AVS Forum banner

The Official 3D Thread

203K views 2K replies 198 participants last post by  DaViD Boulet 
#1 ·
Everybody's heard of the new 3D HDTV @ CEMA but I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread on all of the emerging 3D technologies out there. Please post any knowledge you have or experiences you've had with any of the upcomming/already existing conversion units, peripherals, software, etc...(In particular HDTV compatible 3D). Stereoscopic HD is just about ready to knock on our door - hopefully it won't come with a price tag of $50,000 and leave our heads feeling like they've been beaten with an ice pick.


I've been doing a bunch of reading and speaking on this topic - Here's what I've found so far. A company named Sensio seems to have the most promising tech. for now (at least that which can be mass produced). Supposedly great results without the instant migrane - anyone who's seen it, or knows more about it, please fill us in.


Sensio: http://www.sensio.tv/en/default.3d


P.S. Please excuse me if this thread is not in the exact location it should be in, I wasn't exactly sure on where to post it.
 
#1,002 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX /forum/post/17794925


Imax is the most spectacular from a viewing angle standpoint, and from a brightness due to the double stack, however it is SOFTER than non stacked. Quite frankly al polarization is compromised, when the new series 2 projectors come out with 5,6,7.5 KW, the dolby system will shine.


Also the silver screens absolutely SUCK.

Yes, I have to agree that Dolby 3D deserves serious consideration, particularly from the perspective of home use. I would never go back to a silver screen in the home, which the other polarising systems require.


I'm also looking at the shutter glasses systems to see what may be implemented.
 
#1,004 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam /forum/post/17794898


I, too, would love to hear from those who have watched the same movie on multiple systems.


It's going to be personal preference in most cases, I guess. There are technical differences which will affect picture color, brightness, contrast, fringing and the "perception" of the 3D effect.


There are also differences in the presentation of the "IMAX" version depending of what kind of IMAX your are at (BIG, small, etc).


I personally did not enjoy the "in your face" kind of presentation, caused by the system that Imax used when I saw Polar Express, where the objects on screen seem to jump out and land 5 inches from my nose. Gives me eyestrain to keep crossing my eyes, while still focused across the room.


This paper explains (a bit) the difference - http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/F...chael%20Starks


I found the Real D presentation of Avatar to be more comfortable, and engrossing (and realistic), with little distraction. However, to be fair, I have not yet seen Avatar on any of the other systems to compare them. And from what I have read, Dolby 3D has certain advantages over Real D also.


The primer links I posted earlier explain enough, hopefully, to get more people to try to see multiple 3D formats and give some feedback:

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/d-c...ice_in_3-D.php

http://3dvision-blog.com/what-to-cho...for-3d-movies/

Has this one been posted yet?
Which 'Avatar' to see? A look at IMAX, Dolby 3-D, RealD (and, yeah, boring old 2-D)


Though I still haven't seen it and the linked LA Times article seems more biased toward comfortable glasses and the in-your-face pop-outs of Imax, even at the expense of loss of detail. That last would be a bad trade off for me.


- Tom
 
#1,005 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry /forum/post/17798456


Has this one been posted yet?
Which 'Avatar' to see? A look at IMAX, Dolby 3-D, RealD (and, yeah, boring old 2-D)


Though I still haven't seen it and the linked LA Times article seems more biased toward comfortable glasses and the in-your-face pop-outs of Imax, even at the expense of loss of detail. That last would be a bad trade off for me.


- Tom

Suprisingly lame and uneducated article from the "local newspaper" for the movie capitol of the world. More interesting are the comment section which gives several responses of the experience with XpanD.


New York Times has a similar article with more educated information.

Some highlights;

Quote:
A High-Tech Movie Battle: Which 3-D Glasses Are Best?

By ERIC A. TAUB

Published: December 27, 2009



RealD’s glasses use polarized lenses and cost about 65 cents each. MasterImage 3D, another vendor, uses a similar technology.


Dolby Laboratories, the company behind theater sound systems, makes glasses that filter out different frequencies of red, green and blue. They cost about $28 each. The glasses of the third company, XpanD, use battery-powered LCD shutters that open and shut so each eye sees the appropriate frame of the movie. Those cost as much as $50 each.


