cost Pay attention to the market-oriented cost potential of light-emitting devices. The lower the preparation cost, the more conducive it is to promotion;

power consumption Pay attention to power consumption and heat generation issues. For the application market of portable mobile devices, power consumption will be of paramount importance;

thickness The thinner the thickness of a panel, the more favorable it is for use in different application markets.

According to the above 13 performance indicators, the potential of LCD, Mini-LED (backlight), organic light-emitting diode (OLED), and Micro-LED was analyzed85,86,87, and the results are shown in Table 3. Among them, the more and deeper the star marks “★” or “☆”, the more advantageous the performance of this technology compared to other technologies.

As shown in Table 3, Micro-LED, as an emerging direct display technology, has the potential to promote the implementation of light field display on large screens. Firstly, with a pixel density of tens of thousands of PPI, microsecond level response time, and high-density light distribution characteristics, it can meet the requirements of resolution and refresh rate. Secondly, if Micro-LED is used as a backlight or projection source, it can also effectively suppress crosstalk caused by non collimated light. Furthermore, Micro-LED can be transferred to both transparent glass and flexible substrates13, achieving more accurate, brighter, and finer floating 3D effects than spatial projection. In addition, with extremely high brightness, the optional technology and application range of 3D display will be expanded. Finally, Micro-LED is more energy-efficient and generate less heat, making them more suitable for the consumer market of portable mobile devices.

However, several disadvantages of Micro-LED cannot be ignored, including pixel deviation, SLM installation, pixel arrangement and preparation cost. Firstly, the pixel deviation of Micro-LED is mainly caused by the solidification error of the solidification machine and the module packaging error. Micro-LED requires inserting the chip onto the substrate and packaging the formed pixels86. The Micro-LED chip has a smaller size and is more sensitive to the absolute accuracy of the device. Secondly, the trend of Micro-LED is towards glass-based or silicon-based packaging13. The Micro-LED module has a higher dependence on heat dissipation methods and bonding strength, thus requiring higher requirements for SLM installation. Thirdly, Micro-LED adopts various sub-pixel arrangements to ensure resolution while reducing the number of chips. Even some Micro-LED modules use RGB vertical packaging structure to achieve full-color pixels88. These special results also need special surface light modulators. Finally, as a key process for Micro-LED, the massive transfer89 has a low yield rate, resulting in a high preparation cost. At the same time, the preparation cost of Micro-LED also increases as the addition of sophisticated and complex automated detection and repair equipment90. The high preparation cost may take more than 5 years for Micro-LED to mature and commercialize91.

LED has played a role in various 3D display technologies due to its advantages in brightness, refresh rate, and collimation. LED is used as a backlight switch in directional backlight 3D displays92,93. By combining with Fresnel lenses, a multi person, multi view viewing effect is formed. In three-dimensional display, LED is used to generate luminous body pixels at different positions94,95. In holographic displays, Mini-LED with better collimation of light is used to reduce speckle96,97. In projection based light field display, Micro-LED with better collimation is used as the projection source98. The combination of LED and 3D display has become a consensus in near eye 3D display9,99. In light field displays, LED was also introduced early on to improve the brightness and resolution of barrier grating or cylindrical lens 3D displays100,101. However, the combination of MLED with gratings and lenses has also brought new problems.

At least two factors can cause color difference. The first type of color difference is caused by a large duty cycle. In barrier grating 3D displays, due to the high duty cycle of LED pixels, the non luminous area will exhibit regular moire patterns at the viewpoint. W. Zhao et al.102 designed tilted gratings of different widths to weaken the influence of moire patterns without increasing significant crosstalk in stereo images. In lens based 3D displays, the large diffusion angle of LEDs can lead to pixel crosstalk between different viewpoints. Y. Piao et al.100 designed a new optical array model to reduce the dispersion of sub pixels.

