Official 3D Projector Thread. - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 346 Old 01-27-2010, 05:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
I don`t know what they will do. But 3D with shutter glasses eats up about 85% of the light. They will have to up the anti to around 3000 ANSI or force small or high gain screens on the HT world. Stacking would be an option with an external box to split the signal and handle the shutter glass sync but Joe FP HT consumer won`t accept a stack option. You and I might.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 10:05 AM
PLB
Senior Member
 
PLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Pixels per square foot of image area isn't really a valid metric when discussing things with such different viewing distances. Pixels per degree of vision is much more relevant and the theater can have just as many if not more. At the same viewing ratio the 2K DLPs would have more pixels per degree of vision than your home projector, but your home projector being 720p DLP could also be giving you a kind of false sharpness.

--Darin

No, I'm afraid not. Your math is bad. If you compare similar triangles - presumably this is what you mean by "same viewing ratio" - you can easily calculate "pixels per degree of vision".

When I went into the theater I was among the first to arrive. Therefore I chose a seat where I thought I would be comfortable. I wasn't constrained by the prior seating of others. At home I sit 12 feet from an 8 foot wide screen. This means the screen subtends about a 36 degree angle on my retina. Presumably I went to a seat in the theater that also subtended a 36 degree angle.

This means the viewing cone (or for simplicity's sake the horizontal viewing angle) at the theater is a geometrically similar angle to my Home Theater viewing angle. This being so, at home I have the opposite side of that angle (96 inches) divided into 1280 parts - that's 13.3/inch. While at the hypothetical 40 foot wide 4k DLP auditorium the opposite side only has pixels at about 8.3/inch.

The only way the HT would not have a more subdivided (higher resolution) image than would be if the subtended angles were not equal. For example if I tended to sit close at home and far back in the auditorium in the theater, these calculations would not be meaningful. But I believe (and so do most others) that ad libitum viewers preserve image size not image density.

There are other components to image quality besides resolution, but HT has the advantage over commercial movie theater in terms of resolution. In a typical 2K digital movie theater you can easily see the pixel structure from seats in the front row. Such a 2K theater projector is nearly identical in resolution to a HT 1080p projector - but the screen is many times bigger. How could the movie theater image not be more diffuse?
PLB is offline  
post #183 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 10:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Oh Boy. A direct challenge to Darin calling him wrong. Let the games begin. Yummy for a rather dull boring HT winter.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #184 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 11:16 AM
PLB
Senior Member
 
PLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Now a 1.5 gain pull down screen?Notfor me or others Isuspect that have a realhigh end set up. Ijust don`t like the hot spotting with gains over 1.3.those with perf screens or masking screens justwon`t want to take such a step backwards.

The light has to come from somewhere. Screens can't really cause "gain". They are passive devices. The best thing that they can do is to redirect the available light into an area of concentration. This is how rear projector machines work or retroflective front projector screens. My HT screen is a Da-Lite Hi-Power with a gain of 2.8. It does not hot spot as many reviewers have noted.

The Da-Lite HP has a rather narrow viewing cone and requires a projector placement near the viewer's line of sight. So a HT with a wide seating plan perpendicular to the projection axis will have much dimmer views from the outside seats. Obviously all commercial theaters have wide seating plans and are therefore not suitable for retroflective screens. However maybe half of all Home Theaters have narrow seating plans that allow the use of retroflective screens.

Retroflective screens do not preserve polarity so they are not appropriate for 3D systems that use passive glasses. Polarity preserving silver screens used in passive glasses Real3D, IMAX, and Dolby systems can indeed hot spot. I don't think that will prove to be important because I expect HT 3D to use standard (non-silver) screens and active 3D glasses.

The concern over brightness is valid. The 3D images seen in modern commercial theater in Avatar and Beowolf are just barely bright enough to be acceptable. Scaling down the passive glasses/silver screen technology for the home will be tricky. Many forum posters have reported hot spotting on their silver home screens.

I expect that at least in the short run the first 3D at home will be viewed from powerful PCs or game consoles that support active shutter glasses and DLP projectors. They will use standard white screens or retroflective screens - not silver screens. These early 3D adopters will migrate toward projectors that have more lumens than the machines that are currently popular for viewing 2D movies. This should not be much of a problem because all the major manufacturers make business models that are already much, much brighter than current models aimed at HT movie watching.

In the theater the Avatar image did not have notable black levels. I expect that black levels - the reviewer's favorite attribute today - will be sacrificed in the first 3D projectors, as will 1080 resolution. A 1080 projector moves about twice as many pixels per second as a 720 projector just as a 3D projector moves about twice as many pixels per second as a comparable 2D projector. If this amount of computation proves to be difficult, I expect 3D at 720 to beat out 2D at 1080. If 3D catches on we will get it all back of course - 1080 resolution, high brightness, and deep blacks.

