How good is the 3D on a Mitsubishi DLP tv? Every time I read the specs on Mitsubishi DLP HD TV's I see that they're 3D ready. Is there any Blu-ray 3D material out or coming out and if so how's the 3D quality of the material?

How good is the 3D on a Mitsubishi DLP tv? Every time I read the specs on Mitsubishi DLP HD TV's I see that they're 3D ready. Is there any Blu-ray 3D material out or coming out and if so how's the 3D quality of the material?

There are no immediate plans for a 3D BD. They are still working on the specifications and have yet to pick a standard. Should happen in 2010 with the first 3D BD's released in 2011.

There are a number of threads on this subject here.

Any presentations and demos they have had with their DLP 3D ready sets have used custom authored demo material. I just saw it in NYC a few weeks ago and the technology has come a long way but no way any Blu-ray Discs will have it this year and even next year is a pretty long shot.


Their big DLP rear projection sets are a great value if you can any control over ambient lighting, which you should have for movie watching anyway. Very ISF calibration friendly as well.

How is the quaility of 3D on Mitsubishi DLP? Pretty damn good now with the wireless sync glasses with their demo clips now. Pretty much as good as its ever been but not quite ready for consumer uses. The glasses are much better and much more bearable for long term watching.

You can get a kit right now that would allow you to convert PC games and some PS3 games I believe to 3D and play them right now on these sets.

Display I saw was using a HTPC with a NVIDIA graphics card that was capable of handling the chore.

How good is the 3D on a Mitsubishi DLP tv? Every time I read the specs on Mitsubishi DLP HD TV's I see that they're 3D ready. Is there any Blu-ray 3D material out or coming out and if so how's the 3D quality of the material?

Quality is excellent but remember that this 3D DLP HDTV may be incompatible with the final Blu-ray 3-D standard. Meaning that if you want 3-D Blu-ray, you are best off waiting until the standard is set until buying a TV.

Hopefully the final home standard will use the Intel paper glasses that are were used for the 3D episode of Chuck & The Superbowl 3D ads. I really don't want to have to wear a 3 pound pair of glasses(That houses all the electronics in it) on my face in order to watch a movie.

It certainly won't use paper anaglyph glasses of any kind.

The shutter glasses are not very heavy at all, I've got several pairs that are so light you don't even know you have them on really. I've even got a HMD (Head Mounted Display) that is 3-D compatible that isn't too heavy, and that has a screen and headphones built in!

It does seem as though they tend to use the more heavy duty ones at the trade shows though, I guess because they feel they would more easily survive being put on and off by thousands of people daily.

Are the 3D demos at the shows(or that are possible w/players&TVs) the kind that actually pop off the screen like the Michael Jackson movie that played in Disney Land or is it the kind that just gives the display depth to the image like the recent episode of Chuck that aired in 3D?

Are the 3D demos at the shows(or that are possible w/players&TVs) the kind that actually pop off the screen like the Michael Jackson movie that played in Disney Land or is it the kind that just gives the display depth to the image like the recent episode of Chuck that aired in 3D?

The 3-D effect will be similar to any "RealD" 3-D movie you see in the movies now. i.e. stuff pops off the screen. But, there are several technical ways to do this and there is no agreed standard yet. Thus even if you buy a Mits 3-D HDTV it may not be compatible with future broadcast/blu-ray 3-D content.

Whether or not to add "off the screen" gimmicks to a 3-D movie is the choice of the filmmakers.

The 3-D movies made in the 1980's tended to rely on gimmicks while the older (and newer) ones tend to use the stereo in a more realistic manner, to add natural depth as one would see in reality. However, a look at the trailer for THE FINAL DESTINATION certainly makes me think there will be a large number of implements of death flying into the audience.

As for CAPTAIN EO? Blech. Some of the worst 3-D ever, and, yes, I know who directed it.

Sonic sets course for 3D downloads

JULY 21 | DIGITAL: Roxio CinemaNow will use NVIDIA technology

Initially, the audience for downloads will be small, because the technology isn’t yet widely available. Roxio CinemaNow’s 3D downloads will be viewable on PCs that support NVIDIA’s 3D Vision and 3D Vision-Ready displays, including the Samsung SyncMaster2233RZ and ViewSonic FuHzion VX265wm and select TVs already in the market.

Samsung and Mitsubishi have been including 3D technology in high-end TVs, and Sonic estimates there are 2 million DLP TVs in homes capable of playing 3D movies. Due to the computing power required to process and play 3D downloads, to watch the content on a TV, users would have to use a PC hooked to their set.

