Why shutter and not polarized glasses? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2010, 04:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curtishd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Simply put: why shutter glasses and not polarized ones? Just was Alice in Wonderland and the 3D was great with those cheap polarized glasses.
curtishd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-12-2010, 05:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
dougri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtishd View Post

Simply put: why shutter glasses and not polarized ones? Just was Alice in Wonderland and the 3D was great with those cheap polarized glasses.

I'll take a cut and I'm sure others will add on...

polarized is expensive to implement on flat panels. very expensive.
most people have no interest in projectors.
linear polarization has issues with tilting your head (I think circular polarization fixes this though).

I, however, am willing to go the projector route with a silver screen (required to maintain polarization) if the price becomes reasonable since I think the tradeoff in screen size is worth it (even more so for 3D than 2D). Just as important to me is that I will not have to worry about kids breaking cheap polarized glasses as I would with shutter glasses.

"A wide screen just makes a bad film twice as bad. "
-Samuel Goldwyn

I wonder what he'd think about 3D IMAX?
dougri is offline  
Old 03-12-2010, 05:21 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
There is a 46" 3D LCD that Hyundai sells in Japan. It uses polarized llight. Here is how it works:



It uses the Line by Line AKA Hortizontial Interface 3D format which cuts the vertical resolution in half

http://www.jvc.eu/3d_monitor/technology/video.html
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 03-12-2010, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
dougri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There is a 46" 3D LCD that Hyundai sells in Japan. It uses polarized llight. Here is how it works:


http://www.jvc.eu/3d_monitor/technology/video.html

Isn't that like $10K??? I assumed the tech was expensive, but maybe it is just VERY low quantities?
I'm assuming 2D would be less than half as bright as it could be given the polarizing filters?

"A wide screen just makes a bad film twice as bad. "
-Samuel Goldwyn

I wonder what he'd think about 3D IMAX?
dougri is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 05:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Just different ways to skin a cat is all.....

Cheap glasses and more expensive display setup. Expensive glasses and less expense on the display setup. They really get you and your money either way.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 06:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 623 Post(s)
Liked: 585
John. Your logic fails since the display cost far exceeds the glasses cost even with multiple pairs of glasses.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 07:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The logic fails? Please do tell...

Display setups that will use Polarized glasses will be more expensive than display setups that use active glasses. Polarized glasses are cheaper than active glasses.


So please explain.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3D polarized displays are also half the res when used for 2D.

Active shutter glasses offer a better experience the only reason they aren't used in more theaters is because of the expense. It costs more to wash and secure the glasses, but there are a number of XpanD theaters in the midwest and California and I've heard the 3D experience is superior to RealD's polarized systems. I also think the 3D demos from Panasonic offered better 3D than the theater and I was able to see Avatar in both a Dolby 3D theater and a RealD theater.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 09:03 AM
 
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 dougri View Post

Isn't that like $10K??? I assumed the tech was expensive, but maybe it is just VERY low quantities?
I'm assuming 2D would be less than half as bright as it could be given the polarizing filters?

Last I looked - it was less than $4500. You are thinking of the JVC model which IMO is nothing more than a purchased and marked up Hyundai for $9300
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 09:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 623 Post(s)
Liked: 585
John. A flat panel using polarization and cheap polarizer glasses costs a lot more than a flat panel using shutter glassers even with a lot of extra pairs of shutter glasses.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
Old 03-13-2010, 10:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think the issue here is that the cost to have polarized content on a flat panel display is apparently an order of magnitude over the cost to have polarized content on a projector screen.
walford is offline  
Old 03-17-2010, 01:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TrickMcKaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
So right now, getting the display (& screen) to send polarized light images to the viewer is far more expensive than using shutter glasses, even with a room full of shutter glasses. However, the whole 3D system from disc to player to reciever would be the same either way, so as soon as the polarized light 3D displays become affordable, they surely will be available to buy.

It is interesting to see that shutter glasses are preferred by theater goers who have used them and polarized glasses both. I'm surprised, because I found the RealD circular polarized glasses to give a Real good experience.
TrickMcKaha is offline  
Old 03-17-2010, 02:15 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 TrickMcKaha View Post

So right now, getting the display (& screen) to send polarized light images to the viewer is far more expensive than using shutter glasses, even with a room full of shutter glasses. However, the whole 3D system from disc to player to reciever would be the same either way, so as soon as the polarized light 3D displays become affordable, they surely will be available to buy.

It is interesting to see that shutter glasses are preferred by theater goers who have used them and polarized glasses both. I'm surprised, because I found the RealD circular polarized glasses to give a Real good experience.

Polarized 3D LCD flat panel displays only produce half the vertical resolution (1920x540P) per eye where shutter viewed 3D on LCD and PDPs gets you Full HD per eye.

For a projector, it's different, but then you have to have a silver screen = great for 3D, not so great for 2D due to hot spotting.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 03-17-2010, 02:43 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Polarized 3D LCD flat panel displays only produce half the vertical resolution (1920x540P) per eye where shutter viewed 3D on LCD and PDPs gets you Full HD per eye.

For a projector, it's different, but then you have to have a silver screen = great for 3D, not so great for 2D due to hot spotting.

The current Xpol fixed, line-alternated polarized LCD panels also have to put additional masking inbetween the lines. This cuts the overall light output down by about half, giving you only about 25% brighness per eye when compared to an unmodified panel.

I heard that LG is developing LCD panels with an active polarizer. This would alternate the polarisation of the light coming from the panel from one frame to the next. At 120 Hz, this would give you full resolution at 60 Hz per eye, with passive polarized glassed, and no impact on the 2D viewing. In 3D, the brightness per eye would be cut in half, compared to 2D, of course, just as with shutter glass solutions, but better than the quarter brightness of Xpol.

Unfortunately, this is still a couple years away from the market.

The best bet right now are dual engine, time concurrent, polarized rear projection solutions, like the HDI screen. That gives you full resolution and full brightness per eye without expensive and heavy shutter glasses. I personally don't like rear projection too much, because of the viewing angle and hot spot issues, but those have become much better recently.
scarabaeus is offline  
Old 03-17-2010, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Polarized 3D LCD flat panel displays only produce half the vertical resolution (1920x540P) per eye where shutter viewed 3D on LCD and PDPs gets you Full HD per eye.

That does seem to be true with all of the current direct-view polarized sets.

It seems to be due to the physical structure of having the left and right eye elements side-by-side on the screen simultaneously... so you have to cut your rez in half along whichever axis the manufacturer chooses. Since current displays max out at 1920 x 1080, that means you get half HD for each eye (though the visible loss is much less... some folks claim they can't see the difference because of the way the brain perceives total visible detail by combining what both eyes see, giving you a complete 1920 x 1080 visible frame).

I wonder if newer, higher-resolution panels might change this down the road. For instance, imagine a PJ that has double the usual resolution in either direction... now you have enough to show the full 1080p left/right images. Or they could do what Real3D projectors do... use polarized light *but* still alternate left/right so each fraction of a second each eye is getting the full resolution of the entire screen. It sort of combines the best of both worlds... you get full res but still don't have the headache of active shutter wear... and the "flicker" is reduced because the glasses don't have to add any blanking time... just the back/forth of the actual TV image.

In that case, you'd need a way to quickly change polarizing filters with each left/right transition since the same panel pixels would be used. I'm not sure how the Real3D projectors do it... in that case it may be a physical filter that moves out of the way similar to a DLP color wheel. That obviously wouldn't work for a fixed panel display.

BTW, polarized sets (by JVC) are what Cameron and his team used when creating the 3D in AVATAR.

Quote:


I heard that LG is developing LCD panels with an active polarizer. This would alternate the polarisation of the light coming from the panel from one frame to the next. At 120 Hz, this would give you full resolution at 60 Hz per eye, with passive polarized glassed, and no impact on the 2D viewing. In 3D, the brightness per eye would be cut in half, compared to 2D, of course, just as with shutter glass solutions, but better than the quarter brightness of Xpol.

Fascinating. That's my answer! I think in a few years polarized direct view may be competitive with active wear if that active polarizing works... once you get a 240Hz or higher set, flicker would be minimal or not visible and you'd have a fantastic full-resolution for each eye 3D image you could use for your superbowl party and everyone could just stock up on free eyewear from what they take home after watching 3D movies in the theater.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
Old 03-17-2010, 03:00 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 DaViD Boulet View Post

That does seem to be true with all of the current direct-view polarized sets.

It seems to be due to the physical structure of having the left and right eye elements side-by-side on the screen simultaneously... so you have to cut your rez in half along whichever axis the manufacturer chooses. Since current displays max out at 1920 x 1080, that means you get half HD for each eye (though the visible loss is much less... some folks claim they can't see the difference because of the way the brain perceives total visible detail by combining what both eyes see, giving you a complete 1920 x 1080 visible frame).

Not S-b-S - Line Alternative - like todays 1080i:

http://www.jvc.eu/3d_monitor/technology/video.html



Quote:


I wonder if newer, higher-resolution panels might change this down the road. For instance, imagine a PJ that has double the usual resolution in either direction... now you have enough to show the full 1080p left/right images. Or they could do what Real3D projectors do... use polarized light *but* still alternate left/right so each fraction of a second each eye is getting the full resolution of the entire screen. It sort of combines the best of both worlds... you get full res but still don't have the headache of active shutter wear... and the "flicker" is reduced because the glasses don't have to add any blanking time... just the back/forth of the actual TV image.

Like the LG CF3D FPTV.

Quote:


BTW, polarized sets (by JVC) are what Cameron and his team used when creating the 3D in AVATAR.

Interesting. Thanks for the trivia.
Lee Stewart is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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