James Cameron, the director of “Avatar,” is more often than not the main marketing tool. He has endorsed RealD, says the company, which has about 5,000 screens using its system. But he, his wife and his production partner were photographed at the premiere in Japan wearing XpanD glasses, which work on 2,000 screens worldwide. Dolby says its glasses work with 2,200 screens, but it has no Cameron connection. The company helpfully points out instead how a malfunction in the RealD system spoiled a press preview of “Avatar.”


But in all the hubbub about each product’s advantages and which system Mr. Cameron really, truly loves, the most important question remains unanswered: does one system create a better looking 3-D picture than another?


“I don’t think the consumer can tell the difference,” said Joe Miraglia, the director of design, construction, and facilities for ArcLight Cinemas, a chain of luxury theaters based in Hollywood. The movie chain uses each system in one or more of its theaters, and finds the cost of operation to be roughly the same for all.


While Mr. Miraglia uses RealD in several theaters, he chose XpanD’s LCD glasses for the large curved screen in the company’s flagship Cinerama Dome theater on Sunset Boulevard. This is similar to the technology that will be used by Panasonic, Sony and others as they bring 3-D HDTV to market next year. Recently, electronics makers set standards for creating 3-D Blu-ray discs and players.



But in order to make the wearing of 3-D glasses as routine as ordering popcorn, the makers need some help in the design department. Many of the glasses resemble the “fitover,” or wraparound sunglasses favored by senior citizens in the Sun Belt, a look that is not appealing to young moviegoers.

Interesting point about the "fashioniztas" reaction to the style of the glasses

(as if that matters in the darkness of the cinema
) is that the glasses that are most "wraparound" are the best as they reflects less light towards the inside of the glasses.


I have read very many reports from movie goers bot in the US and EU and the largest complains are that light is reflected from the face or Exit signs on the inside of the glasses making focusing on the screen harder.


Wraparound glasses and powerful projectors seems to give the best experience.


Here are some more for reading the commentaries;
Ask Engadget HD: Does Dolby, RealD or someone else offer the best 3D movie theater experience?


(Even 3D Vision Blog mises out on XpanD
but are educated in the commentaries)
What to Choose: IMAX 3D versus RealD versus Dolby 3D for 3D Movies?
 
#1,006 ·
There is always 2% crosstalk with polarization no matter active or passive. Only Dolby is completely free of crosstalk.


In addition while the Dolby glasses are great [sported here by a handsome model,
]




There is a more expensive INFITEC glasses at ten times the cost:



The 2% crosstalk is a dealbreaker for me. A correctly installed INFITEC is the way to go.


Here are the screens to setup a 3-D system in the Barco DCI projector. I have no clue what these settings mean but I intend to become an expert come CEDIA.



 
#1,009 ·
 Hold everything HDMI 1.3 gear will work with 3D

Quote:
The HDMI Licensing group has solved at least the Blu-ray side of the 3D problem. All devices with HDMI 1.3 and an upgrade connection method Blu-ray Live decks (including PS3), satellite receivers and cable set-top boxes can be upgraded to output 3D. However, as with all things, there's a catch. Keep reading to see what you'll be giving up.

Unfortunately, you'll still need a new HDMI 1.4-enabled 3D HDTV to see the 3D effect. It's necessary because those HDTVs have dual-scanning capabilities: They can display near-simultaneous frames, one for each eye, to create the 3D illusion. Current HDTVs are only single-scan.

And you won't get full 1080p 3D via an upgraded HDMI 1.3 box, either just half or quarter resolution, depending on the source. HDMI 1.3 isn't powerful enough to stream near-simultaneous 1080p frames. From a full 1080p source such as Blu-ray or a satellite receiver, you'll instead get dual 1080i images to create 3D; from a cable box, you'll get dual 540i images. I've been told the difference between full 1080p 3D and 540i 3D is essentially the difference between Blu-ray and DVD, which for most people is not that big of a difference.

01)

Does this mean A/V receivers would also need to be upgraded to HDMI 1.4 in order to get full resolution?


02)

Also am I reading this correctly in that the PS3 will be capable of 3D but not at the full resolution?


03)

Someone mentioned something in one of the previous posts about needing some type of transmitters, could someone explain this to me?
 
#1,011 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT /forum/post/17807420

Hold everything HDMI 1.3 gear will work with 3D




01)

Does this mean A/V receivers would also need to be upgraded to HDMI 1.4 in order to get full resolution?