Viewers also will have to wear special glasses, either the same type used in theaters or ones using more advanced technology, depending on the display.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6672087.html

Sonic sets course for 3D downloads

JULY 21 | DIGITAL: Roxio CinemaNow will use NVIDIA technology



http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6672087.html

2 millions capable tv's that maybe if lucky 1/10 might use it for this type of 3D if and big if they have to hook a computer to it. This might last two years for the few thousand who buy into it. The industry is going to have to do way better than that to get it to be successful and more mainstream.

2 millions capable tv's that maybe if lucky 1/10 might use it for this type of 3D if and big if they have to hook a computer to it. This might last two years for the few thousand who buy into it. The industry is going to have to do way better than that to get it to be successful and more mainstream.

I have one of those displays (Sammy LED DLP), and will surely switch to a nvidia card if/when this comes out.

2 millions capable tv's that maybe if lucky 1/10 might use it for this type of 3D if and big if they have to hook a computer to it. This might last two years for the few thousand who buy into it. The industry is going to have to do way better than that to get it to be successful and more mainstream.

It isn't the "industry" that is presenting this 3D system. It is a team up of two companies.

It isn't the "industry" that is presenting this 3D system. It is a team up of two companies.


I understand Lee, but I was relating that in this way with this tech there aren't many who are going to jump on it unless it is done differently and unless the movie industry gets on board with it. I thought that was the intent. I know it is gaming related as well using the 120hz monitor and Nvidia card to render it, well that and the glasses one has to wear. They are shooting for Stereoscopic 3D like in the theaters or no?

I looked into this a couple of months back because I have a 120hz tv, but being 120hz capable doesn't mean it is qualified to do it. I think there is a difference between allowing 120hz input and rendering it as my display supposedly does.

As for CAPTAIN EO? Blech. Some of the worst 3-D ever, and, yes, I know who directed it.

Funny because that asteroid in the beginning came right out of the screen. :D

Sure did. So did lots of other objects. That doesn't make it good 3-D; I mean, lots of stuff came off the screen in TREASURE OF THE FOUR CROWNS, too.

What I meant was that the stereoscopic photography was lower tier; lots of shots caused eyestrain and overall it was not very refined. It was a theme park movie though, so I have to give it a little bit of a break. I'm sure Francis will do better next time.

I'm really hoping AVATAR will be a step up from James Cameron's previous 3-D efforts (and from all reports the footage shown so far is amazing), because his two IMAX documentaries had some horrible photographic errors which made me think he still had something to learn about shooting in 3-D.

Many (but not all) of the 1950's 3-D films are flawless from a stereoscopic standpoint; I think some of these should be required viewing for some of today's filmmakers. But much of the stuff that came later whas downright painful to watch at times. The audience should never have eyestrain, there is no excuse for it.

Quality is excellent but remember that this 3D DLP HDTV may be incompatible with the final Blu-ray 3-D standard. Meaning that if you want 3-D Blu-ray, you are best off waiting until the standard is set until buying a TV.

There's no reason for it to have to be incompatible. I haven't followed this topic very closely, but the last I heard, there are essentially two competing formats (with maybe a couple sub-flavors of how it's encoded on disk): one that encodes two separate 1920x1080 fields for each frame (one for each eye), and one that interleaves the two fields into one frame in a checkerboard pattern. The latter is how 3D ready DLP sets display a 3D image, and therefore logic suggests that those sets would be compatible IF that is the encoding format that wins out. I also ASSUME that current 3D capable displays of other technologies also use the checkerboard pattern (there aren't yet any 1080x1920 3D capable displays that can accept a 120hz input, are there?). Regardless, there are a lot of 3D capable displays already out there that use the checkerboard pattern. If the "two full 1080x1920 fields" encoding format wins, I don't see why that couldn't support the existing 3D capable displays. It would be trivial to take those two fields and interleave them into a checkerboard pattern as an output option of the player. Just like an HD player can send out a signal that is compatible with SD displays. If you were trying to "sell" 3D, wouldn't you want to leverage ALL the already existing potential market?

There's no reason for it to have to be incompatible. I haven't followed this topic very closely, but the last I heard, there are essentially two competing formats (with maybe a couple sub-flavors of how it's encoded on disk): one that encodes two separate 1920x1080 fields for each frame (one for each eye), and one that interleaves the two fields into one frame in a checkerboard pattern. The latter is how 3D ready DLP sets display a 3D image, and therefore logic suggests that those sets would be compatible IF that is the encoding format that wins out. I also ASSUME that current 3D capable displays of other technologies also use the checkerboard pattern (there aren't yet any 1080x1920 3D capable displays that can accept a 120hz input, are there?). Regardless, there are a lot of 3D capable displays already out there that use the checkerboard pattern. If the "two full 1080x1920 fields" encoding format wins, I don't see why that couldn't support the existing 3D capable displays. It would be trivial to take those two fields and interleave them into a checkerboard pattern as an output option of the player. Just like an HD player can send out a signal that is compatible with SD displays. If you were trying to "sell" 3D, wouldn't you want to leverage ALL the already existing potential market?