I think 3D movies for Home Theater is coming. It requires a lot of powerful hardware of course but that won't matter because 3D will come first through video gaming - and gamers don't seem to care what hardware costs.
PLB is offline  
post #185 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 11:23 AM
PLB
Senior Member
 
PLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Oh Boy. A direct challenge to darin calling him wrong.

I didn't call him wrong. I called his math wrong. He would only be wrong himself if for example he had a foot growing out of his head. Of course people with feet in their heads probably also also have trouble with trigonometry.
PLB is offline  
post #186 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 12:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

No, I'm afraid not. Your math is bad.

If you are claiming that my:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

At the same viewing ratio the 2K DLPs would have more pixels per degree of vision than your home projector ...

was wrong then you are having trouble with your math (or just a mistake of calculating pixels/inch instead of pixels/degree).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

If you compare similar triangles - presumably this is what you mean by "same viewing ratio" - you can easily calculate "pixels per degree of vision".

Yes you can, so why didn't you do it instead of calculating pixels per inch? What relevance do you think pixels per inch has to human vision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

When I went into the theater I was among the first to arrive. Therefore I chose a seat where I thought I would be comfortable. I wasn't constrained by the prior seating of others. At home I sit 12 feet from an 8 foot wide screen. This means the screen subtends about a 36 degree angle on my retina. Presumably I went to a seat in the theater that also subtended a 36 degree angle.

This means the viewing cone (or for simplicity's sake the horizontal viewing angle) at the theater is a geometrically similar angle to my Home Theater viewing angle. This being so, at home I have the opposite side of that angle (96 inches) divided into 1280 parts - that's 13.3/inch. While at the hypothetical 40 foot wide 4k DLP auditorium the opposite side only has pixels at about 8.3/inch.

And what do you think that means? If you sat at 120' away from an 80' wide 4k image do you think your eyes would see different resolution than if you sat 60' away from a 40' wide 4k image (all else, like ft-lamberts, being equal)? Using your "logic" the 40' wide image would have way higher resolution because there would be more pixels per inch on the screen (8.3 pixels/inch instead of 4.2 pixels/inch), but what do you think that means to your eyes that are 1.5x the screen width away in both cases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

The only way the HT would not have a more subdivided (higher resolution) image than would be if the subtended angles were not equal.

Of course it is going to have higher resolution per inch of screen width but you said my math was wrong, so you should show where my math was wrong or admit that it wasn't. It should be quite obvious that calculating pixels per inch of screen width doesn't do anything about showing where my math was right or wrong since my math wasn't about pixels per inch of screen width.

Obviously if you get close enough that the distance between your eyes matters than that brings in another factor, but isn't what we were talking about here. It was your claim about pixels/inch of screen width being the relevant factor, when it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLB View Post

There are other components to image quality besides resolution, but HT has the advantage over commercial movie theater in terms of resolution.

Not with 720p at home it doesn't unless you sit at a bigger viewing ratio for your screen. You never did address my point about pixel per feet or inches of screen width not being the relevant factor and instead went off showing the pixels per inches of screen width was higher, which was never in question. If you think pixels per inch of screen width is the relevant factor then please explain why you think it is the relevant factor for human vision instead of pixels per degree, instead of saying some math was incorrect and then doing a "proof" that doesn't show it to be incorrect.

How about retrying your math and since you said it was easy and my math was wrong, actually calculating the "pixels per degree of vision" this time?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #187 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Darin. I think you are 100% right and BTW a nice calm thoughtful non insulting post.

And PLB. You are correct about the pixel density being less.


BTW. Something either you might explain to me. When watching non 3D stuff on the Imax 3d screen without polarizing glasses, the pixel grid structure was clearly visible in my center position maybe 10 to 15 rows back. Looked like looking through a screen door with the screen in focus. As soon as Avatar came on, no more visible grid structure with or without the glasses on.

Now PLB. You know I know little but I do know that FP screensd are all passive. The way they redirect light is basically specified by a screen gain and 1/2 gain viewing angle. Many including Darin like the characteristics of the HP and can live within its limitations. Havinng a almost black pit theater with dark gray fabric walls, a black ceiling, and dark fabric over the dark navy carpet on my screen stage, I would prefer a unity gain smooth screen. I presently have a 1.3 gain screen that is not all that smooth and I will soon be ordering in that 1.0 gain to fit. Now I get it about screens. having sold upwards of many hundreds over the years. And, if I give up one center seat in my second row of eight seats, I could indeed center the projector lens in dead center of the screen very close to the height of my eyes. But I`d rather watch on a 1.0 gain and for 3D buy some relatively cheap light canon. We know that we are going to be dealing with half the resolution so I would think the projector could be half resolution but I do not fully understand enough to state this with any degree of affinity.

I really want the 3D for live sports. 3D movies I could catch at a commercial theater. There are probably only 5 or 6 new movies each year that interest me. Since I will always be limited to a 54 x 96 for 1.78, and 1 40 x 96 for 2.4 or so, going to the movies for a really really big screen gain be quite enjoyable.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #188 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 04:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:


BTW. Something either you might explain to me. When weatching non 3D stuff on the Imax 3d screen without polarizing glasses, the pixel grid structure was clearly visible in my center position maybe 15 rows back. Looked like looking through a screen door with the screen in focus. As soon as Avatar came on, no more visible grid structure with or without the glasses on.

