Beware of these early 3D projectors... they will need HDMI 1.4 to work with PS3 in 3D - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 74 Old 02-19-2010, 08:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Blue Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Excuse me if I'm wrong in this as I don't keep up with the whole 3D
thingy so I'm not up to date with it. All I heard is 1.4 HDMI is required.

This is where I'm confused...any explanation would be helpful.


In one hand Sony insists that you need 1.4 hdmi but in another hand they say the Playstation will work with 1.3 hdmi.


If it (3d) can work in Play station why can't they do whatever they're doing with play station to make it work.

Some small gizmo attached to make the conversion which would cost less than replacing equipment . If not possible how about giant rebates on the new stuff to get the ball rolling more quickly.

Have they backed off from previously stating the PS3 will work with HDMI 1.3 for 3D ?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I agree with you for the most part, but I have my suspicions regarding Sony's insistence of requiring hdmi 1.4 . I honestly wonder if it truly is necessary for them to basically shun the folks out there that already have 3D ready displays. It would be nice to think that Sony is a benevolent corporation, with only our best interests in mind, but lets get real...

They don't have any 3D ready displays on the market, and their first 3D ready displays will have hdmi 1.4, so they figure might as well lock out everybody that doesn't at least have hdmi 1.4. Maybe I'm completely off the mark with this assumption, but I certainly wouldn't doubt it if my intuition is right on the money.


See My AVS Classified Ad .
Blue Rain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 74 Old 02-19-2010, 09:23 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 Blue Rain View Post

Excuse me if I'm wrong in this as I don't keep up with the whole 3D
thingy so I'm not up to date with it. All I heard is 1.4 HDMI is required.

This is where I'm confused...any explanation would be helpful.


In one hand Sony insists that you need 1.4 hdmi but in another hand they say the Playstation will work with 1.3 hdmi.


If it (3d) can work in Play station why can't they do whatever they're doing with play station to make it work.

Some small gizmo attached to make the conversion which would cost less than replacing equipment . If not possible how about giant rebates on the new stuff to get the ball rolling more quickly.

Have they backed off from previously stating the PS3 will work with HDMI 1.3 for 3D ?


If we're talking about a new "3D" HDTV or projector, you'll need HDMI 1.4 on the display device as HDMI 1.4 is set up to "talk" back and forth with the source component and say "send me 3D because I'm a 3D display". Older 1.3 displays, even those marked "3D ready", won't be able to talk to the source components about 3D bcs all of that protocol was agreed upon just recently and built in to the HDMI 1.4 from the start.

Now...

you *can* get away with 1.3 in certain cases... here is how the exceptions appear to work:

In the case of the PS3, because its internal processing will be able to handle 3D blu-ray with a firmware upgrade and because the PS3 was designed with upgrading in mind, they have found a way to add both full 3D decoding for the blu-ray and the "3D conversation" stuff into the HDMI port even though it's technically a 1.3 chipset (basically, as far as 3D stuff goes, the PS3 will sound and act like an actual HDMI 1.4 chipset as far as the 3D conversation and signal is concerned). This is because the 3D stuff on HDMI 1.4 doesn't really require a physical difference from 1.3... same bandwidth etc. as 1.3, just new meta-data protocols. So the PS3 is a rare exception in the "1.4 rule" because as far as 3D is concerned, it can be upgraded to *act* like an HDMI 1.4 device even though it's really a 1.3 chipset. Again, this is only possible because the PS3 was designed from the ground up with radical firmware updating in mind. It's doubtful that other processors will be so lucky, and 1.3 BD players other than the PS3 won't be lucky because they lack the internal circutry necessary to perform the 3D *decoding*, even if their 1.3 chipsets could be made to handle the output, so there's stuck in 2D mode because their MPEG decoding chips are hard-wired for 2D and not designed to be upgraded.

The other big unknown is what would happen if you routed a "1.4" 3D signal (including the 3D output of the PS3 here) through an HDMI 1.3 receiver on its way to the TV or display. Chances are that if your receiver is acting as a blind switch box, it would all work as the receiver wouldn't be manipulating the signal in any real way. But if the receiver is pulling out the audio stream for sound, as would usually be the case, it may not work with preserving the 3D bcs it has to un-pack and re-pack the bitstreams and might not know how to repack the 3D on its way back to your 3D TV.

So whether 1.3 receivers work with HDMI 1.4 3D signals will be a case-by-case issue that we won't know until we try.

That's the way it's looking so far based on what we've been told...

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #63 of 74 Old 02-19-2010, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Blue Rain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
WOW David Great Post.. I really appreciate it .Very clear and to the point and easy to understand.

Are there any other rare exceptions out there like the PS3 that can be updated to output 3D ?

Thanks for your time .





Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

If we're talking about a new "3D" HDTV or projector, you'll need HDMI 1.4 on the display device as HDMI 1.4 is set up to "talk" back and forth with the source component and say "send me 3D because I'm a 3D display". Older 1.3 displays, even those marked "3D ready", won't be able to talk to the source components about 3D bcs all of that protocol was agreed upon just recently and built in to the HDMI 1.4 from the start.

