FULL HD Passive 3D from LG with 4K2K display in 2011!?! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 08:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Adams View Post

Green Lantern 3D at a 4K theatre looked fantastic. Didn't know about 4K theatres until I saw this title.

I wonder if that results in 4K for each eye.

4k projectors display the left and right 3D images simultaneously, 2k per eye.

Even in 2D, most of the movies you'll watch in a 4k theater are 2k source files upconverted.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
aydu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 3,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
1080p gimmick - sold sets
3D gimmick - sold sets
Smart Set gimmick - sold sets

Need a new gimmick to continue to sell sets, once people tire of the old tricks.
aydu is offline  
post #93 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 09:34 AM
Member
 
jmj21grams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Zomboy.. saw your posts at avf they were asking where thier cousin across the "pond" went..G Meade, lg rep for uk, you source, is a reliable source ..thanks. Josh z or someone that understands this technology, please address what pro-630hd related about the marvel qdeo 4k chip( upconverting) would that work on passive 3d and upconvert the 1/2 rez 540 to the 1080i to each eye?? Or ,more, future proofing product by being able to display said resolution, when/if?
jmj21grams is offline  
post #94 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 10:03 AM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Mayer View Post

no there is not any loss of resolution.

as others already post the 3d blue ray content is only 1920x1080 and a 4k upscale as it was very easy (take 1 pixel and make 4 of them) will have not any quality drop.

at the end you see with a 4k 3d display full hd 3d that have some
upscale in the line itself but that should be not decrease or increase
the picture quality.

as i have post the motion on a passive 4k 3d display will look much better and thats only "one reason" why most people will perfer a 4k polarizer display to see 3d blue ray.

No matter how you cut it ,2k or 4k, you still get a visible black line every other scan line vertically with passive. Yes it is finer with 4k. If you have upscaled active at 4k the black line isn't there. It should look better!

4k passive isn't like interlaced 1080i interlaced doesn't have a constantly visible black line every other scan line (speed will not make that line go away like with 1080i).
Robut is offline  
post #95 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Lee,

there is no loss of resolution with 1080p 3D passive displayed on a 4K display in that there's no loss in resolution from the original 1920 x 1080 data-points.... all original data points of the 3D BD are represented on an interweaved passive 3D 4K display. That means "no loss".

Yes, an active 3D image would have more resolution than a passive one on a 4K display, but that resolution is *added* via interpolation. Adding more resolution via interpolation is a good thing, but that's not the same thing as the passive 3D BD image on a 4K display "losing" resolution... it doesn't lose anything, it just doesn't *gain* anything across the vertical axis.

You still get the black line with passive. A point on passive will be 2 image pixels over 2 black pixels. With upscaled active a point will be 4 image pixels.
Robut is offline  
post #96 of 112 Old 06-29-2011, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

it should be obvious to anyone who's read anything in this forum that when we talk about "ghosting" on active 3D we're talking about LCD and similar display technologies with latency issues that affect the speed of state-change. DLP and Plasma active are both ghost-free for the most part.



I agree.

I think most would also agree that 3D approaches (LCD/SXRD) that introduce ghosting and/or significantly reduced brightness and or visible flicker are also throw-backs that deviate from the holy-grail of transparent image reproduction.

The "best" solution to 3D won't be the same for everyone because for some viewers different artifacts may be more bothersome than others. We have the same issues with 2D displays... do you want high contrast? High resolution? no visible screen-door/pixel structure from 1.5 screen widths? Wide-bandwidth color reproduction? An image bright enough to watch during the day with sunlight in the room or a display that performs best with ambient light or in a darkened room?

Different technologies and designs are better or worse at accomplishing different aspects of image criteria. Until a technology arrives that accomplishes every aspect of image reproduction with perfect fidelity, it's specious and misleading to pick one shortcoming as having more importance than any other.

I personally see flicker and reduced brightness with every active 3D Plasma system I've viewed. However, I don't see any ghosting on such displays, and can understand how other viewers who aren't as bothered (or bothered at all) by the flicker would be well satisfied. Myself, I'm willing to accept reduced brightness to a degree but I don't want to see flicker or ghosting (so realD in the theater is fine for me). Of course, I'd love a perfect 3D that's flicker-free, full resolution, full-brightness, and with 0 cross-talk/ghosting, but it's not available yet by technology I can afford as a consumer. In the meantime while we wait for 3D Perfection, everybody has their preference, and it's fine.

I totally agree with this. Well said, particularly the statements about ghosting and brightness.
Robut is offline  
post #97 of 112 Old 07-29-2011, 01:47 AM
Member
 
jmj21grams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

You still get the black line with passive. A point on passive will be 2 image pixels over 2 black pixels. With upscaled active a point will be 4 image pixels.