They probably were using a different projector for the non-AVATAR stuff and switched to the dual digital rig when the movie started.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #189 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 04:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I don`t know what they will do. But 3D with shutter glasses eats up about 85% of the light. They will have to up the anti to around 3000 ANSI or force small or high gain screens on the HT world. Stacking would be an option with an external box to split the signal and handle the shutter glass sync but Joe FP HT consumer won`t accept a stack option. You and I might.

I wondered why that figure was so low and it seems to be a problem of screen refresh timing rather than transmission quality of the shutter glasses themselves. While going for higher refresh rates like 240 and 480 etc might benefit flicker perception, it might have a greater benefit from having more light get to the eye. If the whole screen needs to be redrawn (raster data from top to bottom of screen) before the shutter opens to reveal the picture for each eye, the shutter is only open a small fraction of the time because it has to be closed while the screen is refreshed. If the screen can be completely redrawn in 2 milliseconds (for a 480 hz display) that image could be displayed there for 6 milliseconds then close (8 ms = ~120Hz), redraw for the other eye in 2 ms display for 6 ms. That's the timing needed for each eye to get 60Hz . So the glasses are letting all the projector's light (less the loss of the "open state shutter) in 75% of the time to one eye or the other. Close one eye right now - did your brain tell you screen went to 1/2 brightness? Didn't think so! Perhaps things aren't so bad after all?
Which would you prefer - 120hz for each eye and a 50% loss of brightness or 60Hz and a loss of 33%?

I know I'm out of my depth here but that link (no signup needed) was helpful to starting to understand some of the technical problems...
AJSJones is offline  
post #190 of 346 Old 01-28-2010, 05:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
xhonzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thornton, Colorado
Posts: 913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

*snip*
Stacking would be an option with an external box to split the signal and handle the shutter glass sync but Joe FP HT consumer won`t accept a stack option. You and I might.

Joe FP HT consumer? Who is that? Or has Joe Sixpack gotten some upgrades recently?
xhonzi is offline  
post #191 of 346 Old 01-29-2010, 06:41 PM
Member
 
Keroppi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This has been a great thread, although I really had to chuckle when everyone kept saying 'early adopter'....it's early for your average consumer, I suppose. I guess I am a SUPER early adopter...I have had active and passive 3D setups for going on 10 years now.

I am one of those morons who can/would/did go through all of the different technolgies, and the expense thereof. It's ok, I might be a moron since there's no 'standard'...but I least I have been enjoying 3D goodness all this time.
I am so thankful they are creating at least transmission standards for it now. It will vastly improve the amount of content once it catches in popularity. Even though it'll make my theater less impressive once everyone has one, I will have much more to watch. The bulk of my 3D viewing has been rendered content (games, etc.) and the few 3d movies that are available, most of which have little 3d-recorded content. Proper 3d movies have been played at IMAXs for years, but they are not available in any usable form.

I have/still have both active and passive stereo projection solutions. I own (or have tried): single dlp active polarizing, dual dlp passive polarizing, single dlp active shutter, dlp checkerboard, and even active shutter on a fast-phosphor seos CRT projector(!)...I have not had the opportunity to check out the infinitec setups or any autostereoscopic displays.

I am entirely a RealD camp; I owned most of their products before they did (back when they were still StereoGraphics)...I wanted to touch base on a few things that have been discussed, as I have plenty of personal experience with them:

--passive and active solutions ALL reduce light output. Considerably. I have no lux meter, but I have to say that the 70% mentioned is a pretty good estimate. The least light destroying solution is a passive dual-pj rig, I'd estimate 40ish%. My current setup is an active 5000 lumen Christie VistaGraphx @9'x12' and while it's awesome, it is absolutely required to throw an acceptable image. Bear in mide this PJ will throw almost 15fc at a screen 4 times as large...not to mention having to plug it in to my dryer connection to do so. I am skeptical of these 2000-3000 lumen units currently coming out on the market, but they may do well at more reasonable screen sizes.

--silver screens...I am intrigued by RealD's dual screens discussed earlier...I can confirm that polarizing screens truly SUCK (hotspotting) for 2D content, which is the main reason I am running an active setup now. A now-and-then 2nd screen for 3D would not work well...All (proper) polarizing screens currently on the market have impregnated material that will distort if folded (or even left rolled) too long. I destroyed a really nice screen this way when I moved. It leave little hot lines on the screen and destoys the image.

I have spent thousands on steroscopic equipment, most of which won't be usable with the new 3D blurays or HDMI 1.4...but I'm not complaining. I have been enjoying this "fad" for a long time, and now I will have even more choices and content to enjoy.

