Top-Bottom 3D vs. Side-by-Side on Passive Display - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 114 Old 10-04-2011, 05:39 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bennynihon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently purchased a passive 3D display, the LG 55LW5600. The major shortcoming of passive 3D displays is that each eye only sees half of the vertical resolution. So if you were watching full frame packed 1920x1080 3D content, each eye would effectively see 1920x540.

One common 3D format is side-by-side, where each frame contents the image for each eye in a side-by-side fashion. Each image is 960x1080, with the entire frame being 1920x1080. The problem with this format on passive 3D displays is that side-by-side format has already reduced the horizontal resolution in half only to be reduced vertically by the passive display. So each eye only sees 960x540!

The top-bottom 3D format on the other hand stacks the two eye images in a 1920x1080 frame, with each image being 1920x540. This has the advantage of at least not being further reduced by the passive 3D display.

So I sort of have two questions related to this. One, with the advent of passive 3D displays (and I imagine it'll only become more and more popular as they improve on the technology) it'd be nice to see 3D content providers adopt the top-bottom over side-by-side as it benefits more of its customers. Is there any word of such a thing?

Also, does anyone have any top-bottom examples (ideally with the same example in a side-by-side format for comparison)? It does seem most content out there is currently in the side-by-side format.
bennynihon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 114 Old 10-04-2011, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'm not an expect on the technology, but I was under the assumption that passive will half the resolution of whatever it receives - it doesn't matter if the format is frame-packed, side-by-side, top/bottom or SENSIO format.

Why would top/bottom be any different?
johnny905 is offline  
post #3 of 114 Old 10-04-2011, 08:58 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 bennynihon View Post

I recently purchased a passive 3D display, the LG 55LW5600. The major shortcoming of passive 3D displays is that each eye only sees half of the vertical resolution. So if you were watching full frame packed 1920x1080 3D content, each eye would effectively see 1920x540.

One common 3D format is side-by-side, where each frame contents the image for each eye in a side-by-side fashion. Each image is 960x1080, with the entire frame being 1920x1080. The problem with this format on passive 3D displays is that side-by-side format has already reduced the horizontal resolution in half only to be reduced vertically by the passive display. So each eye only sees 960x540!

The top-bottom 3D format on the other hand stacks the two eye images in a 1920x1080 frame, with each image being 1920x540. This has the advantage of at least not being further reduced by the passive 3D display.

So I sort of have two questions related to this. One, with the advent of passive 3D displays (and I imagine it'll only become more and more popular as they improve on the technology) it'd be nice to see 3D content providers adopt the top-bottom over side-by-side as it benefits more of its customers. Is there any word of such a thing?

Also, does anyone have any top-bottom examples (ideally with the same example in a side-by-side format for comparison)? It does seem most content out there is currently in the side-by-side format.

To get an accurate answer, you would have to do some research and experimenting on which resolution (hortizontial or vertical) provides the most picture information. You can't just look at the numbers and say; "oh - 1920 is greater then 1080" because very few displays will show all 1920 pixels of hortizontial resolution. The reason why has to due with the settings on the display such as white level and sharpeness control. In the later, you have to set the white level very low, lower then most people would find acceptable to get all 1920 pixels to show up. In the former, the sharpness control destroys very high level resolution. It only works in the middle bandwidth of the signal at the expense of VHL resolution.

SbS preserves the full vertical resoltion while T/B preserves the full hortizontial resolution. IMO, you will see a bigger difference dropping the vertical then you will dropping the hortizontial.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #4 of 114 Old 10-04-2011, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Wouldn't 1080p sources in top-and-bottom mode be essentially 1920x270? 1920x540 after TaB, and then 1920x270 after passive xPol polarization.

Whereas a 1080p source in side-by-side would be 960x540. This seems like the better option to me, rather than having an absolutely pitiful vertical resolution.


(Found a random blog post discussing this issue.)
http://opticalflow.wordpress.com/201...ormats-part-3/
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #5 of 114 Old 10-05-2011, 06:53 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bennynihon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
of course not. it's not just going to take a 1920x540 image for each eye and cut that further in half. remember that the native resolution of the display is 1920x1080 and the 3d works by having alternating horizontal lines with opposite polarization. halving it further is not only unnecessary, it'd result in half of the screen being blank (clearly not what they do). the 1920x540 image would nicely map to the 540 vertical resolution that's used for each eye.
bennynihon is offline  
post #6 of 114 Old 10-05-2011, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
umenon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have to agree that Side-By-Side looks better.

