Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 08:48 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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

I know what's in the HDMI 1.4 3D standard, since that is readily available and freely downloadable. HDMI 1.4 does indeed handle many types of 3D displays (but not a true holographic display - I'm sure you simply misspoke). But I have not read the Blu-ray 3D standard, which was the only one I mentioned. I have heard that it does not support quincunx (checkerboard). So it's possible other types of 3D display will be incompatible. One would think that in principle if the player simply outputs alternating left-eye and right-eye frames, as just one example of a possible output mode, it should work with any kind of stereoscopic display that accepts alternating frames, but I do not know for certain what format the xpol displays require the images to be input. Do you?

From My JVC link:

Quote:


Compatible with 2 different (Line-by-Line and Side-by-Side) 3D signal inputs

Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 08:55 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

From My JVC link:

Thanks. Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support either of these modes? I say that thinking it must surely. My original question was more rhetorical than revealing of any real doubt.

Who here has actually read the Blu-ray 3D standard? If you have, how did you get a look at it? Where can it be downloaded?
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #363 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 09:13 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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

Thanks. Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support either of these modes? I say that thinking it must surely. My original question was more rhetorical than revealing of any real doubt.

That JVC 3DTV came out August of last year so it isn't going to have 1.4 inputs.

Quote:


Who here has actually read the Blu-ray 3D standard? If you have, how did you get a look at it? Where can it be downloaded?

AFAIK (???), the BDA does not freely publish tech specs. You have to be a member to get access.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #364 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 09:20 AM
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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

I know what's in the HDMI 1.4 3D standard, since that is readily available and freely downloadable. HDMI 1.4 does indeed handle many types of 3D displays (but not a true holographic display - I'm sure you simply misspoke). But I have not read the Blu-ray 3D standard, which was the only one I mentioned. I have heard that it does not support quincunx (checkerboard). So it's possible other types of 3D display will be incompatible. One would think that in principle if the player simply outputs alternating left-eye and right-eye frames, as just one example of a possible output mode, it should work with any kind of stereoscopic display that accepts alternating frames. But I do not know for certain what format the xpol displays require the images to be input. Do you?

Naturally only 3D sets that were designed to accept native stereo images according to the HDMI 1.4 3d spec will be assured that they are able to receive and properly handle those signals. But that issue is separate from the *technology* that the set uses to display the 3D (polarized/shutter etc.)

the HD standard over HDMI transmits two images. It's up to the display to figure out what to do with them. In the case of Mitsubishi, it's the *TV set* that's not playing the game, because they implimented a checkerboard system on their own before the HDMI standards were in place and so they didn't include the ability for their set to receive and recognize real stereo dual-images to then process (downconvert if you will) into checkerboard for the DMD chips. Therefore, you need to use a HDMI 1.4 -> checkerboard converter to get that set to work with the new 3D systems.

However, any 3D display produced *after* the HDMI 1.4 3D spec has been finalized should be designed to receive the stereo image. That makes no difference whether they are polarized or active shutter. If they need to do conversions of any sort, they can do that internally and the HDMI 1.4 spec doesn't have to be affected.

Had those Mitsubishi 3D DLP sets been designed after the HDMI 1.4 protocols were in place, they too would accept the native dual-stream stereo images and just do the checkerboard conversion internally.

As long as you have dual stereo images, any display can convert them to any other type of system as the rest are all reductions in one way or another from the original full-resolution 1920 x 1080p stereo. The 1/2 res top/bottom and side-side 3D provision added to 1.4 late in the game was only to appease the TV folks like DSS, and 3D sets will probably take those signal and internally separate them and expand them into two full-resolution 1920x1080 streams before display.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #365 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:07 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Naturally only 3D sets that were designed to accept native stereo images according to the HDMI 1.4 3d spec will be assured that they are able to receive and properly handle those signals. But that issue is separate from the *technology* that the set uses to display the 3D (polarized/shutter etc.)

That's obvious and something I certainly understood. Note that my original question was mostly rhetorical. (Need I say that yet again?)

Quote:


the HD standard over HDMI transmits two images. It's up to the display to figure out what to do with them. In the case of Mitsubishi, it's the *TV set* that's not playing the game, because they implimented a checkerboard system on their own before the HDMI standards were in place and so they didn't include the ability for their set to receive and recognize real stereo dual-images to then process (downconvert if you will) into checkerboard for the DMD chips.

I think most of us here understand that. The issue in that specific case is the BDA's apparent decision not to require explicit support in a 3D Blu-ray player for an existing and reasonably "popular" (est. 2 million TVs) format for inputting half-res 3D images. HDMI 1.4 supports it as well as several other half-res formats, as you say. Unfortunate. (I don't myself own a DLP RPTV, btw, so I have no personal stake in the issue either way.)
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #366 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:12 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

AFAIK (???), the BDA does not freely publish tech specs. You have to be a member to get access.