Any questions you guys have I will be happy to try to answer. Cheers!
Keroppi is offline  
post #192 of 346 Old 01-29-2010, 11:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
conan48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Igloo
Posts: 2,179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Can't u just make a projector a dual lamp system for double the lumens? An easy solution would be to have only 1 lamp working when in 2D mode, but when u switch to 3D mode the second lamp goes active and now you have 2 lamps going. Is this possible?
conan48 is offline  
post #193 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 07:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by conan48 View Post

Can't u just make a projector a dual lamp system for double the lumens? An easy solution would be to have only 1 lamp working when in 2D mode, but when u switch to 3D mode the second lamp goes active and now you have 2 lamps going. Is this possible?

I'd imagine that's exactly what some single-box 3D PJs will do. Baically get brighter in 3D mode.

Of course, some folks would make use of that in 2D as well.. say with ambient light in the room.

But the basic idea is on target... have the PJ so it gets brighter in 3D.

The LG unit mentioned "dual calibration"... one calibration for 2D and another for 3D, so maybe that's doing something along those lines.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #194 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
A problem with two bulb systems is getting uniform brightness across the screen, particulary with one bulb shut off. And doubling the brightness is simply not enough extra lumens. Get it that shutter glass systems of 3d basically eat up about 85% of the light coming from the projector(s). WTF.Say it isn`t true. get with it, it is true. About the only way this could be simply improved is improved transmissivity of the glasses but this would only result in a relatively small improvement. Its the hold rate and the time each glass is open that results in the light loss. For Plama and other direct view screens, eating up a lot of light is not a problem generally. Its our FPs where we normally have just enogh brightness tomake us happy especially after some bulb wear. There are exceptions but if you double the light in most HTs and then go to3D many will find it way too dim.

Yes. There are lots of problems with HT 3D. there is no simple, easy,low cost solution. compromises and which many will view as significant we need to be made.

I am beginning to feel the simplist and least painful way togo will be to watch 3d on a large flat screen. The Viio will only cost $3500 for 72b or 73 inch D. A big mother Panasonic plasma of about the same size is coming. no cost as of yet. SoI can`t doa large group HT 3d party. For $200 bucks I will just treat them all to Avatar tickets.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #195 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 08:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Mark,

this "85%" number we keep seeing (WTF... hehe), is that for a particular model of active shutter design? Does refresh rate affect it?

The reason I ask is that so far all of those demoing active-shutter haven't complained of a loss of light. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a dimming by wearing the glasses, but 85% seems like it would be very pronounced to anyone looking at a 3D TV... wouldn't folks notice and comment? Yet all of the demos from CES (from AVS members as well) never mentioned noticeable dimming.

Again, not suggesting that there *isn't* dimming... we know there is. But I'd be curious what are the parameters behind that 85% figure and, by extension, what parameters would cause it to change. I've heard some reports suggest that the faster the active-shutter the less perceived loss of light.

Also, there's a difference between measured loss of light and perceived loss of light. It's possible that with the alternating left/right nature of the on/off, that since one eye always has full-brightness while the other eye is flashed off, that the brain perceives a higher brightness than what is the actual measured average of on/off coming through. If that's true, then it doesn't really matter what is measured, as long as the image looks bright enough to your brain.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #196 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 08:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Its actualloss which we know is quite different than perceived. for example, we know that if the light is doubled, it is perceived as somewhat brighter,not twice as bright.

the biggest issue re light loss is how long each shutter is open, time wise. This is not a limitation of the shutter but is directly related to the hold time for each flash on the screen.i amnot sure how refresh enteres into this but i would suspect it does. A few posts earlier there was a link concerning this (link was indicated by bolding some text in the post0. it should how little time a shutter was open.Obviously transmissivity of LCD glassses can be improved. but there is little that can be done re how long a shutter is open.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #197 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Is that "85%" figure you mention the amount of light lost through the LCD panel in an open state, or is it a measure of light average over time in the open state given the on/off transitions? I ask because if the latter is the case, then it's really saying that the on-state of the eyewear has a 35% light loss, coupled with the 50% time where it's completely off, so over any given second you only get 15% of the light through that goggle.

This distinction of light loss when the LCD panel is in "open" versus the average light measured over time with it alternating on/off is important.

By definition, with dual-image stereo, you'll only be able to have each shutter open 50% of the time because you've got to share the time space with two channels, so imagining that we've developed LCD eyewear with perfect transparency, therefore you'd have a literal loss of 50%. So with better and better LCD eyewear design, we should be closer to that number.

But here's the most important point of what I'm suggesting and what I've read: I'm not just talking about perceived brightness in terms of the way our eyes see logarithmically, I'm talking about a different paradigm of perceived brightness because *one eye* is seeing a full-on image while the other eye is darkened.

Example: if you put on sunshades that filter out 50% of the light onto both eyes, you see a dimmer world.

Now, without sunshades, close one eye. Do you see a "dimmer" world?

No.

Even though in each example the average light for your combined vision of both eyes is cut by exactly 50%.