I have a passive 3D and I have experienced this first hand. HBO-HD On-Demand is in SBS and ESPN3D is in TB mode.

When I view ESPN3D broadcast with 3D mode enabled (i.e. top-bottom are interleaved) ... walking up close (without glasses) I can see that every other row is blank!

However, on HBO-HD (side-by-side) ... all pixel rows have information.

My 2 cents.
umenon is offline  
post #7 of 114 Old 10-05-2011, 08:25 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennynihon View Post

of course not. it's not just going to take a 1920x540 image for each eye and cut that further in half. remember that the native resolution of the display is 1920x1080 and the 3d works by having alternating horizontal lines with opposite polarization. halving it further is not only unnecessary, it'd result in half of the screen being blank (clearly not what they do). the 1920x540 image would nicely map to the 540 vertical resolution that's used for each eye.

Okay. Maybe you are right. I'm trying to understand this. Is this pretty much how it works, or can someone explain it better?

The passive TV takes a 1920x1080 TaB image (vertical resolution halved for two 1920x540 images), and separates and upscales the top and bottom frames into two separate 1920x1080 images, packed on top of each other. Then, it sections out the screen into lots of horizontal lines. First, the odd lines of the screen form the left eye's odd lines, while the even lines of the screen form the right eye's odd lines (vertical resolution halved back to 1920x540). Next, after 1/120 sec, the odd lines of the screen form the left eye's even lines, and the even lines of the screen form the right eye's even lines (forming a complete 3D image in your brain). Then, after 1/60 sec, the source image is refreshed, and the steps are repeated.

So...

two 1920x1080 source images --> one TaB image with two 1920x540 frames --> two upscaled 1920x1080 images on top of each other --> half of the horizontal lines of each upscaled 1920x1080 image shown to each eye = 1920x540 image to each eye every 1/120 sec --> brain-fused 1920x1080 image every 1/60 sec
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #8 of 114 Old 10-05-2011, 10:59 PM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Possibly, the decision to only use SBS with 1080 images is because most HD cable TV is 1080i and not 1080p. 1080i interlaced video can only refresh 1920x540 pixels every 1/60 sec (or 1920x1080 every 1/30 sec). So putting it into TaB would make it more like two 1920x270 video feeds refreshed every 1/60 sec (or 1920x540 every 1/30 sec).

Found this article:
Quote:
With Top and Bottom, you get 1,280x360-pixel (with 720p) resolution images. There is no Top and Bottom with 1080i, as the interlaced fields are already 1,920x540 pixels and you wouldn't want to halve that again. A 1080p/24 signal is possible in the current broadcast spec, and with this you'd be getting the aforementioned 1,920x540.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...y-vs-broadcast
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #9 of 114 Old 10-06-2011, 08:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
umenon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by umenon View Post

I have to agree that Side-By-Side looks better.

I have a passive 3D and I have experienced this first hand. HBO-HD On-Demand is in Side-By-Side and ESPN3D is in TB mode.

When I view ESPN3D broadcast with 3D mode enabled (i.e. top-bottom are interleaved) ... walking up close (without glasses) I can see that every other row is blank!

However, on HBO-HD (side-by-side) ... all pixel rows have information.

My 2 cents.

Now I shall answer my own post

ESPN3D is broadcast in 720p / Top-and-Bottom (TAB) mode.

To watch ESPN3D you need to set your cable box to output 720p (do not upconvert to 1080i).

This will allow you to get the highest resolution experience.

Remember that 1080i 3D programs are always send in Side-By-Side (SBS) mode.

720p 3D programs are sent in either TAB or SBS mode.

It is best to leave the cable box to output the native resolution. Upconverting a 3D signal will hose the timing and you will end up having to wear your glasses upside down to see the 3D effect Moreover, a 1080i 3D signal in TAB mode will result in significant resolution loss (see CNET article posted elsewhere in this thread).
umenon is offline  
post #10 of 114 Old 10-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Senior Member
 
obveron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
TAB progressive is much preferred with Passive displays. The vertical resolution is not halved twice. It is halved once by the TAB encode, it is then anamorphic expanded to full vertical height before display. During display it is halved by the the passive technology. This only means you lose the lines that were doubled in the anamorphic expansion, bringing you back to 1920x540p
Infact, TAB progressive content is as good as full 1080p content on a passive display.