I assumed as much. Which is why I asked the question. Someone here might work for a company that is a member of the BDA or they've perhaps obtained the specification "through the back door": I'd like to know who those people are. Wouldn't you? Everyone else who speaks specifically about what is or is not in that specification, unless they are quoting a source who has read the document or the few details that have been made public, is speculating. I'm just being frank, no intent to offend anyone (certainly no one specifically - no one in the current thread has, AFAIK, made any such _specific_ claims about what is in that spec.)
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #367 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:27 AM
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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

That's obvious and something I certainly understood. Note that my original question was mostly rhetorical. (Need I say that yet again?)

I think most of us here understand that. The issue in that specific case is the BDA's decision not to require explicit support in a player for an existing format for inputting half-res 3D images. As you go on to say, they included other half-res formats to appease certain interests, but not that one. Unfortunate. (I don't myself own a DLP RPTV, btw, so I have no personal stake in the issue either way.)

True.

The BD player is probably only required to output one particular kind of 3D signal. But that's because all HDMI 1.4 spec displays would be able to use that signal.

Other types of 3D protocols could be built in to a 3D blu-ray player as optional. Even on-the-fly color-filtering to create a composite red/blue mono signal for old-fashioned anaglyph glasses! Perhaps checkerboard could be an option that some BD player might include as well. But any television that opperates outside of the HDMI 1.4 3D spec should also be able to benefit from some sort of converter, like the Mits sets. Maybe the best solution would be for a *receiver* manufacturer to build 3D conversion options into the processing of the recevier... so no matter what type of 3D signal goes in (stereo, left/right, top/bottom etc.) you could output it to the desired type for your display (like checkerboard).

Since the population of legacy 3D displays that aren't HDMI 1.4 compliant is pretty small, and will get proportionally smaller as new HDMI 1.4 3D sets come into use, eventually it will be a moot issue and a given converter box solution should do the trick for anyone with a legacy 3D set.

(p.s. not trying to be condescending or anything rest assured. The original notion asking if blu-ray would work with "polarized" 3D as opposed to active shutter was a natural point to generate some good clarity about the nature of the 3D spec and what it means)

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #368 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:28 AM
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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

I assumed as much. Which is why I asked the question. Someone here might work for a company that is a member of the BDA or they've perhaps obtained the specification "through the back door": I'd like to know who those people are. Wouldn't you? Everyone else who speaks specifically about what is or is not in that specification, unless they are quoting a source who has read the document or the few details that have been made public, is speculating. I'm just being frank, no intent to offend anyone (certainly no one specifically - no one in the current thread has, AFAIK, made any such _specific_ claims about what is in that spec.)

most of this talk about the details of the "spec" is based off of conversations from CES with manufacturers etc. Hopefully we'll get some better clarity on all these points as 3D nears release.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is online now  
post #369 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:45 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

That JVC 3DTV came out August of last year so it isn't going to have 1.4 inputs.

That's actually more of a problem than the data format itself. The 1.4 spec specifically says that "an HDMI source shall not send any 3D video format to a sink that does not indicate support for that format." It's the "indicate support" part that causes the problem. Even if the display accepts a particular 3D data format that the player can output (e.g., line interleaved), if the display can't tell the player that fact in the expected 1.4 protocol, the jig is up. Of course, an adapter would take care of that but how likely is one for anything other than the Mits/Samsung DLP sets, which have a large enough installed base to justify development?
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #370 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

The BD player is probably only required to output one particular kind of 3D signal. But that's because all HDMI 1.4 spec displays would be able to use that signal.

I expect you are right.

Quote:


Other types of 3D protocols could be built in to a 3D blu-ray player as optional. Even on-the-fly color-filtering to create a composite red/blue mono signal for old-fashioned anaglyph glasses!Perhaps checkerboard could be an option that some BD player might include as well.

Yes, that may be possible, assuming the Blu-ray 3D spec doesn't for some insane reason prohibit that. I'd buy a player that supported optional output formats such as these over one that did not, all other things being more-or-less equal. (Are you listening, CE manufacturers??)

Quote:


Maybe the best solution would be for a *receiver* manufacturer to build 3D conversion options into the processing of the recevier... so no matter what type of 3D signal goes in (stereo, left/right, top/bottom etc.) you could output it to the desired type for your display (like checkerboard).

Good idea!
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #371 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 11:00 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 GI Joe Sixpack View Post

That's actually more of a problem than the data format itself. The 1.4 spec specifically says that "an HDMI source shall not send any 3D video format to a sink that does not indicate support for that format." It's the "indicate support" part that causes the problem. Even if the display accepts a particular 3D data format that the player can output (e.g., line interleaved), if the display can't tell the player that fact in the expected 1.4 protocol, the jig is up. Of course, an adapter would take care of that but how likely is one for anything other than the Mits/Samsung DLP sets, which have a large enough installed base to justify development?

You are referencing the EDID?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #372 of 379 Old 03-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Senior Member
 
GI Joe Sixpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are referencing the EDID?

I was thinking of EDID, yes. Over EDID, players & graphics cards have always been able to read the video resolutions supported by the display. I'm assuming something similar is also be available for 3D information. That's the way I intrepreted the spec, but maybe I'm wrong. The spec also mentions 3D information flowing from the source to the sink (EDID data travels the other way) in an "HDMI vendor specific infoframe packet" and an "AVI infoframe." In any case if the display isn't 1.4 then 3D information won't be communicated or won't be used, whichever way it flows.
GI Joe Sixpack is offline  
post #373 of 379 Old 03-12-2010, 05:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
BAMAVADER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mars
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by hikarate View Post

3d the next big thing. I had to go find this image that always pops in my head whenever i hear the word.

+1

<><

RTR
BAMAVADER is online now  
post #374 of 379 Old 08-22-2010, 08:28 AM
Member
 
Celo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My uncle wants to buy a 3D TV. I told him I would not if I were him. I do not see the 3D becoming a big thing. He thinks 3D will be the future. He said we will see camcorders, digital cameras, etc. in 3D also.

So, when I was at the mall yesterday, I checked out the Sony store. I put the not so comfortable glasses and watched the 3D demo. Very nice, especially real life pictures, like soccer, etc. Still though, I do not see myself watching 3D programming all the time. Especially when I have to put the 3D glasses. I guess it is cool to watch some stuff but for everything, I don't know.

I am thinking 3D will not make it.

I guess my uncle and I will see the results, in few years.
Celo is offline  
post #375 of 379 Old 08-22-2010, 11:48 AM
Senior Member
 
theblackkeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celo View Post

My uncle wants to buy a 3D TV. I told him I would not if I were him. I do not see the 3D becoming a big thing. He thinks 3D will be the future. He said we will see camcorders, digital cameras, etc. in 3D also.

So, when I was at the mall yesterday, I checked out the Sony store. I put the not so comfortable glasses and watched the 3D demo. Very nice, especially real life pictures, like soccer, etc. Still though, I do not see myself watching 3D programming all the time. Especially when I have to put the 3D glasses. I guess it is cool to watch some stuff but for everything, I don't know.

I am thinking 3D will not make it.

I guess my uncle and I will see the results, in few years.

I still think what people fail to realize is the 3D TV's are their respective companies BEST 2D TV's.
theblackkeys is offline  
post #376 of 379 Old 08-22-2010, 12:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
Duck05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: No. Calif (Bay Area)
Posts: 647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Appears it is going that way with the 3D feature being available in the higher bracket models.

Even if (when) more content becomes available, having a hard time believing that the general public (not the people on this forum) will flock to 3D and wear glasses to watch TV in their family rooms.

And those with dedicated home theaters for movie or major sporting events it is hard to fathom that this audience would view 3D materials that often. Could be wrong but with the economy the way it is just can't project how fast this will ramp up or play out....
Duck05 is offline  
post #377 of 379 Old 12-21-2010, 10:59 PM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
With 2010 almost gone, believe we have our answer....

What Happened to That 3-D TV Bonanza?
By DAWN KAWAMOTO

Posted 10:45 AM 12/21/10

Manufacturers of 3-D TVs are getting a lump of coal this holiday season. High expectations for frothy sales have failed to materialize, and price cuts of more than 40% continue during this critical selling period.

Such lackluster sales have been a huge disappointment for the industry, which rolled out a plethora of 3-D sets at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this year, after offering a sneak peak of the technology in 2009. Research firm DisplaySearch, in October, lowered its 3-D TV shipment projections to 1.6 million in North America for this year from its previous summer forecast of over 2 million.

And prices for the new technology remained compressed even as the sets first appeared in stores en masse, which doesn't bode well. Typically, manufacturers hope to capture their fattest profits right after a new product is introduced.




See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/hKqaJD
bill4903485 is offline  
post #378 of 379 Old 05-25-2014, 04:29 PM
Member
 
Celo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I guess some people were wrong:)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Celo is offline  
post #379 of 379 Old 05-28-2014, 08:07 AM
Senior Member
 
billqs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celo View Post

I guess some people were wrong:)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think several factors have kept 3D from greater adoption in the consumer field:
1. The chain to produce a 3d image is relatively complicated for a casual user- (Must have 3d blu-ray, 3d blu-ray player, 3d capable receiver to pass 3d signal (HDMI 1.4) and 3d Display.
2. 3D discs were packaged and sold at a price a good bit greater than the 2d version ( a lot of "special packages")
3. 3D was often only included on higher priced TV's
4. A lot of 3D titles were originally 2D converted to 3D as an afterthought by studios (often yielding poor results)
5. A 50" or less surface doesn't adequately recreate the WOW factor of 3D in a theater.

3D looks really good projected, which is why I am hoping as a projector owner that 3D continues even as a niche market. The right 3D projected on a large surface can be amazing!
old corps likes this.
billqs is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

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