The second type of color difference is caused by spectral non-uniformity. The spectra of each sub-pixel in MLED are influenced by various factors such as lamp bead material, packaging process and material, driver chip, temperature, etc., resulting in various “mura” phenomena in the MLED module during initial lighting103. The spectral non-uniformity can be improved by binning of MLED chips and calibration of the display system104. The calibration of display requires a camera or imaging colorimeter to obtain spectral differences, and then compensates for the current or voltage in the driver circuit through PAM or PWM control, thereby changing the spectrum of the specified MLED sub-pixel. However, the external quantum efficiency of MLED is relatively low, resulting in a significant temperature increase during lighting. The spectral characteristics of MLED are greatly affected by temperature, especially the red color. Due to the uneven structure of the MLED module, the temperature changes during MLED lighting are also uneven105. Therefore, temperature differences still cause spectral changes during MLED lighting, even after “demura”. How to utilize the driver circuit to compensate spectral differences106, especially those caused by temperature differences, is an important challenge for the future application of MLED in 3D display.

The second challenge is the increased crosstalk caused by pixel bias and stitching seams. Due to the use of point-to-point packaging technology (chip-on-board (COB), surface-mounted-device (SMD), chip-on-glass (COG), etc.) for LED, their pixel deviation is larger than that of LCD using mask printing technology. In the case of pixel bias, light from different views cannot converge at voxels, resulting in errors in reconstructing voxels107. At the same time, LED commonly uses module splicing technology to form a full screen, and fine splicing seams can also cause bright and dark lines or image crosstalk108.

The third challenge is to increase the difficulty of viewpoint design through sub-pixel arrangement. Sub-pixel can utilize time-division multiplexing technology to reduce the number of LED beads produced in the panel without changing spatial resolution. This technology is an important cost reduction and efficiency enhancement technology in the process of LED industrialization. However, the sub-pixel arrangement makes the current pixel by pixel grating or lens design methods no longer applicable. Z. Liu et al.109 designed a moire free barrier grating based on diamond pixel structured LED, and displayed a naked eye 3D effect with a 72 degree perspective and 12 views on phone. Through the tilted grating design, this study cleverly solved the double-column barrier effect in the diamond pixel110, resulting in a doubling of 3D resolution.

The fourth challenge is crosstalk caused by thermal distortion in optical modulators. LED emits severe heat, and the luminous characteristics of LED bead materials are greatly affected by temperature, especially red LED beads111. This can lead to differences in brightness of LED screens that have already undergone field calibration after prolonged display112, especially for LED packaged with COB and COG. In the light field display technology based on panel output light control, it is necessary to attach the light modulator to the panel. The uneven heat conduction on the surface of LED will have varying degrees of impact on the surface morphology of the light modulator. This puts forward high requirements for the thermal deformation coefficient of the light modulator material, the volume of the LED module cooling device, and the installation method of the light modulator and LED.

The driver circuit is the foundation for ensuring the implementation and stable lighting of MLED display113. The MLED applied in naked-eye light field display requires a higher refresh rate to achieve time-division multiplexing for light field control27. In addition, due to the fact that the light beam emitted by MLED is not parallel light97, MLED in 3D display devices require higher contrast and more accurate low gray display capabilities to reduce crosstalk between viewpoints. This poses higher requirements for the design and implementation of the driver circuit114, including stability under overheating conditions, compatibility with surface light modulators, maximum refresh capacity, accurate grayscale control and compensation capabilities, etc. It is worth noting that the excitation frequency of Micro-LED can achieve nanosecond level response. However, the actual refresh rate depends on the driver technology115 and is affected by the transmission band load, so Micro-LED displays only achieve microsecond level refresh rates. It can be seen that the driver circuit of MLED will become an important technology to promote the progress of naked eye field display in the future.