According to this article, each frame of the Panasonic system will be 1920x1080x60i and not 60P:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/11/panasonic-propo/

Anyone ever see this 3D sysetm in action?

SAMSUNG AMERICA AND DDD ANNOUNCE TRIDEF 3D EXPERIENCE FOR SAMSUNG DLP 3-D HDTVs

http://www.ddd.com/about/Press%20Releases/pr_070907.html

According to this article, each frame of the Panasonic system will be 1920x1080x60i and not 60P
But it also says the end result is 1080p @ 120hz. If you are able to derive full frames for each eye at at least 60hz, then you should have everything needed to construct the checkerboard pattern. But if it's 60i that only results in 60p when put back together, I fail to see how that's better than the checkerboard pattern. It's back to half the pixels for each eye. If you only have half the pixels, I would expect a checkerboard pattern to be preferable to a horizontal interlace.

But it also says the end result is 1080p @ 120hz. If you are able to derive then you should have everything needed to construct the checkerboard pattern. But if it's 60i that only results in 60p when put back together, I fail to see how that's better than the checkerboard pattern. It's back to half the pixels for each eye. If you only have half the pixels, I would expect a checkerboard pattern to be preferable to a horizontal interlace.

Are you getting "full frames for each eye at at least 60hz" when the two frames aren't frames at all. They are fields (interlaced).

Are you getting "full frames for each eye at at least 60hz" when the two frames aren't frames at all. They are fields (interlaced).

I don't see how you could have an end result of 1080p @ 120hz without the ability to break it down to full frames for each eye @ 60hz. UNLESS they aren't really FULL 1080p frames @ 120hz. Then again, if that's the case, I fail to see how it's any better than the existing checkerboard format.

A question about HDTV manufacturers that signed up with 3D software companies to provide 3D sets. How are those partnerships going to see any revenue once the 3D standard is set? Won't that whole scheme be obsolete? It seems like the set manufacturers jumped the gun in signing on with the software companies doesn't it?

Anyone ever see this 3D sysetm in action?

SAMSUNG AMERICA AND DDD ANNOUNCE TRIDEF 3D EXPERIENCE FOR SAMSUNG DLP 3-D HDTVs

http://www.ddd.com/about/Press%20Releases/pr_070907.html

Tridef 3D is the big one for people with ATI cards.

My problem with that press release is 2 years later, not one single new Hollywood film has been released in their format. Would have been nice to strike a deal with a few studios before dealing with a software designer.

I don't see how you could have an end result of 1080p @ 120hz without the ability to break it down to full frames for each eye @ 60hz. UNLESS they aren't really FULL 1080p frames @ 120hz. Then again, if that's the case, I fail to see how it's any better than the existing checkerboard format.

We have been watching 60i for over 60 years. Our eye/brain can'r see the de-interlacing because it is happening too fast.

If I alternate 60i using dual streams, I can either show each eye a complete frame in 1/30 sec or I can alternate each eye and show a field (1/60 sec.) instead.

No big deal to upconvert either to get to 60P so the display can show the content.

But the interesting thing seems to be the lack of 24P support. It appears that it will be abandoned and with that - we once again have frame judder due to the 3:2 pulldown necessary for 60i.

Isn't that a step backwards after HDM being founded on 1080x24P?

We have been watching 60i for over 60 years. Our eye/brain can'r see the de-interlacing because it is happening too fast.

If I alternate 60i using dual streams, I can either show each eye a complete frame in 1/30 sec or I can alternate each eye and show a field (1/60 sec.) instead.

No big deal to upconvert either to get to 60P so the display can show the content.

I think you're missing my point. The page you linked to says the end result is 1080/120p. If that's the case, then all the information is there to create a checkerboard pattern. If the page you linked to is wrong, and the end result is 1080/60p, then the checkerboard pattern can already do that, so I fail to see the advantage of that format over the existing checkerboard format.

But it's all moot anyway: since my post yesterday, jbug posted a response from Mitsubishi (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16876379#post16876379) that pretty much confirms what I postulated: the output from most of the competing formats could be converted to the checkerboard pattern for sets using that format. I still contend that it would seem likely that 3D capable players would have that ability built in, as opposed to needing a separate converter. It seems silly to introduce players that output a format that few displays (initially) can take advantage of, when there's already an existing base of 3D capable displays that can work with a trivial conversion to checkerboard format.

Tridef 3D is the big one for people with ATI cards.

My problem with that press release is 2 years later, not one single new Hollywood film has been released in their format. Would have been nice to strike a deal with a few studios before dealing with a software designer.

That's a good point and exactly what I was saying in the Mits TV thread.