Your brain doesn't say "well one eye is dark-black, and the other eye bright, so let me average the perceived brightness between the two". Your brain simply uses the eye that sees the active image as the correct eye to trust, so it does. This isn't wired to the physical closed nature of your eyelids. If you leave both eyes open but cover one eye with an eye-patch, your brain still sees the world as "bright" as the eye that has an image.

That's what I mean by *alternating* left/right stereoscopic images as perhaps actually having the chance to look brighter than the measured fact that you're missing 50% of the light over the given span of time... because when the image *is* on, it's on for one eye full bright, and the brain may use that to gauge it's perception of how bright the image is and not the "average" of on/off.

That's most likely why folks say that they perceive less light loss with active shutter wear... because except for the light lost in transmitting through the LCD panel when open, the brain is able to see the image as "bright" as the image it sees in the on-state.

Polarized is a different story because both eyes are, by definition, only getting 50% of the light and never more (and of course probably less with real-world filter designs).

Quote:


the biggest issue re light loss is how long each shutter is open, time wise. This is not a limitation of the shutter but is directly related to the hold time for each flash on the screen.i amnot sure how refresh enteres into this but i would suspect it does. A few posts earlier there was a link concerning this (link was indicated by bolding some text in the post0. it should how little time a shutter was open.Obviously transmissivity of LCD glassses can be improved. but there is little that can be done re how long a shutter is open.

It would be interesting to see how the speed of back/forth on/off affects perceived brightness. Does anyone have any objective data?

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #198 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroppi View Post

This has been a great thread, although I really had to chuckle when everyone kept saying 'early adopter'....it's early for your average consumer, I suppose. I guess I am a SUPER early adopter...I have had active and passive 3D setups for going on 10 years now. ....

Thanks very much for your observations, especially being based on far more experience than most of us have.

While I'm in no hurry to have a 3D setup, the active approach certainly seems preferable, particularly for compatibility with 2D.

Another thread provided a link to Lenny Lipton's very informative blog (mostly on various aspects of 3D imaging): http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/ I started back at its beginning and worked my way to the present.... Well worth checking out.
R Johnson is offline  
post #199 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 10:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Interesting post. I just don`t know the answers. Obviously you see the same brightness through the open eye when the other is shut. But the image flashed for that eye when its open is not very long. So I think its the amount of light gather in why the eye is open vs steady state one or something like that. Think of it as one needing so much light in to properly expose a picture.The shutter speed is very fast between the time open and shut and is slow between openings. So the total light that can hit the filmor here your eye is limited to the brightness per unit area flashed on the screen and the time the shutter is open. Classic under exposure. If you can`t keep the shutter open longer and you can`t use a faster (bigger lens), here there is no lens but a shutter glass lcd methodolgy that could be improved to transmit more light, the amount of light on the screen needs a large boost to get the light your eye wants to say. GD she is not only pretty and can f--- like a ------, but she is bright. Unfortunately she won`t make you rich. You will need a lot of bucks to get her.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #200 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 11:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Is that "85%" figure you mention the amount of light lost through the LCD panel in an open state, or is it a measure of light average over time in the open state given the on/off transitions? I ask because if the latter is the case, then it's really saying that the on-state of the eyewear has a 35% light loss, coupled with the 50% time where it's completely off, so over any given second you only get 15% of the light through that goggle.

This distinction of light loss when the LCD panel is in "open" versus the average light measured over time with it alternating on/off is important.

By definition, with dual-image stereo, you'll only be able to have each shutter open 50% of the time because you've got to share the time space with two channels, so imagining that we've developed LCD eyewear with perfect transparency, therefore you'd have a literal loss of 50%. So with better and better LCD eyewear design, we should be closer to that number.

But here's the most important point of what I'm suggesting and what I've read: I'm not just talking about perceived brightness in terms of the way our eyes see logarithmically, I'm talking about a different paradigm of perceived brightness because *one eye* is seeing a full-on image while the other eye is darkened.

Example: if you put on sunshades that filter out 50% of the light onto both eyes, you see a dimmer world.

Now, without sunshades, close one eye. Do you see a "dimmer" world?

No.

Even though in each example the average light for your combined vision of both eyes is cut by exactly 50%.

Your brain doesn't say "well one eye is dark-black, and the other eye bright, so let me average the perceived brightness between the two". Your brain simply uses the eye that sees the active image as the correct eye to trust, so it does. This isn't wired to the physical closed nature of your eyelids. If you leave both eyes open but cover one eye with an eye-patch, your brain still sees the world as "bright" as the eye that has an image.

That's what I mean by *alternating* left/right stereoscopic images as perhaps actually having the chance to look brighter than the measured fact that you're missing 50% of the light over the given span of time... because when the image *is* on, it's on for one eye full bright, and the brain may use that to gauge it's perception of how bright the image is and not the "average" of on/off.

That's most likely why folks say that they perceive less light loss with active shutter wear... because except for the light lost in transmitting through the LCD panel when open, the brain is able to see the image as "bright" as the image it sees in the on-state.

Polarized is a different story because both eyes are, by definition, only getting 50% of the light and never more (and of course probably less with real-world filter designs).