This paper conducts a comprehensive investigation on the light field display technology that is suitable for the current display industry chain. The light field display technology has been classified based on different ways of light modulation. On this basis, the development trends of different light field display technologies are analyzed. By tracing the advantages and disadvantages of different display technologies and summarizing recent research results, the development paths of different light field display technologies have been deduced. Based on the analysis of the core technical issues of light field display, the opportunities for MLED are identified and analyzed. Based on industrial and academic thinking, the technical challenges of MLED in naked-eye field display are analyzed. We hope to attract more scholars and engineers in the 3D display and MLED industry through this survey analysis, thereby accelerating the technological development and application process of naked-eye light field display based on MLED panels.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Chang, C. et al. Toward the next-generation VR/AR optics: A review of holographic near-eye displays from a human-centric perspective. Optica 7(11), 1563–1578 (2020).

Article ADS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hua, J., Qiao W. & Chen, L. Recent advances in planar optics-based glasses-free 3D displays. Front. Nanotechnol. 4 (2022).

Fan, Y. et al. A polarization modulated directional backlight autostereoscopic display. J. Soc. Inf. Display 31(1), 3–12 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Teng, D. et al. Super multi-view near-eye virtual reality with directional backlights from wave-guides. Opt. Express 31(2), 1721–1736 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Jones, A. et al. Rendering for an interactive 360° light field display. ACM Trans. Graph. 26(3), 40 (2007).

Article Google Scholar

Shimobaba, T., Kakue, T. & Ito, T. Review of fast algorithms and hardware implementations on computer holography. IEEE Trans. Indus. Inform. 12(4), 1611–1622 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Blundell, B. G., Schwarz, A. J. & Horrell, D. K. Volumetric threedimensional display systems: Their past present and future. 2(5), 196 (1993).

Imamura, T. et al. A new algorithm for displaying images with high resolution using a directional volumetric display with threads and a projector. IEEE Access 10, 15288–15297 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Borhani, Z., Sharma, P. & Ortega, F. R. Survey of annotations in extended reality systems. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comp. Graphics, 1–20 (2023).

Zheng, R. et al. Stimuli-responsive active materials for dynamic control of light field. Respons. Mater. (2023).

Kara, P. A. & Simon, A. The good news, the bad news, and the ugly truth: A review on the 3D interaction of light field displays. Multimodal Technol. Interact. (2023).

Gu, T. et al. Reconfigurable metasurfaces towards commercial success. Nat. Photonics 17(1), 48–58 (2023).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Miao, W. et al. Microdisplays: Mini-LED, micro-OLED, and micro-LED. Adv. Opt. Mater. 12(7), (2024).

Chen, J. et al. A review on quantum dot-based color conversion layers for mini/micro-LED displays: Packaging, light management, and pixelation. Adv. Opt. Mater. 12(2), 2300873 (2024).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Ma, Q. et al. Progress of three-dimensional light-field display. Chin. Opt. Lett. 17(11), 111001 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Moon, P. & Eberlepencer, D. Theory of the photic field. J. Franklin Inst. 255(1), 33–50 (1953).

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Levoy, M. & Hanrahan, P. Light Field Rendering 31–42 (SIGGRAPH, 1996).

Google Scholar

Tian, M. et al. Multi-face real-time tracking based on dual panoramic camera for full-parallax light-field display. Opt. Commun. 442, 19–26 (2019).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Yang, L., & Wen, Q. Vector light field 3D display with multi-directional backlight. Proc. SPIE (2023).

Watanabe, H. et al. Full-parallax three-dimensional display based on light field reproduction. Opt. Rev. 29(4), 366–374 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Martínez-Corral, M. & Javidi, B. Fundamentals of 3D imaging and displays: A tutorial on integral imaging, light-field, and plenoptic systems. Adv. Opt. Photonics 10(3), 512–566 (2018).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Lanman, D. et al. Polarization fields: Dynamic light field display using multi-layer LCDs. in Proceedings of the 2011 SIGGRAPH Asia Conference. Hong Kong, China: Association for Computing Machinery (2011).

