Originally Posted by GregLee
I guess I have to go over this with you a little more carefully. I said "... this does not establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D...". What I said does not imply that I think 1080 lines in 3D can be resolved. I have no opinion as to whether 1080 lines can be resolved in 3D with the FPR displays. Nothing I have said implies that I have an opinion about that...
"... this does not establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D...".
Notice the two negatives. Removing the first one changes the statement to:
"... this does
establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D...".
Removing the second one changes the statement to:
"... this does not
establish that a person with two eyes can
resolve 1080 lines in 3D...".
Either a person can or cannot resolve 1080 lines with passive displays. There is no middle choice. Your statement in of itself implies the opposite argument.
I do have the opinion that you and Kane are wrong when you claim that the fact that each eye separately can see only 540 lines at any time proves that both eyes functioning together can distinguish only 540 lines. It doesn't follow. It could still be true, even though not yet shown to be true.
There are only 540 lines to distinguish, ergo each eye cannot see 1080 lines. Explain how it doesn't follow. Explain where the other 540 lines come from.
Another logic experiment:
Let's say there are two ducks on a pond in front of you. If you cover your right eye and count the ducks, there are two ducks. If you cover your left eye and count the ducks, there are two ducks. Both eyes functioning together see how many ducks? Two or Four?
Passive 3D is the equivalent of top and bottom 3D in an active system.
In both, the left and right views are shown at half the vertical resolution (540 odd lines to one eye, 540 even lines to the other). What goes in is what comes out. The arguments for one being better than the other (active vs passive) only apply to these two formats. Apples and apples.
For Bluray3D shown on a passive 3D system, as in top and bottom, half the lines for each eye are discarded, and 540 lines are shown to each eye, as above. Bluray3D on an active 3D system shows all 1080 lines to each eye, so it is no longer an apples to apples comparison.
Also, the argument that the "brain sees" 1080 lines when presented 540 lines per eye, does not matter at all, as the same principle (even if the underlying mechanics are unknowm) has to apply to the 1080 lines per eye of active as well. If the 540 lines are doubled by the brain, the 1080 must be doubled also, so the half resolution argument still stands.
Does any of this matter? Probably not. The black lines in a passive filter are much like a screen door that one must look through. Try looking out a screen door up close. The screen blocks out much of the image of the outdoors (not half, but close enough for this example). As you step back from the door, you can focus more on the overall view than the screen, and the screen seems to disappear. However, if you immediately shift your gaze through a (clean) window, you can discern the difference in image quality quite readily. The screen is a compromise between a solid surface to keep out insects and an opening to let in air and light, just as passive is a compromise to keep out the right eye's view while letting in the left view (and vice versa). Both the screen door and the passive filter do their job to our satisfaction, even though there are compromises made.
Remember, resolution is defined as the number of lines that can be resolved at a standard distance from the TV screen, the distance being based on the size of the screen.
Just as with the screen door experiment, if you're watching a passive 46" TV from far enough back, the resolution loss won't matter, because from that distance 1080 looks the same as 540 anyway. That is where most of the "looks fine to me comments" come from.http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics...es/284986.html
While this is a comparison of 1080 and 720 in relation to viewing distance and TV size, the principle applies to 1080 vs 540 as well.
In other words, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between a 42" 720p display and 42" 1080p at distances of about six feet or more. Given that many people view their televisions from 8-10 feet away (if not even more), you would have to have a 65" or larger screen to really notice the difference between 720p and 1080p.