02)

Also am I reading this correctly in that the PS3 will be capable of 3D but not at the full resolution?


03)

Someone mentioned something in one of the previous posts about needing some type of transmitters, could someone explain this to me?
Q. What's new in the HDMI 1.3 Specification?

Quote:
Higher speed: Although all previous versions of HDMI have had more than enough bandwidth to support all current HDTV formats, including full, uncompressed 1080p signals, HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future HD display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.
http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx#15


That isn't fast enough?


Question #3 - if you are going to display a 3D method that uses active shutter glasses, you need an emitter that syncs with the display that turns on and off the L & R shutters.


If you use the 3D method of light polarization, then no emitter is needed. Each CEM decides what method of 3D they want to use. Panasonic has already said they are going with the active shutter glasses method (frame sequential/page flip)
 
#1,012 ·
I was able to catch Avatar in both a RealD theater and a Dolby 3D theater, but a about a week apart. Honestly I can't point out even a single difference in 3D effect that I noticed. In fact the main difference to me was that the Dolby glasses were much heavier and left a mark on my nose and towards the end of the movie were getting uncomfortable. This makes me wonder how heavy the XpanD glasses feel after a few hours.
 
#1,013 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT /forum/post/17807420

Hold everything — HDMI 1.3 gear will work with 3D


01)

Does this mean A/V receivers would also need to be upgraded to HDMI 1.4 in order to get full resolution?

That is probably so, if I were a betting man - you may have to take your AVR out of the loop in the meantime...

Quote:
02)

Also am I reading this correctly in that the PS3 will be capable of 3D but not at the full resolution?

Seeing the "exemption" in the HDMI spec passed the other day, which some have nicknamed the "PS3 Exemption", I noticed they called the revised 1.3 3D option "Top and Bottom" 3D, or something like that.


This lead me to believe at that time that the PS3 would output two 1920 x 540 images, one above the other, as a single 1920x1080p frame. The top and bottom images perhaps being the left and right stereo images.


Of course, I may be wrong in my interpretation and this "top bottom" format could have been for use with SRXD projectors, much how they do 3D today on the 4K units...


Dual 1080i streams described in this article may not be the end of the world. A little work on the video processor in these displays could render a 1080p left and right image quite easily... HQV Realta 3D, anyone?


Quote:
03)

Someone mentioned something in one of the previous posts about needing some type of transmitters, could someone explain this to me?

No idea - probably were talking about the speed of the transmitter chipset used for the HDMI implementation in a particular device. However, I don't think a 1.3 HDMI chipset could be upgraded to 1.4, if that's what they were getting at.


Hopefully we will get a lot more concrete info and specs on these new options in a few days at CES..
 
#1,014 ·
December 28, 2009

Quote:
"3D is a nascent market and thus continues to evolve quickly," said Steve Venuti, president of HDMI Licensing in a statement. "The addition of the new format will secure the application of 3D for broadcasting, in addition to the existing applications for Blu-ray and gaming."


The support for 3D may be evaluated again once a mandatory format is defined to broadcast 3D images, the consortium said in a statement
http://hdmi-news.newslib.com/story/7253-3582/


HDMI 1.4 spec getting freshened up in preparation for broadcast 3D

Quote:
Dec 23rd 2009


Quite simply, existing cable and satellite hardware isn't going to be held to the same requirements as Blu-ray and videogame equipment rocking the 3D sticker and expecting compatibility with displays on the way, since they won't be passing the same high quality, high bandwidth dual-stream 1080p images anyway.
http://hdmi-news.newslib.com/story/7253-3578/
 
#1,015 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam /forum/post/17810841


Seeing the "exemption" in the HDMI spec passed the other day, which some have nicknamed the "PS3 Exemption", I noticed they called the revised 1.3 3D option "Top and Bottom" 3D, or something like that.

Top/bottom (there is also a side-by-side) is used when 3D has to be sent over a conventional channel, no additional bandwidth is available, and existing set-top boxes are used. Cable, broadcast, satellite, etc. all find it useful. The ultimate goal of cable is 1080p60 per eye being broadcast.
 
#1,016 ·

Quote:
JVC and RealD strike deal


The RealD Format is a proprietary version of a side-by-side 3D format that multiplexes a left eye and right eye 3D image stream into a single channel for delivery of HD-quality 3D content to any 3D-enabled display type. The RealD Format uses a unique set of filters and other technologies making it compatible with today’s HD infrastructure for high-quality 3D delivered via broadcast, packaged media or the Internet.


One of the product lines to integrate RealD 3D technology will be JVC’s 3D LCD displays utilizing Xpol® polarizer and passive circular polarized 3D eyewear. The company’s distinctive high-quality 3D visual engine paired with RealD technology will allow the displays to deliver a natural flicker-free HD 3D experience.
The Xpol® circular polarizing system employs a 3D optical filter used by JVC

JVC; 3D Cinema - overview

JVC; 3D Video - overview

Sony Will Use RealD’s 3D Technology In Its Consumer Electronics Strategy

Quote:
Real D Stereographics CrystalEyes 5

CE 5 have integrated DLP® Link technology that synchronize to 3D-ready DLP® displays* –projectors or TV’s- without an emitter. Two-button control for power & 3D/Dual Channel mode with LED indicator put the user in full control.
Quote:
Variety; S3D to get CES showcase


Coming at CES is the announcement of "DLP Link," a new way of syncing active glasses with the screen. DLP Link will be built into all home-theater projectors with the Texas Instruments DLP chip. Xpand will support DLP Link with new glasses.


Moreover, DLP Link works on laptops and PCs with a small sync transmitter that plugs into a USB port. According to Xpand CEO Maria Costeira, the new system works with any existing laptop or personal computer "with a decent graphics card."


If it works as promised, the DLP Link/Xpand combo it can offer consumers a powerful value proposition: Turn your PC or laptop into an S3D display with glasses and a USB dongle. That would open the door for S3D streaming and provide a ready-made user base for S3D Blu-ray.
Quote:
DLP® Link (White Light) and IR shutter glass compatibility;


The new DLP® Link / White Light shutter glass synchronization technology enables even higher perceived brightness and improved image quality with the new CE-5 Shutterglasses from RealD Pro/StereoGraphics. Shorter switching time, increased synchronization stability, and improved reliability gives more predictable performance.

DLP Link is fully compatible with StereoGraphics Crystal Eyes CE-3 and XPand Eyewear.

An external IR Emitter is necessary if using infrared based eyewear.

IR or DLP Link mode for Crystal Eyes 5 eyewear is user selectable.
 
#1,017 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw /forum/post/17809948


I was able to catch Avatar in both a RealD theater and a Dolby 3D theater, but a about a week apart. Honestly I can't point out even a single difference in 3D effect that I noticed. In fact the main difference to me was that the Dolby glasses -snip-

i saw avatar again in a different theater from the first one (described a few pages ago), a kind of IMAX theater. [the screen was about thirty feet high, so this was possibly IMAX lite (i'm guessing this is the digital 2K version of "IMAX", not the traditional 70mm 15 perf film projector) but still it was pretty darn big and looked fine to me.]


the glasses were larger than the previous ones i had experienced (red/blue convex-lens ones that said "Dolby" on the sides [EDIT - removed 'active shutter' - dolby is not active shutter technology] ) : the ones from the IMAX theater had very flimsy flexible "lenses" presumably made only of a thin sheet of polarized plastic. on the sides the printing only said "IMAX" .


when the theater staff handed me my glasses they came out of a steel rack that looked like it could go in a dishwasher: the lenses had very faint drip lines where traces of some kind of residual washing liquid had dried.


after the movie there were collection buckets already staged outside theater exits.


i surmise the glasses were polarized because (unlike the previous theater, where each eye perceived color differently) each eye perceived reflections differently. the little tiny strings of lights lining the walkways looked the same to both eyes (unlike the other glasses where one eye could not see the orange lights). there was a smooth area of floor directly in front of the screen that reflected the light coming off the screen a little: one eye could see these reflections, the other could not. for fun, i put on a second pair of the glasses at one point: the light loss (which was moderate but noticeable with one pair) did not increase at all with two. if i put the second pair on upside down i saw almost no light at all, with a diffusely defined band in the very center of my field of view where there was absolute blackness. to me this all means polarizing technology.


with the dolby glasses, i had noticed a scene (the first briefing with quaritch) where an orange door in the background shimmered somewhat because orange was handled so differently between the two eyes. the door looked absolutely steady in both eyes this time.


strangely, images in the film that depicted reflections shimmered somewhat. i'm not talking about real reflections within the exhibition space: i'm talking about a scene in the movie where light reflected off one of the surfaces being filmed: such a region of the image would shimmer somewhat. i have no idea why this would be the case.


when viewing the screen with no glasses, the double image was simply offset in space, not color shifted (one magenta one green)


the big dolce and gabbana wraparound style was effective in blocking incursion of extraneous light from the sides. i already wear glasses- these accommodated them well. as with the other glasses i felt a slight pressure from the 3d glasses on the bridge of my nose.


i did experience a faint sense of eye strain, not acute. not much headache. compared to the dolby glasses, i felt less of an odd feeling immediately after movie but this time i still felt funny hours later.


during the film my eyes would get a little dry, i'm guessing because the brain was so stimulated by the novelty of the rich stream of visual information that it suppressed the blinking reflex a little. same thing occasionally happened to me when i first got an HDTV and still can happen to me sometimes when working on a particularly intense computer session where visual cues can be fleeting.


also my weaker eye (one eye has more astigmatism that can't *quite* be corrected to 20/20 with traditional eyeglasses and certainly can't be adequately corrected with any type of contact lenses) would periodically tire and lose focus. i had to blink repeatedly or hold my eyes closed for a moment to regroup and concentrate on focusing that eye briefly and all would be well.


bdraw, i agree with your finding: in general the 3D effect was just as good with the polarized glasses as it was with the dolby glasses.


lastly, 24 fps judder has been discussed here at length. in avatar it was most noticeable any time a slow horizontal pan raked across a regularly spaced vertical pattern, such as the drooping glowing trees. i remain as convinced as ever that 3D technology is mature enough that (properly handled, as it was here) it inflicts fewer dissonant artifacts that destroy the immersive experience than 24 fps judder. i also maintain 48 fps would help 3D more than 2D. it is very noticeable when a 3-dimensional object teleports instantaneously between locations every 1/24th of a second.
 
#1,019 ·
Quartics and DDD announce a new cheap 3D solution

Quote:
Quartics and DDD have created a new 3D solution using Quartics' Qvu video-processor and DDD's TriDef 3D software. The new system will automatically convert traditional 2D content into a rich, immersive 3D environment - ideal for cost sensitive consumer devices.
http://www.3d-display-info.com/quart...ap-3d-solution
 
#1,020 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX /forum/post/17800464


The 2% crosstalk is a dealbreaker for me. A correctly installed INFITEC is the way to go.
infitec pdf describing infitec glasses


"Stereoprojection with such an INFITEC (interference filter technique) system using an interference filter Type A (primary colours B1 - G1 - R1) to the left eye image and a filter type B (primary colours B2 - G2 - R2) to the right eye image reveals a very clear channel separation with virtually not any cross talking which exceeds clearly that in stereoprojection systems that work with polarisation filters."
 
#1,021 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/17818813

Quartics and DDD announce a new cheap 3D solution



http://www.3d-display-info.com/quart...ap-3d-solution

Here is whole press press release that tells a little more without saying anymore about the technology and quality than some more "talking points".


The danger of so many companies and ways of processing 3D (both from 3D and 2D sources) that try to wrangle themselves into the marked, is that people will be flooded with choices, and that we know a lot of these systems will be underperformers. In the end we risk that so many customers will be disappointed and the whole 3D effort will die because of bad reputation.

Quote:
Quartics and DDD to Demonstrate a Stunning 3D Experience on Electronics Devices at CES 2010

Business Wire News Releases

Published: 12/29/09 01:52 PM EST


The blockbuster movie “Avatar,” which earned more than $200 million internationally after its first weekend of theatrical release, is fueling a rapidly growing demand for the same 3D experience in consumer electronics devices. Quartics, Inc. and DDD Group plc (DDD) are leading this effort and collaborating to bring the most compelling and cost effective 3D technology yet to HD TVs and Netbooks by optimizing the Quartics’ Qvu™ Video Processor with DDD’s TriDef® 3D software technology.


The combined Qvu and TriDef solution will automatically convert traditional 2D content into a rich, immersive 3D environment that is ideal for cost sensitive consumer devices. Those interested in experiencing this 3D solution at Quartics’ private meeting suite at the Wynn Hotel during CES should contact Dan Davis at Quartics at (949) 468-2222 or dan@quartics.com .