Zhou, F., Qiao, W. & Chen, L. Fabrication technology for light field reconstruction in glasses-free 3D display. J Inf. Disp. 24(1), 13–29 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Wan, W. et al. Super multi-view display based on pixelated nanogratings under an illumination of a point light source. Opt. Lasers Eng. 134, 106258 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Yang, L. et al. Viewing-angle and viewing-resolution enhanced integral imaging based on time-multiplexed lens stitching. Opt. Express 27(11), 15679–15692 (2019).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Wang, T. et al. High-resolution integral imaging 3D display system based on compound lens array. in Imaging and Applied Optics Congress. Vancouver, British Columbia: Optica Publishing Group (2022).

Chao, C. H., Liu, C. L. & Chen, H. H. Time-division multiplexing light field display with learned coded aperture. IEEE Trans. Image Proces. 32, 350–363 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Yu, X. et al. 360-degree directional micro prism array for tabletop flat-panel light field displays. Opt. Express 31(20), 32273–32286 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Wang, W. et al. Large-scale microlens arrays on flexible substrate with improved numerical aperture for curved integral imaging 3D display. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 11741 (2020).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Zhao, B., Yang, F. & Wu, F. High-aperture-ratio dual-view integral imaging display. Micromachines 13(12), 1–8 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Zhao, C. et al. Integral imaging three-dimensional display system with anisotropic backlight for the elimination of voxel aliasing and separation. Opt. Express 31(18), 29132–29144 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Choi, H., Hwang, Y. & Kim, E. Field-of-view enhanced integral imaging with dual prism arrays based on perspective-dependent pixel mapping. Opt. Express 30(7), 11046–11065 (2020).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Ke, W. et al. High optical-efficiency dual-view integral imaging display. Opt. Eng. 62(6), 063103 (2023).

ADS Google Scholar

Xing, Y. et al. Integral imaging-based tabletop light field 3D display with large viewing angle. Opto-Electron. Adv. 6(6), 1–12 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Shen, X., Martinez-Corral, M. & Javidi, B. An overview of head tracking integral imaging three-dimensional display using smart pseudoscopic-to-orthoscopic conversion. Anaheim, CA, United states: SPIE (2017).

Naoto, O. et al. Integral three-dimensional display system with wide viewing zone and depth range using time-division display and eye-tracking technology. Opt. Eng. 61(1), 013103 (2022).

ADS Google Scholar

Schlick, C. et al. A hybrid multi-view and eye-tracked transparent auto-stereoscopic display for augmented reality, in London Imaging Meeting: Londres (2022).

Li, S. et al. Integral imaging 3D display system with improved depth of field using a colloidal scattering layer. Opt. Commun. 484, 126680 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Wang, Y. et al. End-to-end optimization of an achromatic diffractive optical element array for integral imaging three-dimensional display. IEEE Photonics J. 14(5), 1–8 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Wang, Y. et al. Frequency-domain segmentation algorithm for three-dimensional light-field display based on pixel deviation threshold. Opt. Laser Technol. 156, 108521 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Guo, X. et al. Real-time dense-view imaging for three-dimensional light-field display based on image color calibration and self-supervised view synthesis. Opt. Express 30(12), 22260–22276 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Su, X. et al. Regional selection-based pre-correction of lens aberrations for light-field displays. Opt. Commun. 505, 127510 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Yu, X. et al. Optimizing depth of field in 3D light field display by analyzing and controlling light beam divergence angle (2023).