It would be interesting to see how the speed of back/forth on/off affects perceived brightness. Does anyone have any objective data?

If the link wasn't so obvious in my post HERE IT IS.
There are two issues going here that might be improved (beyond the simple question of how much light loss there is in the "open" state - which I ignore* below). The first is the refresh rate of the image on the display device - it takes time to move the data from the buffer to the display panel and it can be done in traditional raster or in columns etc . In any case, we don't want to see an image of a partially redrawn screen, so the shutter has to be closed during that interval. BUT the time the image is presented to the eye does not have to be limited by the fastest refresh time - hence my example of 2 ms redraw (from a 480Hz display), display for 6 ms to give almost 75% of available lamp intensity on screen but seen only by one eye. As we mentioned , the brain doesn't perceive a big loss in intensity when one eye is closed so the brain sees close* to 75%. This figure is DIRECTLY determined by the amount of time the shutter is in its open state as a proportion of the "cycle" time. So the second issue is the speed at which the glasses can change state - shown by the "square wave in the first figure of the first link) If these can physically change state as fast as the display device can redraw a complete raster, they will not be limiting - assuming the control signals can be made precise enough.

Therefore, improvements in 1) refresh rate and 2) glasses state-change speed will have room for improvement until they are providing diminishing returns on EITHER flicker or intensity (there is a trade-off, apparently). They may well be at a point where the loss isn't a killer (explaining the comment about many folks not feeling it was too dark - perhaps the 85% loss figure, wherever it came from, is too high??)

Brighter is, up to a point, better so 3D PJ's should have good lamps. On the other hand, 3D news while watching dinner is unlikely to be an early crowd draw - while movies and sports etc will likely need to be watched in darkened rooms anyway, otherwise the 3D effect will be vastly diminished if you can see something "through" it. For similar reasons, "glassless" (sine qua non for some) will also need to be seen in a darkened room and perhaps they will squawk at that limitation too .

I'm liking the shutter glasses option more and more as I think about it - if only they can make them light enough and fast enough


* here's another LINK , this one to someone who tested some in the "open" i.e., off state :
Quote:


And here are the results:
- 22″ ViewSonic white, no glasses – 47.2 lux
- 3D Vision active shutter glasses – 41.3 lux (shutters constantly open)

(almost 90% transmission)
AJSJones is offline  
post #201 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KyaDawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,040
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroppi View Post

This has been a great thread, although I really had to chuckle when everyone kept saying 'early adopter'....it's early for your average consumer, I suppose. I guess I am a SUPER early adopter...I have had active and passive 3D setups for going on 10 years now.

I think the worst offender was the term "pre-adoptor" (sic) that was floated around. Besides being illogical in real-world applications and certainly with regards to 3D home projection, it assumed there were no home 3D projector set-ups in existence which, by your experiences alone, is obviously not true!
KyaDawn is offline  
post #202 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 09:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
John Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Clarkston, Michigan
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've read through this mostly interesting thread and clearly, some of those contributing are extremely knowledgeable about the future 3d possibilities.

I'm at a bit of a loss though about the significant amount of interest in future home 3D availability. Like most of you, I saw Avatar (at a 3D IMAX) theater and was absolutely amazed. However, that (and the incredible CGI) was possible due to the availability of the 500 million dollars it eventually took to make the film. A few weeks back, there was an interview I heard on a radio station with a couple prominent Hollywood producers who stated that the cost of filming in 3d was simply prohibitive for all films but those rare few with mega budgets. Their take was essentially,regardless of Avatar's success "don't expect to see much 3d coming down the pike!".

Given that there is very little 3D material available, and apparently not much more coming in the future, whats driving all of this 3D interest? Have I missed something?


John
John Clark is offline  
post #203 of 346 Old 01-30-2010, 10:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Clark View Post

I've read through this mostly interesting thread and clearly, some of those contributing are extremely knowledgeable about the future 3d possibilities.

I'm at a bit of a loss though about the significant amount of interest in future home 3D availability. Like most of you, I saw Avatar (at a 3D IMAX) theater and was absolutely amazed. However, that (and the incredible CGI) was possible due to the availability of the 500 million dollars it eventually took to make the film. A few weeks back, there was an interview I heard on a radio station with a couple prominent Hollywood producers who stated that the cost of filming in 3d was simply prohibitive for all films but those rare few with mega budgets. Their take was essentially,regardless of Avatar's success "don't expect to see much 3d coming down the pike!".

Given that there is very little 3D material available, and apparently not much more coming in the future, whats driving all of this 3D interest? Have I missed something?


John

Up, Coraline and Bolt were also (real stereoscopic) 3D this past year (to name a few) in addition to Avatar. They were STUNNING. Coraline was magical in 3D... and it's not CGI, it's filmed in stereo. UP took advantage of real depth perception and didn't resort to gags. The sense of depth in the picture was just gorgeous.

The studios are gearing up big-time for 3D this coming year. Expect lots of 3D films going into 2010 and beyond. FOX, Disney, Dreamworks, and Warner are 100% behind providing 3D material moving ahead.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #204 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 07:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Of all the films released in a year, the vast majority will be filmed or videoed in 2D. The large studeos will release major films in 3Dunless the public gives up on the format. Investments have been made in 3D theaters and in 3D production. So I think it quite reasonable that we will see a fair amount of content coming fairly rapidly. The HT Blurays in 3D will start to flow when the machines get released. A short term away regardless of the actual number of months. within a year or so, the price of the machines will drop. 3d flat screens are coming at a cost not much more than present 2 day costs. Couple this with live 3D sports etc and the writing is on the wall.

Now how far away are video 3D cameras. I know there are vendors now. Independents for not a lot of money will be able to video in 3d and I no doubt flm also. Gimmicking up 2d well to make 3D is labor intensive. The software and machines necessary are available. Its technical costs. But real stuff is simple. have the right camera and bingo.

Now re early adopters. its a term used to describe a class. It is not necessarily a badge of honor. Obviously there are individuals playing with 3d now and we collectively are fortunate that at least one or two of them are sharing their knowledge here. But clearly those who buy the first 3D Bluray players at a premium, those who buy a 3D flat screen and use it for 3D will also be early adopters as well. Arbitrarily one could define an early adopter as entering a market before a technology has penetrated that market by a certain percentage. If at this point in time, you set a 3D FPHT, you are not only an early adopter, you are an experimentor. A year or a year and one half from now, you would be an early adopter. This stage would likely continue for several years until some specified percentage of FP HTs show 3D. Say what? 5%, 10%, pick a number or better yet let`s let Darin set the number and others can argue with him about it. Just kidding Darin. Just kidding.

Mark Haflich

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #205 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 07:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: good old USA
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Up, Coraline and Bolt were also (real stereoscopic) 3D this past year (to name a few) in addition to Avatar. They were STUNNING. Coraline was magical in 3D... and it's not CGI, it's filmed in stereo. UP took advantage of real depth perception and didn't resort to gags. The sense of depth in the picture was just gorgeous.

The studios are gearing up big-time for 3D this coming year. Expect lots of 3D films going into 2010 and beyond. FOX, Disney, Dreamworks, and Warner are 100% behind providing 3D material moving ahead.

I will keep hope out that real 3D at home will be miles ahead of what we have now. I tried watching the anaglyph version of Coraline yesterday on my 118" screen, and had to turn it off after an hour. Picture quality aside, I had a minor headache and my stomach wasn't nauseous so much as unsettled.

I don't recall this feeling after watch U2 3D in IMAX, and I had taken a Dramamine prior to Avatar 3D IMAX. If the physical issues become the case with 3D at home, there's going to be a lot of people regretting their purchases. Between that, the upgrade costs, and the glasses, I still wonder how this came become more than a niche market? It even seems the possibility exists that some may buy all the upgrades and then abandon 3D down the road as they tire of the hassles. But the Industry would have succeded in selling another round of gear, which may be the bigger objective.

See ya. Dave

"High Fidelity audio has been like a dog chasing his tail. High Fidelity in my marriage has been much more rewarding cause she knows where I sleep."
Jive Turkey is online now  
post #206 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

.... Coraline was magical in 3D... and it's not CGI, it's filmed in stereo. ...

BTW, Coraline was also magical in 2D. It was also bright and sharp. (I watched a few minutes of the Netflix BD in 3D, but I didn't happen to have any glasses at home...)
R Johnson is offline  
post #207 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 03:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

But here's the most important point of what I'm suggesting and what I've read: I'm not just talking about perceived brightness in terms of the way our eyes see logarithmically, I'm talking about a different paradigm of perceived brightness because *one eye* is seeing a full-on image while the other eye is darkened.

Example: if you put on sunshades that filter out 50% of the light onto both eyes, you see a dimmer world.

Now, without sunshades, close one eye. Do you see a "dimmer" world?

No.

Even though in each example the average light for your combined vision of both eyes is cut by exactly 50%.

Your brain doesn't say "well one eye is dark-black, and the other eye bright, so let me average the perceived brightness between the two". Your brain simply uses the eye that sees the active image as the correct eye to trust, so it does. This isn't wired to the physical closed nature of your eyelids. If you leave both eyes open but cover one eye with an eye-patch, your brain still sees the world as "bright" as the eye that has an image.

That's what I mean by *alternating* left/right stereoscopic images as perhaps actually having the chance to look brighter than the measured fact that you're missing 50% of the light over the given span of time... because when the image *is* on, it's on for one eye full bright, and the brain may use that to gauge it's perception of how bright the image is and not the "average" of on/off.

That's most likely why folks say that they perceive less light loss with active shutter wear... because except for the light lost in transmitting through the LCD panel when open, the brain is able to see the image as "bright" as the image it sees in the on-state.

Polarized is a different story because both eyes are, by definition, only getting 50% of the light and never more (and of course probably less with real-world filter designs).

If you look at the logic:

You say (and I agree) that looking at the world with one eye looks just as bright as with two.

So, looking at the 3D screen with one eye should look as bright as with two eyes. Therefore the perceived brightness should be equal to the light hitting one eye.

If you block out the light 50% of the time for a given eye you loose half the brightness for that eye. The picture looks dimmer. Logically if you don't see a brighter picture when using both eyes compared to one you would always loose 50+% of the light and the picture look dimmer no matter what refresh rate.

Or do you disagree with any of this?
Drexler is offline  
post #208 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

...........If you block out the light 50% of the time for a given eye you loose half the brightness for that eye. The picture looks dimmer. Logically if you don't see a brighter picture when using both eyes compared to one you would always loose 50+% of the light and the picture look dimmer no matter what refresh rate.

Or do you disagree with any of this?

I would say the best example would be to look at a light source behind a moving fan (where the light is being bocked out part of the time by the rotating blades). Now look at that same light source without the fan. It will look brighter without the fan. Blocking the light with a 50% duty cycle will reduce the brightness 50%. With a high enough refresh rate so that you won't preceive flicker in the image, the persistance of the human eye will average out the on and off states. In fact this is how DLP works. With DLP the percent of ON time for a given pixel is increased to increase its perceived brightness while a larger percent of OFF time is used to decrease its brightness (i.e., DLP simply changes the percent of time a pixel is turned on, not its brightness while it is on). So the bottom line when 3D is implemented with sequential right and left images and shutter glasses are used for viewing the percent of time that each lens is open will be something less than the idealized 50% with perhaps 40% being a more realistic estimate. Then if the LCD shutter in the open (clear) position allows 80% light transmission, the net result will be 0.4 x 0.8 = 0.32 (or 32% of the light you would get with viewing 2D images without glass using he same projector and screen). These example numbers are probably somewhat optimistic but my guess is a well designed implementation will be between 25% and 33%.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is online now  
post #209 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 07:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

...........If you block out the light 50% of the time for a given eye you loose half the brightness for that eye. The picture looks dimmer. Logically if you don't see a brighter picture when using both eyes compared to one you would always loose 50+% of the light and the picture look dimmer no matter what refresh rate.

Or do you disagree with any of this?

I would say the best example would be to look at a light source behind a moving fan (where the light is being bocked out part of the time by the rotating blades). Now look at that same light source without the fan. It will look brighter without the fan. Blocking the light with a 50% duty cycle will reduce the brightness 50%. With a high enough refresh rate so that you won't preceive flicker in the image, the persistance of the human eye will average out the on and off states. In fact this is how DLP works. With DLP the percent of ON time for a given pixel is increased to increase its perceived brightness while a larger percent of OFF time is used to decrease its perceived brightness. So the bottom line when 3D is implemented with sequential right and left images and shutter glasses are used for viewing the percent of time that each lens is open will be something less than the idealized 50% with perhaps 40% being a more realistic estimate. Then if the LCD shutter in the open (clear) position allows 80% light transmission, the net result will be 0.4 x 0.8 = 0.32 (or 32% of the light you would get with viewing 2D images without glass using he same projector and screen). These example numbers are probably somewhat optimistic but my guess is a well designed implementation will be between 25% and 33%.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is online now  
post #210 of 346 Old 01-31-2010, 08:41 PM
Member
 
Keroppi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would definitely say "experimenter" is a fair word after all the hell, headaches, and cash I have burned through in such a niche field.

Speaking of which, I know technology advancements drive down the prices, but a 'personal imax' will still remain high $$ until it is absorbed by your 'average 3DFP joe' I think it was said. Everyone who thinks 'active' is the way to go, consider this: a theater-grade IR emitter is $650, unless you want to spend a few dozen hours building one. CrystalEyes (the industry standard glasses for 3D projection) are in the neighborhood of $650 EACH. I was blessed to pick up a few for a fraction of that cost, but I am still only up to 5 sets. You can't hold a huge '3D party' with that overhead like you can with disposable passive glasses. And even when I do, it's like handing your buddy the equivalent cost of a 46" 1080p lcd to wear on his face, and hope doesn't get broken after everyones had a few beers.
Passive, on the other hand, costs mad cash for a screen (~$300 if you DIY), a zScreen for $1K (or another bad-a pj for dual)...and then everyone you want to add to the party can wear $3 glasses, which you wouldn't care less if they get trashed when the wearer does.

As far as the light output, I don't know if it will help, but Barco (pioneering makers of some of the best 3D projectors, many of which showed Avatar) have a great simple brochure about 3D technologies; pg9 might help some of the readers understand about the light output: http://www.barco.com/projection_syst...copic_proj.pdf

As far as 3D video content...there's not a lot. I'll be the first to (sadly) admit that. But what will help turn the industry, and what I have used mine for all these years: Games. Most DirectX games work well in 3D, and with the PS3 slated for 3D support this summer, it will greatly accelerate consumer acceptance.
Keroppi is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off