The combined solution is compatible with virtually any 3D display technology including passive polarized and active shutter glasses. It supports the decoding of a wide variety of original 3D content formats including those used in Blu-ray and broadcast 3D applications. Devices equipped with the Qvu 3D features can automatically convert any existing 2D HD content to 3D from Blu-Ray, social media sites, games consoles and more.


“Embedding DDD’s market-leading TriDef solution with in the Quartics Qvu Video Processor is the next step in delivering high quality, cost effective 3D content solutions for OEM customers now seeking to introduce next generation 3D products,” said Chris Yewdall, chief executive of DDD. “The performance, functionality and low power consumption of Qvu brings a vastly improved 2D and 3D experience to a wide variety of consumer platforms, including PCs and televisions.”


“Our combined solution offers the first real opportunity for OEMs and ODMs to bring 3D to HD TVs and Netbooks at consumer price points,” said Sherjil Ahmed, president and founder of Quartics. “And, by taking advantage of Qvu’s programmable nature, customers can extend the benefits of a single, common platform without having to change the underlying hardware. Our efforts with DDD are the first step in the strategic direction of bringing the 3D experience to consumer applications.”


About the Revolutionary Qvu™ Video Processor SoC


Qvu is a programmable SoC solution that provides a “Beyond HD” level of video quality surpassing even that of high definition. Qvu consumes a minimal amount of power and thus significantly improves battery life and viewing time, while offering a single platform that can be repurposed for use in multiple applications to handle all HD video processing tasks in a consumer electronics device. Qvu is ideal for Netbooks, Laptops, IP Set-Top Boxes and HD TVs.

Key benefits of the Qvu Video Processor include:


*“Beyond HD” experience on HD content


*HD-like experience on non-HD content


*Automatic 2D to 3D HD conversion


*Sharper and brighter image quality


*More vibrant colors


*Ultra-smooth viewing with no “skipping”


*Extended battery life while watching videos


*Worldwide multi-standard video content playback


About DDD Group


DDD Group is transforming the viewing experience with applications for 3-D displays. Its patented technologies enable 3-D viewing with and without glasses; simple integration of computer graphics applications with 3-D displays; supply of 3-D content through 2-D to 3-D conversion; and 3-D transmission over existing networks. DDD is quoted on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market (DDD). More information is available at www.DDD.com .


About Quartics


Quartics is a consumer electronics company that is redefining the video experience for consumers globally. The company’s patented products and technologies deliver a “Beyond HD” quality on devices including Netbooks, Laptops, IP-Set Top Boxes, HD TVs, and more. Visit www.quartics.com for more information.


Quartics and Qvu are trademarks or registered trademarks of Quartics, Inc. with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other international trademark organizations. TriDef and the DDD logo are trademarks of DDD. All other brands or product names contained herein are the property of their respective owners. This material is provided as-is and without any express or implied warranties, including merchantability, non-infringement and suitability for a specific purpose. Copyright 2010. Quartics, Inc. All rights reserved.

Contacts:


Quartics

Inquiries:

Dan Davis, +1-949-468-2222

Vice President of Marketing
dan@quartics.com
 
#1,022 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw /forum/post/17778066


Obviously 30 fps isn't as good, but it would have to be better than anagylph 3D.

Existing films are shot at 24 fps, and when projected, each frame is exposed several times, to reduce flicker. Is it possible to duplicate the effect, using the shutter glasses.

The glasses would need to run at 3x60 HZ to give one exposure, a blank, and a second exposure, per tv frame, per eye.
 
#1,023 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysand /forum/post/17820471


Existing films are shot at 24 fps, and when projected, each frame is exposed several times, to reduce flicker. Is it possible to duplicate the effect, using the shutter glasses.

The glasses would need to run at 3x60 HZ to give one exposure, a blank, and a second exposure, per tv frame, per eye.

Thats why digital theaters use 144fps for 3D.


24*3 + 24*3 = 144
 
#1,026 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon /forum/post/17820765


I have to start saving for a 3D blu-ray player

I keep hearing so many different things stated that Im still wondering what exactly is going to need to be replaced. I would be interested if it was just the player... But if needs a new BD player, new front projector, new AV receiver, new HDMI 1.4 wires run thru the ceiling, glasses etc I just cant see it worth the expense no matter how interested I am.


Whats that gonna do to your screen shots comparsions with 3D
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top