Wang, Y. et al. Three-dimensional light field display for view density enhancement based on lenticular lens time-multiplexed stitching and views compression fitting method. Opt. Lasers Eng. 172, 107895 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Yu, X. et al. True-color light-field display system with large depth-of-field based on joint modulation for size and arrangement of halftone dots. Opt. Express 31(12), 20505–20517 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Tian, L. et al. Fast responsive 2D/3D switchable display using a liquid crystal microlens array. Opt. Lett. 46(23), 5870–5873 (2021).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Tian, L. et al. Fast response electrically controlled liquid crystal lens array for high resolution 2D/3D switchable display. Opt. Express 30(21), 37946–37956 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Li, Q. et al. Depth-enhanced 2D/3D switchable integral imaging display by using n-layer focusing control units. Liquid Cryst. 49(10), 1367–1375 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Wang, W. et al. Flexible liquid crystal micro-lens arrays for curved integral imaging 2D/3D convertible display. Liquid Cryst. 1–13 (2023).

Zhao, W., et al., Aerial projection 3D display based on integral imaging. Photonics, 2021. 8(9).

Li, J. et al. Real three-dimensional medical interactive display system based on integral imaging and gesture recognition. Optik 291, 171373 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Yin, K. et al. Advanced liquid crystal devices for augmented reality and virtual reality displays: principles and applications. Light Sci. Appl. 11(1), 161 (2022).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Huarong, G. & Tiancheng, S. Three-dimensional display using multi-layer translucencies. In Proc. SPIE (2018).

Mur, U., Ravnik, M. & Sec, D. Controllable shifting, steering, and expanding of light beam based on multi-layer liquid-crystal cells. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 352 (2022).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ran, D. et al. Interactive three-dimensional display based on multi-layer LCDs. In Proc. SPIE (2019).

Zhu, L. et al. Performance improvement for compressive light field display with muli-plane projection. Opt. Lasers Eng. 142, 106609 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Zhu, G. et al. High-brightness hybrid compressive light field display with improved image quality. Opt. Lett. 48(23), 6172–6175 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Youngjin, J. et al. Three-dimensional projection from multi-layered light field. in Proc. SPIE (2023).

Ravishankar, J., Sharma, M. & Gopalakrishnan, P. A flexible coding scheme based on Block Krylov subspace approximation for light field displays with stacked multiplicative layers. Sensors, 21(13), (2021).

Ravishankar, J. & Sharma, M. A novel hierarchical light field coding scheme based on hybrid stacked multiplicative layers and Fourier disparity layers for glasses-free 3D displays. Signal Process. Image Commun. 109, 116844 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Sun, Y. et al. Depth-assisted calibration on learning-based factorization for a compressive light field display. Opt. Express 31(4), 5399–5413 (2023).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Gao, C. et al. Weighted simultaneous algebra reconstruction technique (wSART) for additive light field synthesis. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Pap. 53(S1), 243–246 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Gao, C., Liu, X. & Li, H. GPU acceleration of weighted additive light field displays. In Imaging and Applied Optics Congress. Vancouver, British Columbia: Optica Publishing Group (2022).

Gao, C. et al. Performance improvement for additive light field displays with weighted simultaneous algebra reconstruction technique and tracked views. J. Soc. Inform. Disp. 31(4), 169–183 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Wang, P. et al. A full-parallax tabletop three dimensional light-field display with high viewpoint density and large viewing angle based on space-multiplexed voxel screen. Opt. Commun. 488, 126757 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Heo, D. et al. Full-parallax multiview generation with high-speed wide-angle dual-axis scanning optics. Appl. Sci. 12(9) (2022).

Heo, D. et al. Large field-of-view microlens array with low crosstalk and uniform angular resolution for tabletop integral imaging display. J. Inf. Disp. 24(1), 81–92 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Li, R. et al. The Challenge of Mini LED Backlit Application in Automotive Display (Wiley, 2022).

Google Scholar

Yang, L. et al. Demonstration of a large-size horizontal light-field display based on the LED panel and the micro-pinhole unit array. Opt. Commun. 414, 140–145 (2018).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Zhang, H. et al. Partially sub-pixelated light manipulation for angular resolution and depth of field enhanced 3D light field display. Opt. Commun. 541 (2023).