..." 4 image pixels " ' to one eye, 4 black/ blanked pixels to the other eye? But..... no black line.. tho, I would probley sit 3 or 4 meters from the panel and it "might" not distract me? Next year... if samsung goes active/passive that would be? I don't know I can't wait another year. I already have withdrawl shakes just waiting to review lw9800, hoping it can approach, to me, sammy's awesome pq with the passive technology, l really like. This short thread, - minus my yak yak, is really concise, precise and elegant in word picture structure .. on 4k, active/passive.. pros/cons.. likes/dislikes etc, etc.. l dont think you guys realize how many of us you inform/ help thank you for making some things "more clear" for many of us.
jmj21grams is offline  
post #98 of 112 Old 07-30-2011, 12:18 AM
Member
 
DaFees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok, I read this whole thread then I sat back and thought for a moment, then a thought occurred to me. Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think a 4kx2k TV won't solve the fundamental flaw of passive 3D tech in that the TV must cut the source resolution in order to display a 3D image. So yes we know that with current 3D displays a 1080p source is downrezzed to 540p.

Now tell me though how would a 4kx2k TV solve this issue? It wouldn't because even though you have a higher resolution that when cut in half it gives you 1080p to each eye your source (Blu-ray being the most prominent in these discussions) is still only 1080p. Most likely in the case of a 4kx2k TV then your Blu-ray source would still be halfrezzed to 540p. In the best scenario your Blu-ray source is upscaled to 4kx2k and then downrezzed to 1080p for delivery to each eye. Now I won't say the latter would produce a totally bad effect but it still wouldn't be the same as an unaltered source being delivered in it's full 1080p resolution to each eye.

I think the only way a 4kx2k TV will work for passive 3D tech is if you have a matching 4kx2k source, which there are no sources available to consumers yet. Again correct me if I am wrong, but I mean isn't this exactly what happens when a 720p (ESPN 3D broadcast or PS3 Game) source is sent to a 1080p 3D TV? The 720p content is either cut in half to 360p (Assuming of course it's a full frame-packing 720p and not an SBS which ESPN 3D is) or the content is upscaled to 1080p and then downscaled to 540p for each eye.

DaFees is offline  
post #99 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 01:22 AM
Member
 
kidicarus7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've also read the whole thread and I'm wondering why nobody has questioned why LG don't release a 1920x2160 passive FPR display containing pixels with a pixel aspect ratio of 2:1 (W:H).

Such a display would be Full HD in 3D mode and would only require simple upscaling via row duplication to display 2D 1920x1080 sources at the correct aspect ratio. Furthermore, you achieve Full HD 3D with only 4 million pixels instead of the 8 million in a 4K display. I just don't understand why they haven't done it yet.

I will respond to PM's eventually, I swear.
kidicarus7 is offline  
post #100 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 03:51 AM
Member
 
jmj21grams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus7 View Post

I've also read the whole thread and I'm wondering why nobody has questioned why LG don't release a 1920x2160 passive FPR display containing pixels with a pixel aspect ratio of 2:1 (W:H).

Such a display would be Full HD in 3D mode and would only require simple upscaling via row duplication to display 2D 1920x1080 sources at the correct aspect ratio. Furthermore, you achieve Full HD 3D with only 4 million pixels instead of the 8 million in a 4K display. I just don't understand why they haven't done it yet.

hope someone does answers this excellent question, would it be an expensive solution? Would they not just go 4k instead of this incremental step for their 3d solution? Has the doubled 540i to 1080i to each eye happened? Helped? Been confirmed? While ago there was a music speaker with a switch, reg or bipole... a subwoofer, with a switch, movies or music. Possible switch?, video or gaming? Really zero in on lag time... or is it the curse of the technology?
Seems like a lot of, $$$.$$ , money, whover
Get's it right, and word hits the streets ...have you √ checked the prices of overclocked gaming PC's? Alien, etc, Video cards,etc?, probley as many gamers as tv , video, movie junkies, certainly, conciderably more then videophlles to entice to the/their brand? Sorry for the rant.. excellent question tho from kidicarus7.. no? Answer please? Sometimes I think this forum and threads should be consultants for manufacturing and marketing for the "big " boy's... lol..just an observations... actually a compliment ...
jmj21grams is offline  
post #101 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 08:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFees View Post
Ok, I read this whole thread then I sat back and thought for a moment, then a thought occurred to me. Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think a 4kx2k TV won't solve the fundamental flaw of passive 3D tech in that the TV must cut the source resolution in order to display a 3D image. So yes we know that with current 3D displays a 1080p source is downrezzed to 540p.
1920x540 is not "540p." 540p is 960x540. Very different.

Quote:
Now tell me though how would a 4kx2k TV solve this issue? It wouldn't because even though you have a higher resolution that when cut in half it gives you 1080p to each eye your source (Blu-ray being the most prominent in these discussions) is still only 1080p. Most likely in the case of a 4kx2k TV then your Blu-ray source would still be halfrezzed to 540p.
Blu-ray 3D discs are encoded in "frame packed" format. Two 1920x1080 images (one left and one right) are stacked top-to-bottom in one big 1920x2205 frame, with some blanking pixels in between.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #102 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mrjktcvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus7 View Post
I've also read the whole thread and I'm wondering why nobody has questioned why LG don't release a 1920x2160 passive FPR display containing pixels with a pixel aspect ratio of 2:1 (W:H).

Such a display would be Full HD in 3D mode and would only require simple upscaling via row duplication to display 2D 1920x1080 sources at the correct aspect ratio. Furthermore, you achieve Full HD 3D with only 4 million pixels instead of the 8 million in a 4K display. I just don't understand why they haven't done it yet.
It's hard for me to imagine how they could keep the vertical access from looking squashed when presenting 3D using this method.
mrjktcvs is offline  
post #103 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
rschleicher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I think there are two issues that LG would have to solve, to make a passive set that had a full 1080 lines for each eye. This is assuming the the FPR film remains "fixed", as it currently is (as opposed to ideas for having a film across the screen that dynamically changed polarization states, as Samsung is working on).

1. You'd need the basic display to have 2160 rows of pixels, even if it had the same number of columns. For 2D watching, pairs of rows would be showing the same "content row", and so it would behave like a regular HD set. (I suppose if LG could make this display panel, they would also double the number of columns, and then be "ready" for 3840x1960. But they wouldn't have to.) For 3D content, the vertical pairs of pixels would have different content, as alternating rows would have left-eye and right-eye content, with the full 1080 rows of each.

2. You also need to make the FPR film with 2160 rows of alternating polarization. This might also require the film to be thinner. It is not clear if the thinner film would provide as much "extinction" (attenuation) of the wrong polarity. So it might make it harder to avoid ghosting. To some extent, this might be easier on larger sets, than on smaller sets (which is also where the higher 3D resolution matters most).

It's not obvious to me whether item 1 or item 2 is the more difficult, nor which is the bigger cost impediment.
rschleicher is offline  
post #104 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 01:26 PM
Member
 
jmj21grams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rschleicher View Post

I think there are two issues that LG would have to solve, to make a passive set that had a full 1080 lines for each eye. This is assuming the the FPR film remains "fixed", as it currently is (as opposed to ideas for having a film across the screen that dynamically changed polarization states, as Samsung is working on).

1. You'd need the basic display to have 2160 rows of pixels, even if it had the same number of columns. For 2D watching, pairs of rows would be showing the same "content row", and so it would behave like a regular HD set. (I suppose if LG could make this display panel, they would also double the number of columns, and then be "ready" for 3840x1960. But they wouldn't have to.) For 3D content, the vertical pairs of pixels would have different content, as alternating rows would have left-eye and right-eye content, with the full 1080 rows of each.

2. You also need to make the FPR film with 2160 rows of alternating polarization. This might also require the film to be thinner. It is not clear if the thinner film would provide as much "extinction" (attenuation) of the wrong polarity. So it might make it harder to avoid ghosting. To some extent, this might be easier on larger sets, than on smaller sets (which is also where the higher 3D resolution matters most).

It's not obvious to me whether item 1 or item 2 is the more difficult, nor which is the bigger cost impediment.

This is so much fun, except for the headache of course... I read this 3× and l'm
Getting close...have to ponder....think as soon as I understand the answer, technology will suggest a new question. So I want to get the basics/ formulas down but it seems similar to learning a new language. What is so cool you guys that can see this in your minds eye. So the above is possible even probable given fhe " latest, new " incremental, advancement paradigm, for $$$ marketing , and technology advancement for competition? Ergo the title of this thread
jmj21grams is offline  
post #105 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Though 1920 x 2160 would have all the picture information, wouldn't it still have lines missing (blank spaces), albeit at half the thickness (of a 1920 x 1080 set)?

These spaces would still cause jaggies as diagonal details would not line up across the gaps.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #106 of 112 Old 08-04-2011, 10:41 PM
Member
 
kidicarus7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjktcvs View Post

It's hard for me to imagine how they could keep the vertical access from looking squashed when presenting 3D using this method.

Why would it look squashed?

I will respond to PM's eventually, I swear.
kidicarus7 is offline  
post #107 of 112 Old 08-05-2011, 02:34 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MississippiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Byhalia, Mississippi. Waaaay down in the Bottoms
Posts: 14,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 202
What seems to be overlooked is that the CF3D is "TWO" separate 1080p Light Engines using a single Lens. As such, "TWO" full 1080p images are produced and combined to create a "Full 1080p 3D Image. Passively. No discernible loss of light in 3D mode. No squishing.(...it's called "blending") No gaps.

No foolin'

The unit is also designed to present what is amounting to 4K resolution (2 x 1080p) when both Engines are used for standard 1080p content. It is also good to go for the utilization of true 4K content.

I had the pleasure of getting my hands on two of the very first units available, and they were tweaked and calibrated to perfection by the Engineers at JVC Europe. They absolutely smoked any Active 3D unit available for consumer use. In a direct comparison, it was an embarrassing difference.

Time (...and hopefully CEDIA "2011"...) will tell what sort of response the rest of the PJ Mfg. will deliver, (they have had just over a full year) but for certain, Passive 3D is the future...until we have 4 Engine 8K "Glasses Free" 3D.

Ya can't get any more "passive" than no glasses..

To quote James T. Kirk;
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect"
MississippiMan is online now  
post #108 of 112 Old 08-05-2011, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mrjktcvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus7 View Post

Why would it look squashed?

I'm thinking that the pixel shape would no longer be the same if you were to double the number of rows without adding columns. Please tell me I'm wrong...

But if I am, they probably would have already done that as someone else here surmised.
mrjktcvs is offline  
post #109 of 112 Old 08-06-2011, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MississippiMan View Post
What seems to be overlooked is that the CF3D is "TWO" separate 1080p Light Engines using a single Lens. As such, "TWO" full 1080p images are produced and combined to create a "Full 1080p 3D Image. Passively. No discernible loss of light in 3D mode. No squishing.(...it's called "blending") No gaps...[snip]
The separate left eye 1080P images are interleaved line by line with the right eye 1080P images to make a 2160P picture, which would indeed leave a gap between lines when filtered for each eye.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #110 of 112 Old 08-06-2011, 06:15 PM
Member
 
kidicarus7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjktcvs View Post

I'm thinking that the pixel shape would no longer be the same if you were to double the number of rows without adding columns. Please tell me I'm wrong...

If pixels were to remain square then it would look squashed. But they can overcome this problem by using rectangular pixels with a 2:1 Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR) where the length of each pixel is twice the height of the pixel. This would result in FHD3D mapping 1:1 to the display in the correct display aspect ratio (DAR).

For all other sources, upscaling would be required to maintain the correct DAR. In the case of 1920x1080 2D sources, this could be achieved simply by duplicating each row.

I will respond to PM's eventually, I swear.
kidicarus7 is offline  
post #111 of 112 Old 12-16-2011, 03:32 PM
Newbie
 
fsteddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Gainesville Fl
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK please correct me if I am wrong. I will admit that I am not fully versed in all things 3D.

1) I see a lot of people complaining about black lines where there are none. Every pixel is being used and each eye sees half.

2) 720p and 1080i have there strengths and weaknesses, but both are perceived to be ball park the same due to nearly the same amount of pixel information per time.

3) I'm not sure how this is actually done but lets assume a 3d source has 1080p at 30fps. With active eye wear one would see 1080p @15fps with each eye. Since a passive TV can only display half of a frame why is it not possible to interlace each frame so that it is essentially displaying 540x1920 @ 30fps for each eye. This should give a perceived resolution near that of the active. Keep in mind that how human eyes perceive things is not always straight forward. For example DLP TV's only show 1 color at a time, Pentile sub pixel layouts with 2/3 the total sub pixels can look nearly as good as full RGB layouts...
i.e. 1920x1080 @15fps/eye = 1920x540 @30fps/eye

Also as some have pointed out realistically most home theaters <65" people are sitting two far to see 1080p already and 1920x540 would be the same bit rate as 1080i so it would likely be an issue only if you had 20/20 vision and looked really hard for it.
fsteddie is offline  
post #112 of 112 Old 12-16-2011, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pete4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
1. depends how good your vision is: Usually when you see black lines in between, then you can resolve each individual pixel (the black lanes between scan are smaller than pixel in most cases) and probably sitting too close. Also you can get used to it after a while so won't notice it as much (ask me how do I know)
2. No, No and one more time No:720p is 1280x720 pixels, 1080i is 1920 x540, however when properly displayed, 2 x 1920x540 subframes are put together into full 1920x1080 frame and depending on the way it was recorded you could get full 1080p frame no buts about it. Film is originally recorded at 24FPS 1080p. For transmission each frame is split into 2 1080i subframes, but reassembled into original 1080p frame when displayed. Things get little bit more "murky" when original was recorded on 1080i video, but you still get higher resolution.
3. Not sure if I fully understand your point. In a passive set each eye sees always the same 540 scan lines and other eye the other 540, due to permanent polarizing strips covering each line of pixels, but somehow I don't see the loss of resolution, or loss of detail, however sometimes I see jagged lines hinting the loss of resolution is there. This is most visible with static, upconverted 2D-3D material. I guess this is one of the mysteries how the eye see and brain process the information.
So where are those 4k2k sets? It's already December.
pete4 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