Now...

you *can* get away with 1.3 in certain cases... here is how the exceptions appear to work:

In the case of the PS3, because its internal processing will be able to handle 3D blu-ray with a firmware upgrade and because the PS3 was designed with upgrading in mind, they have found a way to add both full 3D decoding for the blu-ray and the "3D conversation" stuff into the HDMI port even though it's technically a 1.3 chipset (basically, as far as 3D stuff goes, the PS3 will sound and act like an actual HDMI 1.4 chipset as far as the 3D conversation and signal is concerned). This is because the 3D stuff on HDMI 1.4 doesn't really require a physical difference from 1.3... same bandwidth etc. as 1.3, just new meta-data protocols. So the PS3 is a rare exception in the "1.4 rule" because as far as 3D is concerned, it can be upgraded to *act* like an HDMI 1.4 device even though it's really a 1.3 chipset. Again, this is only possible because the PS3 was designed from the ground up with radical firmware updating in mind. It's doubtful that other processors will be so lucky, and 1.3 BD players other than the PS3 won't be lucky because they lack the internal circutry necessary to perform the 3D *decoding*, even if their 1.3 chipsets could be made to handle the output, so there's stuck in 2D mode because their MPEG decoding chips are hard-wired for 2D and not designed to be upgraded.

The other big unknown is what would happen if you routed a "1.4" 3D signal (including the 3D output of the PS3 here) through an HDMI 1.3 receiver on its way to the TV or display. Chances are that if your receiver is acting as a blind switch box, it would all work as the receiver wouldn't be manipulating the signal in any real way. But if the receiver is pulling out the audio stream for sound, as would usually be the case, it may not work with preserving the 3D bcs it has to un-pack and re-pack the bitstreams and might not know how to repack the 3D on its way back to your 3D TV.

So whether 1.3 receivers work with HDMI 1.4 3D signals will be a case-by-case issue that we won't know until we try.

That's the way it's looking so far based on what we've been told...


See My AVS Classified Ad .
Blue Rain is offline  
post #64 of 74 Old 02-19-2010, 11:15 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 Blue Rain View Post

WOW David Great Post.. I really appreciate it .Very clear and to the point and easy to understand.

Are there any other rare exceptions out there like the PS3 that can be updated to output 3D ?

Thanks for your time .

Set top boxes for DSS and Comcast will be firmware updatable to 3D over HDMI 1.3 as well, but it won't be full 1080p stereo... it will be 1/2 HD resolution as the way those two devices will transmit 3D is by taking a normal 2D HD signal and literally cutting in half... one half for the Left and one for the Right eye.

As far as "full" 1080p 3D stereo, only the PS3 has been verified to work with an update over HDMI 1.3.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #65 of 74 Old 02-23-2010, 08:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Rainier2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There are other 1.3 HDMI 3D Blu-Ray players coming, from Sony of all manufacturers.

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/02/16/so...with-hdmi-1-3/

"The 3D-ready models mentioned in the release will be fully capable of 3D playback of Full HD 1080p for each eye. The players and theater systems support the HDMI 1.4 spec for 3D playback, but may not support all of the qualifications of spec (which is why we haven't labeled it specifically 1.4 at this time)."
Rainier2 is offline  
post #66 of 74 Old 02-23-2010, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BowerR64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I watch 3D on my 42" vizio all the time. It kinda gives me a headache though.


Using the "crosseyed" technique


LL

Quote:
Originally Posted by donsantos
How can you tell a point is a reflection point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxcooper
sit in normal spot
have friend slide mirror on wall
see speaker? bingo!-Max
BowerR64 is offline  
post #67 of 74 Old 02-23-2010, 01:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Jeez, I can't get my eyes to cross. I have a lot of these images, and generally I have no problem. Today, I think I might need someone to smack me in the face. I can't get my eyes to cross enough to bring the images together.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #68 of 74 Old 02-23-2010, 04:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BowerR64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Jeez, I can't get my eyes to cross. I have a lot of these images, and generally I have no problem. Today, I think I might need someone to smack me in the face. I can't get my eyes to cross enough to bring the images together.

Yeah that one wasnt as good as a few others i shot because of the black bands on the side maybe? Its not really that great though because you wind up with 3 total images when your watching it but you only focus on the center one. It doesnt have the same depth as one shot with 2 cameras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donsantos
How can you tell a point is a reflection point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxcooper
sit in normal spot
have friend slide mirror on wall
see speaker? bingo!-Max
BowerR64 is offline  
post #69 of 74 Old 02-23-2010, 05:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowerR64 View Post

Yeah that one wasnt as good as a few others i shot because of the black bands on the side maybe? Its not really that great though because you wind up with 3 total images when your watching it but you only focus on the center one. It doesnt have the same depth as one shot with 2 cameras.

I don't think it's your image. For some reason, I just can't get my eyes to do that little dance today. Some folks say you have to unfocus your eyes to see a 3D image in two pictures like that, but what you do, really, is stay focused and let your eyes cross, so that the images overlap. It just isn't working for me now.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #70 of 74 Old 02-27-2010, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adidadi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsguy View Post

I am taking a stand!! I am throwing out my satellite system, HD TV and going back to my black and white TV with rabbit ears!

I stand by you my fellow AV junky. However, you will be enjoying an infinitely extended episode of "The Snow Storm that Swallowed the Analog World Forever"!

Silence is overrated!
adidadi is offline  
post #71 of 74 Old 02-27-2010, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,840
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennem View Post

The Mitsubishi's use a checkerboard system to do 3D which I believe inherently limits the resolution to less than full HD (unless the actual display panel is much higher-resolution than 1920X1080, which I seriously doubt).

I would bet that the resolution of 3D when converted to work on the Mits sets will be basically 540p (effectively DVD resolution). But I am no expert so take this with the appropriate grain of salt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

It always bothered me that the ads for the Mits and Sammy products failed to say that there was no accepted standard for 3D movies. Of course, that's been true for any manufacturer of 3D displays in the past. As always, it's buyer beware.

All of the 1080p DLP rear projectors (including Mits and Samsung 3D ready models) use a DMD imaging chip with wobbulation in order to get the required 1920 horizontal pixels. This type of DMD chip provides 1080 vertical pixels by just 960 horizontal pixels. In order to display a normal (i.e., 2D) 1080p image it displays half of the required pixels then shifts the entire image about 1/2 pixel and displays the other half of the required pixels. This has the disadvantage of having overlapping pixels and as a result does not produce quite as sharp and image as using DMD display chips with full 1080 x 1920 pixel native resolution. These latter full resolution DMD chips are exclusively used in DLP Front Projectors (while all DLP rear projectors use the lower priced DMD chips with wobbulation). Now for doing 3D with the Mits and Samsung rear projectors rather than using the two 1080 x 960 images slightly shifted to create a 2D image, the alternating 1080 x 960 images are used for the right and left images. Mits has announced they will be releasing an adapter box that will accept the output from a BD players (i.e., accept dual 1080p/24 video streams) and convert this to a format compatible with their existing DLP rear projectors (i.e., those models with the 3D input capability). The satellite or cable campanies that use a 1080 side-by-side (right left image) approach will essentially be providing the same sort of resolution (i.e., 1080 vertical x 960 horizontal). In either case each the right and left video streams will have approx. 1 Mpixel of total resolution which is 1/2 of what you get with full 2D 1080p (or 1/2 of what you will get out from a Blu-ray 3D movie with dual 1080p/24 video streams). However, remember that standard 720p also has approx. 1 Mpixel resolution, but allocated differently between vertical and horiz. as compared to these reduced resolution 3D formats. So even the sources using the Side-by-Side broadcast technique for 3D and the Mits/Samsung DLP displays can still be considered HD (i.e, with 1 Mpixel) for their 3D, but they are certainly not true 1080p HD when used for 3D.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is online now  
post #72 of 74 Old 02-28-2010, 07:12 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
For FPTV owners! Cheap 3D!

OK - for any display owners.



Step 1 - buy a pair of sunglasses. MUST be neutral gray for the tint so no color shifting happens.

Step 2 - knock out the the left lens.

Step 3 - put on a BD that has lots of contrast like The Waltz Of The Space Ships from 2001 or the opening sequence of T2 Judgement Day

Volia! 3D!

DISCLAIMER: 3D effect will not be as good as true stereoscopic 3D but you are spending less than $25 - what did you expect?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #73 of 74 Old 02-28-2010, 07:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Joseph Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 130
I created a few such clips several years ago, but it was motion and not contrast that created the effect. I was in the passenger seat shooting straight out the window as someone drove slowly in a cemetery. What happens is that the darker image in one eye takes a bit longer for the brain to process. As you watch the clip on a 2D screen, the brain perceives the dark eye view with a delay. If the car is moving at a slow enough speed, the difference is enough to create an artificial "distance" between what the two eyes are seeing (really, it's how the brain combines the normal eye view with the slightly delayed eye view). There is an accompanying 3D effect. It did work, but only when there was just the right amount of motion. Like colored glasses, though, it was fatiguing to look at things with one eye seeing things significantly darker than the other eye. One round of experiments was enough.

Joe Clark

Joseph Clark is offline  
post #74 of 74 Old 02-28-2010, 10:23 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

I created a few such clips several years ago, but it was motion and not contrast that created the effect. I was in the passenger seat shooting straight out the window as someone drove slowly in a cemetery. What happens is that the darker image in one eye takes a bit longer for the brain to process. As you watch the clip on a 2D screen, the brain perceives the dark eye view with a delay. If the car is moving at a slow enough speed, the difference is enough to create an artificial "distance" between what the two eyes are seeing (really, it's how the brain combines the normal eye view with the slightly delayed eye view). There is an accompanying 3D effect. It did work, but only when there was just the right amount of motion. Like colored glasses, though, it was fatiguing to look at things with one eye seeing things significantly darker than the other eye. One round of experiments was enough.

PULFRICH 3D

http://www.rainbowsymphony.com/3d-pulfrich-glasses.html
Lee Stewart 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