Zhang, H. et al. Quality analysis of diffraction grating based 3D light field display system: Identifying optimal system parameters. Opt. Commun. 552 (2024).

Fattal, D. et al. A multi-directional backlight for a wide-angle, glasses-free three-dimensional display. Nature 495(7441), 348–351 (2013).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Hua, J. et al. Foveated glasses-free 3D display with ultrawide field of view via a large-scale 2D-metagrating complex. Light Sci. Appl. 10(1), 213 (2021).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hua, J. et al. Large-scale metagrating complex-based light field 3D display with space-variant resolution for non-uniform distribution of information and energy. 12(2), 285–295 (2023).

Zhou, F. et al. Vector light field display based on an intertwined flat lens with large depth of focus. Optica 9(3), 288–294 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Zhang, G. et al. Directional and eye-tracking light field display with efficient rendering and illumination, Micromachines (2023).

Fu, B. et al. Analysis of the relationship between display depth and 3D image definition in light-field display from visual perspective. Displays 80, 102514 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Panzirsch, M. et al. Light-field head-mounted displays reduce the visual effort: A user study. J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 30(4), 319–334 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Zhou, Y., Zhang, J. & Fang, F. Vergence-accommodation conflict in optical see-through display: Review and prospect. Results Opt. 5, 100160 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Qiang, L. et al. Maxwellian near-eye display with correct focusing and defocusing cues based on light field refocusing technology. In Proc. SPIE (2023).

Zhan, T. et al. Multifocal displays: Review and prospect. PhotoniX 1(1), 10 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Mizushina, H. et al. Super multi-view 3D displays reduce conflict between accommodative and vergence responses. J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 24(12), 747–756 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Kan, B., Zhao, Y. & Wang, S. A 3D video visual comfort evaluation method on the consistency of accommodation and convergence. Optoelectron. Lett. 13(3), 233–236 (2017).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Huang, J. et al. Linearly polarized light emission from GaN micro-LEDs for 3D display. Appl. Phys. Lett. 122(11), 111107 (2023).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Wilson, L.A., The 2022 display industry awards honor top innovations. Inf. Disp. 28–33 (2022).

Hsiang, E. et al. Prospects and challenges of mini-LED, OLED, and micro-LED displays. J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 27(7/9), 387–401 (2019).

Google Scholar

Chen, F., Qiu, C. & Liu, Z. Investigation of autostereoscopic displays based on various display technologies. Nanomaterials, 12(3) (2022).

Shin, J. et al. Vertical full-colour micro-LEDs via 2D materials-based layer transfer. Nature 614(7946), 81–87 (2023).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Zhu, G. et al. Mass transfer, detection and repair technologies in micro-LED displays. Sci. China Mater. 65(8), 2128–2153 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Anwar, A. R. et al. Recent progress in micro-LED-based display technologies. Laser Photonics Rev. 16(6), 2100427 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Jiang, J. et al. User’s image perception improved strategy and application of augmented reality systems in smart medical care: A review. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comp. Assist. Surg. 19(3), 2497 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Yin, G. & Wang, Y. A New Directional Backlight Using Blue Light LED Design for Autostereoscopic 3D Displays (Springer, 2020).

Book Google Scholar

Li, X. et al. Multi-user, high-resolution, high-quality directional backlight autostereoscopic display. Opt. Commun. 520, 128456 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hahn, J. et al. Volumetric 3D display: Features and classification. Curr. Opt. Photonics 7(6), 597–607 (2023).

Google Scholar

Arai, R. & Yamamoto, O. Visualisation tool for complex 3D fractals on volumetric displays. (2020).

Tahara, T. et al. Roadmap of incoherent digital holography. Appl. Phys. B 128(11), 193 (2022).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Chuang, C. H. et al. Miniaturization and image optimization of a full-color holographic display system using a vibrating light guide. Opt. Express 30(23), 42129–42140 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Wei, X., Li, J. & Lu, Z. Design of Naked Eye Light Field Display Based on Micro-LED (John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2022).