SBS progressive you lose half of the horizontal resolution. On a passive display you would lose both vertical and horizontal, this is not good. 960x540p


Interlaced is a whole different story, you should not combine TAB with interlace on a passive display.
obveron is offline  
post #11 of 114 Old 10-07-2011, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
umenon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by obveron View Post

TAB progressive is much preferred with Passive displays. The vertical resolution is not halved twice. It is halved once by the TAB encode, it is then anamorphic expanded to full vertical height before display. During display it is halved by the the passive technology. This only means you lose the lines that were doubled in the anamorphic expansion, bringing you back to 1920x540p
Infact, TAB progressive content is as good as full 1080p content on a passive display.


SBS progressive you lose half of the horizontal resolution. On a passive display you would lose both vertical and horizontal, this is not good. 960x540p


Interlaced is a whole different story, you should not combine TAB with interlace on a passive display.

On a Passive Display

Source: 1080i (cable)
SBS: 960x540 = 518,400
TAB: Never Done (because it would become 1080x270)

Source: 720p (ESPN3D / ABC)
SBS: 640x360 = 230,400 (never seen SBS for 720p broadcast)
TAB: 1280x360 = 460,800

Source: 1080p/24 (Bluray)

SBS: 960x540 = 518,400
TAB: 1920x540 = 1,036,800

So ... if you watching 3D from your cable provider ... SBS is the best.

If you watching Blu-Rays ... TAB is the best.
danbfree likes this.
umenon is offline  
post #12 of 114 Old 10-07-2011, 03:12 PM
Senior Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by umenon View Post

On a Passive Display

Source: 1080i (cable)
SBS: 960x540 = 518,400
TAB: Never Done (because it would become 1080x270)

Source: 720p (ESPN3D / ABC)
SBS: 640x360 = 230,400 (never seen SBS for 720p broadcast)
TAB: 1280x360 = 460,800

Source: 1080p/24 (Bluray)

SBS: 960x540 = 518,400
TAB: 1920x540 = 1,036,800

So ... if you watching 3D from your cable provider ... SBS is the best.

If you watching Blu-Rays ... TAB is the best.


I thought if you watch a blu-ray there is no need for SBS or TAB? Doesn't HDMI pass through the original source image without the need for frame compression?
johnny905 is offline  
post #13 of 114 Old 10-07-2011, 03:38 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 johnny905 View Post

I thought if you watch a blu-ray there is no need for SBS or TAB? Doesn't HDMI pass through the original source image without the need for frame compression?

Correct. 3D BD use the Frame Packing method:



danbfree likes this.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #14 of 114 Old 10-08-2011, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
umenon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: United States
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny905 View Post

I thought if you watch a blu-ray there is no need for SBS or TAB? Doesn't HDMI pass through the original source image without the need for frame compression?

Yes it passes FHD3D ... which is 1920x1080 images stacked one on top of the other. But thru passive glasses you will still see only 1920x540 per eye.

Having said that ... I watched Ultimate Wave 3D on a 42-inch passive set. I was sitting 5 1/2 feet from the screen. I measured it from the center of the screen to the eyes. When I was taking the measurement my wife was dialing the nurse hotline (not sure why). In any case ... the experience was spectacular. The only way to see the alternate line is to shut one eye and stand one feet from the screen.
umenon is offline  
post #15 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 07:17 AM
Member
 
timtlm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but this seems to be the only discussion on this as it pertains to passive 3D. I have an LG 47LW5600 (passive 3D TV). When looking for 3D content I was wondering if I should be looking for SBS and TAB. The majority seems to be in SBS. When I searched "3D side by side vs top and bottom" this thread came up along with a blog post. The person in the blog post seems to think that SBS would be better for a passive display, but I was more in agreement with the majority here that TAB would be better. Although, it could be different for 1080p vs 720p content like the blog post is using as an example.
So, I decided to take Avatar 3D and encode it in both formats to see if I could tell the difference. I found a program called DVDfab that will rip a 3D blu ray to either format. As it turns out, DVDfab has separate profile settings for active shutter and polarized passive. When you choose those profiles, it sets the encode to SBS for active shutter, and TAB for polarized passive. So, apparently they think TAB is better for passive 3D. I went ahead with my experiment anyway. I let it use the default bitrates and the default 1080p format for approximately a 10GB movie when finished. I just changed it to SBS and TAB for two separate encodes. I only encoded about 15 minutes worth of the movie since it was saying it was going to take 12 hours to finish. So, then I played the clips back in VLC. I can tell my TV that I'm viewing a SBS or TAB movie, and it will adjust itself accordingly. There really wasn't a significant difference between the two, but if I were to choose, TAB looked better. Neither file looked as good as the original blu ray, but if I upped the bitrate and did a two pass encode I'm sure the quality could be improved.
There is an interlaced option for both SBS and TAB, which I think my TV might be able to adjust to. There's checkerboard, which may be better, but DVDfab doesn't have this option. It does have the option to encode to full SBS or TAB, resulting in 3840 pixel wide video, which as far as I know there's no player that will play this format correctly so that it is full 3D. There also is an option to output two separate video files or two video tracks in the same mkv. This is intriguing, but again you need some sort of player that will output it to the full 3D format. It seems as though we are limited to the original 3D blu ray to get the full 3D format outputted to the TV.
timtlm is offline  
post #16 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
BleedOrange11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
This is a pretty confusing concept that I spent an entire weekend trying to understand. For passive displays, TaB is preferable for progressive content, and SBS is preferable for interlaced content.

With passive displays, compressed 1080p content resolution is effectively:
SBS - 960x540 per eye
TaB - 1920x540 per eye

With 1080i TV content:
SBS - 960x540 @ 60 Hz (960x1080 @ 30 Hz) per eye
TaB - 1920x270 @ 60 Hz (1920x540 @ 30 Hz) per eye

With 720p TV content:
SBS - 640x360 per eye
TaB - 1280x360 per eye

(The blog is wrong here. Effective TaB resolution wouldn't be 1280x180. Passive TVs don't add a second resolution downscale to TaB content. You only lose the lines that were added when the TV anamorphically expanded the 1280x360 SBS images to 1280x720 when going back to the 1280x360 that is delivered to each eye every 1/120 sec.)

Hopefully, these compression methods will get displaced by something like Sensio 3D, which supposedly offers full HD resolution compression. This whole passive TV scaling conundrum is probably why Vizio was one of the first companies to sign on with Sensio.
BleedOrange11 is offline  
post #17 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 06:50 PM
Newbie
 
cyberbird168's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've been reading a lot about Passive 3D only display half resolution and lately I am more actively reading everything about the difference between passive and active because I am consider to purchase a 3D TV. During the research, I have found one interesting about Passive technology regarding about half resolution and here is what I like to share.

On passive display when it displaying a video frame. Our left eye receive 540 line and in the same time our right eye also receive another 540 line in the same time.

On active display when it displaying a video frame. Our left eye receive 1080 line but not the right because it has been blocked by the glass.

Here is some info from Gizmodo.com:
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. However, 3D images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. That is the theory and fundamental principle behind 3D Image Fusion for FPR TVs—so next we actually tested it to see how accurate it is and how sharp the 3D images actually appear.

So if we are talking about in 1 video frame. We are either seeing 540 line per eye (on passive) or 1080 on one eye only (on active).

Then the question is how many fps we are talking about. On a 3D Blu-Ray. Normally is 60 fps. If that is the case, then in active display we are only seeing 30 fps because only 1 eye at a time. But on passive we are seeing all 60 fps.

So either technology are the best. Either way you are still getting 1080 per frame.

Personally I have looking at a lot of difference panel and to found the most comfortable is passive. I didn't even see any difference in resolution between active or passive. IMHO... I prefer passive and I've ordered the Toshiba 55LT515U and it will be arrive on the 23rd.... Wish me luck... :-)
cyberbird168 is offline  
post #18 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 06:59 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 cyberbird168 View Post

I've been reading a lot about Passive 3D only display half resolution and lately I am more actively reading everything about the difference between passive and active because I am consider to purchase a 3D TV. During the research, I have found one interesting about Passive technology regarding about half resolution and here is what I like to share.

On passive display when it displaying a video frame. Our left eye receive 540 line and in the same time our right eye also receive another 540 line in the same time.

On active display when it displaying a video frame. Our left eye receive 1080 line but not the right because it has been blocked by the glass.

So if we are talking about in 1 video frame. We are either seeing 540 line per eye (on passive) or 1080 on one eye only (on active).

Then the question is how many fps we are talking about. On a 3D Blu-Ray. Normally is 60 fps. If that is the case, then in active display we are only seeing 30 fps because only 1 eye at a time. But on passive we are seeing all 60 fps.

So either technology are the best. Either way you are still getting 1080 per frame.

Personally I have looking at a lot of difference panel and to found the most comfortable is passive. I didn't even see any difference in resolution between active or passive. IMHO... I prefer passive and I've ordered the Toshiba 55LT515U and it will be arrive on the 23rd.... Wish me luck... :-)

A passive 3DTV shows 1 FIELD per eye not 1 frame. So 60 FIELDS per second per eye is 30 Frames (2 fields = 1 frame)/ per eye. Active 3DTVs show 60 FRAMES per second per eye.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #19 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 07:02 PM
Newbie
 
cyberbird168's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

A passive 3DTV shows 1 FIELD per eye not 1 frame. So 60 FIELDS per second per eye is 30 Frames (2 fields = 1 frame)/ per eye. Active 3DTVs show 60 FRAMES per second per eye.

Here is some info from Gizmodo.com:
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. However, 3D images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical - but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. That is the theory and fundamental principle behind 3D Image Fusion for FPR TVs
cyberbird168 is offline  
post #20 of 114 Old 01-18-2012, 10:24 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 cyberbird168 View Post

Here is some info from Gizmodo.com:
By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. However, 3D images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical – but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see. That is the theory and fundamental principle behind 3D Image Fusion for FPR TVs

What does the camera setup have to do with displaying 3D images? The cameras are recording two offset (65mm) images. Each is 1920x1080. When displaying those images on a FPR passive 1080P 3DTV, you are showing two images each 1920x540. Active 1080P 3DTVs show two images each 1920x1080 (when using a 3D BD). The difference is the passive 3DTV shows two images at the same time while the active alternates L & R eye.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #21 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 03:56 AM
Newbie
 
cyberbird168's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What does the camera setup have to do with displaying 3D images? The cameras are recording two offset (65mm) images. Each is 1920x1080. When displaying those images on a FPR passive 1080P 3DTV, you are showing two images each 1920x540. Active 1080P 3DTVs show two images each 1920x1080 (when using a 3D BD). The difference is the passive 3DTV shows two images at the same time while the active alternates L & R eye.

Just my 2 cents. If the logic of 3D video is displaying 120hz/second (120 fps), so 1/120 second on Active panel is displaying 1080 on one eye so as Passive panel is displaying 540 on each eye. So either display on the very same 1/120 is displaying 1080.
cyberbird168 is offline  
post #22 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 05:18 AM
Member
 
quisp65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So if there is no big negative with active sets and with passive T/B has it's advantages, we should start to see the 3d community slowly gravitate toward T/B as passives get a larger portion of the market. Invest big in T/B stock ;-)
quisp65 is offline  
post #23 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 05:27 AM
Senior Member
 
lewis3845's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camby,Indiana USA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hasn't the big companies samsung,sony and others except lg already said they're going with supporting active 3d over passive?
lewis3845 is offline  
post #24 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 05:47 AM
Member
 
quisp65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There are two camps in panel manufacturing and pardon if I get the players mixed up a bit. Sharp/Sony/Samsung vs LG/Toshiba/Phillips/Vizio. There are a few others but they get their panels between the two. I heard 3d passive outsold active last year, so if it continues.....then ^
quisp65 is offline  
post #25 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 06:06 AM
Newbie
 
cyberbird168's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I personally believe one of the reason why some manufacturer continue to support active shutter panel because they can make more money out of it by selling us more expensive glasses and years down on the road when the battery die on the glasses you are currently have, you will have to buy more.
cyberbird168 is offline  
post #26 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 07:08 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: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
AFAIK 1080i TnB is not a mandatory HDMI 1.4a mandatory format whereas 720p 1080i is as well as 720p TnB. I am not aware of any 1080i TnB chanels and only ESPN-3D uses 720p 1080i in some markets.
walford is offline  
post #27 of 114 Old 01-19-2012, 07:45 AM
Senior Member
 
lewis3845's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Camby,Indiana USA
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by quisp65 View Post

There are two camps in panel manufacturing and pardon if I get the players mixed up a bit. Sharp/Sony/Samsung vs LG/Toshiba/Phillips/Vizio. There are a few others but they get their panels between the two. I heard 3d passive outsold active last year, so if it continues.....then ^

wow really, I never see passives much at the stores.
lewis3845 is offline  
post #28 of 114 Old 07-10-2012, 07:14 PM
Member
 
The Yar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry to bump an old thread again, but this thread comes up pretty high in Google searches.

Does anyone have an opinion on the "540 per eye" and what that really means? I read a study that one of the passive manufacturers commissioned (so not unbiased) that basically said 540 per eye = 1080 in your brain and therefore 1080. All of the info so far in this thread just assumes that 540 per eye means 540.

I'm one of those sensitive people who can't watch active shutter. I can see the flickering, and on some models the effect is nearly like getting punched in the face. I put my eyes up to the glasses and then jerk back and wince immediately.
The Yar is offline  
post #29 of 114 Old 07-10-2012, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Well, I've actually got a passive display, and I can tell you that what I'm seeing with my eyes is most definitely NOT 540p. I can't count pixels, so I'm not sure if it's a full 1080p, but it's absolutely not half resolution, naysayers be damned. Turns out your brain's actually pretty good at assembling what your eyes see into a cohesive picture. Who knew?

The only thing I notice, because I'm trained to look for it, is some slight aliasing around some high-contrast edges. Granted, this is also a monitor viewed from only around 30" away, I'm sitting closer than is recommended, and most users might not even see it, or notice, or care. The aliasing is caused by the fact that the two pixels of the image aren't actually right next to each other like my eyes are telling me they are. The aliasing is not nearly as bad as, say, a video game with no AA turned on. I can tell the difference in AA levels even when playing games in 3D, which should tell you something, since it's still pixel-for-pixel and I can see the difference. Definitely not half-resolution, or else it would look a LOT worse.

Let me put it this way: I can see the difference between a 1080p YouTube video in 3D, and a native 3D Blu-ray being played directly from the drive. The BD is absolutely clearer and sharper, just like it is on normal 2D content. If it were really half resolution, I shouldn't be able to see that much clarity in two different 1080p streams.

There's a big difference between what's "technically" happening and what your eyes actually see and how your brain interprets it.

As for the original topic, I would agree that SBS is better, when you're talking half-resolution videos like YouTube. The eye seems to key more off of vertical resolution than horizontal, and T/B images seem overall softer because of the loss of vertical resolution than SBS images. If you're talking full-frame images, where the original 1920x1080 images are stored in their entirety, then it doesn't make any difference.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #30 of 114 Old 07-10-2012, 09:40 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 Jedi2016 View Post

Well, I've actually got a passive display, and I can tell you that what I'm seeing with my eyes is most definitely NOT 540p. I can't count pixels, so I'm not sure if it's a full 1080p, but it's absolutely not half resolution, naysayers be damned. Turns out your brain's actually pretty good at assembling what your eyes see into a cohesive picture. Who knew?
The only thing I notice, because I'm trained to look for it, is some slight aliasing around some high-contrast edges. Granted, this is also a monitor viewed from only around 30" away, I'm sitting closer than is recommended, and most users might not even see it, or notice, or care. The aliasing is caused by the fact that the two pixels of the image aren't actually right next to each other like my eyes are telling me they are. The aliasing is not nearly as bad as, say, a video game with no AA turned on. I can tell the difference in AA levels even when playing games in 3D, which should tell you something, since it's still pixel-for-pixel and I can see the difference. Definitely not half-resolution, or else it would look a LOT worse.
Let me put it this way: I can see the difference between a 1080p YouTube video in 3D, and a native 3D Blu-ray being played directly from the drive. The BD is absolutely clearer and sharper, just like it is on normal 2D content. If it were really half resolution, I shouldn't be able to see that much clarity in two different 1080p streams.
There's a big difference between what's "technically" happening and what your eyes actually see and how your brain interprets it.
As for the original topic, I would agree that SBS is better, when you're talking half-resolution videos like YouTube. The eye seems to key more off of vertical resolution than horizontal, and T/B images seem overall softer because of the loss of vertical resolution than SBS images. If you're talking full-frame images, where the original 1920x1080 images are stored in their entirety, then it doesn't make any difference.

Digital Cinema Resolution – Current Situation and Future requirements

Matt Cowan

Resolution, Sharpness, and Detail

In general usage, the meanings of resolution, sharpness, and detail are often interchanged.

• Resolution is a technical term, relating to the ability to image fine spatial frequencies through an optical system. When used as a figure of merit for an optical system, it refers to the results of measurements using test patterns and usually measuring the limiting resolution (often specified as 5% modulation)
• Sharpness is a descriptive term that relates to the amount of picture information available to the viewer. Sharpness is a combination of not only limiting resolution, but how much contrast is available at various resolutions below limiting resolution. Sharpness measures have been devised which relate to the area under the MTF curve.
• Detail is a term with similar meaning to sharpness, and used by viewers to describe relatively fine information in the image. Details as we see them do not usually occur on the scale of a pixel, but rather on a larger scale of several pixels, and as such are coarser than the threshold of resolution for the visual system. A sharp picture is often more detailed.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

Tags
3d Hdtv , New Lg 55 3d Led Lcd Smart Tv Wifi 1080p 55lw5600 , Lcd Hdtv
Gear in this thread

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