Google Scholar

Liu, Z. et al. A review on micro-led display integrating metasurface structures, Micromachines (2023).

Gu, Y., Piao, Y. & Xu, M. Sub-lens System based on Dispersion Phenomenon of LED Integral Imaging. In IEEE Inter. Conf. Comp. Sci. Netw. Tech. (2019).

Lee, S., J. Park and D. Nam, Crosstalk Minimization Method for Eye-tracking-based 3D Display. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, (2020).

Zeng, H. and W. Zhao, Parallax barrier for weakening Vernier fringe in naked-eye LED 3D display. Int. J. Opt. (2021).

Wu, T. Z. et al. Mini-LED and Micro-LED: Promising candidates for the next generation display technology. Appl. Sci. 8(9), 1557 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Xia, D. et al. An effective and flexible method for improving the full grayscale uniformity of mini-LED display. J. Soc. Inf. Display 30(11), 795–807 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Zheng, L. et al. Research on a camera-based microscopic imaging system to inspect the surface luminance of the micro-led array. IEEE Access 6, 51329–51336 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Okada, T., Usui, T. & Nakajima, Y. Spatial uniformity improvement at low luminance levels for organic light-emitting diode displays. ITE Trans. Media Technol. Appl. 9(4), 234–239 (2021).

Google Scholar

Si, T., Piao, Y. & Li, M. Research on collimation of LED naked eye 3D display technology based on ray tracing. Infrared Laser Eng. 47(6) (2018).

Xia, D. et al. A Fine correction method for improving the full grayscale uniformity of mini-LED display. SID Int. Symp. Digest Tech. Pap. 52(S2), 335–338 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Chen, F., Hyun, B. & Liu, Z. Wide field-of-view light-field displays based on thin-encapsulated self-emissive displays. Optics Express 30(22), 39361–39373 (2022).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Lee, W., et al. Mobile autostereoscopic 3D display using a diamond pixel structured OLED pentile display panel. in Imaging and Applied Optics. Seattle, Washington: Optica Publishing Group (2014).

Słomiński, S. Advanced modelling and luminance analysis of LED optical systems. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Tech. Sci. 67(6), 1107–1116 (2019).

Google Scholar

Basova, O. A. et al. Two calibration models for compensation of the individual elements properties of self-emitting displays. Comput. Opt. 46(2), 335–344 (2022).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Hsia, S. C. et al. Asynchronous control and driver for high-speed LED display with local scanning approach. IET Circuits Devices Syst. 14, 1–6 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Esteki, M. et al. LED systems applications and LED driver topologies: A review. IEEE Access 11, 38324–38358 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Hsia, S. C., Sheu, M. H. & Chen, B. Y. Area-efficient multi-channel active matrix micro-LED driver chip design. Analog Integ. Circuits Signal Proces. 111(1), 137–152 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Download references

This research was funded by Xi’an Postdoctoral Innovation Base Research Project (Grant number Z006N000000027). For this we are deeply grateful.

The Central Research Institute, Xi’an NovaStar Tech Co., Ltd, Xi’an, 710072, China

Tong Wang, Cheng Yang, Junyuan Chen, Yongfei Zhao & Jingguo Zong

School of Optoelectronic Engineering, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710072, China

Jingguo Zong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Conceptualization, T.W. , C.Y. and J.Z.; investigation, T.W., J.C. and Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, T.W.; writing—review and editing, T.W. and C.Y.; visualization, T.W.; funding acquisition, J.Z.

Correspondence to Tong Wang.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Wang, T., Yang, C., Chen, J. et al. Naked-eye light field display technology based on mini/micro light emitting diode panels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 14, 24381 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75172-z

Download citation

Received: 07 July 2024

Accepted: 03 October 2024

Published: 17 October 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75172-z

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative