3D LCD - nasty visual quality? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 03:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sharkcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
4D will be great, we won't even have to record shows anymore!!!

Back off man, I'm a scientist.
sharkcohen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Denophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

4D will be great, we won't even have to record shows anymore!!!

wow thats a mindbender but i think the previous post may have been referring to "smell-o-vision"
Denophile is offline  
post #33 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JJHXBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sandpoint, ID & Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 1,106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I will probably be nailed to a cross for saying this, but 3-D anything when having to wear glasses sucks!!
There is no question in my mind that the 3-D effect can definitely add to the entertainment experience when it's done well, but requiring glasses to experience it just doesn't cut it.
Once they come up with the technology where they can produce 3-D or holographic sets without glasses, I'm going to be all over it!!.
Until then everybody else can watch all the 3-D they want with there (lol) glasses.
JJHXBR is offline  
post #34 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 06:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJHXBR View Post

I will probably be nailed to a cross for saying this, but 3-D anything when having to wear glasses sucks!!
There is no question in my mind that the 3-D effect can definitely add to the entertainment experience when it's done well, but requiring glasses to experience it just doesn't cut it.
Once they come up with the technology where they can produce 3-D or holographic sets without glasses, I'm going to be all over it!!.
Until then everybody else can watch all the 3-D they want with there (lol) glasses.

Someday you may need reading glasses. When that day comes I guess it'll be game over for you when it comes to reading anything! I don't like wearing glasses either, but it is a concession I'm willing to make if I want the entertainment value (reading or watching a 3D movie) badly enough.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #35 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 07:04 PM
Member
 
dave300zx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I played a 3d wipeout HD demo for ps3 at my local Sony Style store and it changed my negative perception of 3d. I didn't personally notice a "flicker" when watching the demo content. Also, the other content they were showing was very neat, like footage of a soccer game and some nature spots.
dave300zx is offline  
post #36 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 08:37 PM
Member
 
pmreedjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wear glasses all the time now thanks to advancing age, and I wore them under the 3-D glasses when I watched Avatar on an Imax screen. My only problem was that the movie was too short; I could have watched that incredible image all day long. I'll definitely be going back for repeat viewings. I'll pay more for a 3-D capable HDTV and plan on doing so once the dust settles this summer. Another consequence of my advancing age is that I need to take advantage of the technology as soon as I can. You guys can talk about what's coming 5 or 10 years from now, but I may not be around to enjoy it then, so I'm buying in early!
pmreedjr is offline  
post #37 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 09:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
elockett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I have a question about the new Sammy LED LCD shown at CES. For sets that support 2D to 3D processing, do they require 3D glasses? I ask because I attended CES and while passing through the Sammy display area, a 40-46 inch display (guess) caught my eye because not only it generally looked spectacular, it presented a 3D look without glasses. Further, though the source was bluray (a demo that looped between several popular movie scenes every 10 seconds or so), the material also looked like HD video as opposed to film-very lifelike! This was not my opinion alone. My brother was with me and he noted the same qualities without input from me. Because the display was being used as wall decoration there was no information of any kind on the set or bluray player feeding it. I asked several "reps" for more information, but ironically (and sadly) they knew nothing about the combination. One rep assured me that the player and display were not using any special processing and that may have been the case. But since this individual also didn't know the model of the display or player either who knows if she was correct about the processing? I followed up with another rep later in the day who appeared to be more knowledgeable and he thought it was from Samsung's new 7000 series of LED-LCD display.

So assuming it was a 7000 series set, is Sammy's 2D to 3D processing designed to simulate 3D without glasses? It certainly appeared that way to me with the difference (vs. glasses) being that the effect started at the plane of the display's glass and projected backwards.

My brother and I have been die-hard plasma fans to date, and I was planning on buying a 65" plasma later this year but after seeing that Sammy LCD at CES, we are both reconcidering LED LCD.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
elockett is offline  
post #38 of 58 Old 01-12-2010, 09:53 PM
 
nosepass2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by elockett View Post

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Nope, it requires glasses.
nosepass2 is offline  
post #39 of 58 Old 01-13-2010, 04:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Samsung does have an LCD 3D T.V. that does not require glasses! Problem is that it can only be viewed from one limited angle and the plan is to use it for advertising and have the customer view it when in the right position. There is another company with an LCD 3D T.V. (TCL is the company name I think - try Youtube) that doesn't require glasses and its T.V. can be viewed from multiple angles. They claim about 18 months before you can buy one, but who knows?

http://www.avforums.com/forums/repor...t-glasses.html
Deja Vu is offline  
post #40 of 58 Old 01-13-2010, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Toshiba 4K,that is good news.
I read about this stuff for the fist time a few days ago,
eight million pixel this means PLASMA is out of the game,isn't it.

No, this is not the game 4K vs. 2K. There is no 4K content and even it would, you won't notice any difference to 2K in normal home viewing conditions. Maybe you notice it displaying pics from digital camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

We see OLEDs grow bigger each year,don't we?
When i say bigger OLEDs i mean 42inch.

OLED has to be price competitive and prospects for this are dim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Just imagine,someone watching a 3Dchannel for six hours a day
with thoose anoying 3Dglasses,i believe if 3Dtv wants to be a succes
they have to come up with something better than that.

Six hours per day with 3D glasses is impossible. One movie per day and maybe not every day.

Anything without glasses is pure fantasy. Especially if one considers that it should be perfectly downward compatible with 2D - that is in 2D mode it should offer top HD quality. Nobody would use one TV set for 3D and another for 2D, right?

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #41 of 58 Old 01-13-2010, 03:51 PM
Member
 
Pravda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
3D without glasses from a flat panel display is possible, but not without kind of sucking unless someone invents a completely new way of doing it. The panels exist and have for a few years, but they use frensel lenses on top of the panel itself to try and separate the light from each alternating column of pixels in different directions so that you can view a different image in either eye (made of a collection of columns pointing generally in the direction of each eye). To create more than a single viewing spot that works there are several "left" and "right" lenses at slightly different angles (say four in each direction) The problems with this approach are numerous:

Because the light is beamed out in somewhat parallel columns, the effect only works at certain distances and lateral positions in front of the set. Your eyes have to end up in a position that happens to be aligned with the output of the panel's intended images for each eye (left image to left eye - right image to right eye). Further, most of the time you can see more than one "copy" (several angles of right image for example) so you get terrible ghosting of the image. Also, if you move your head left or right then you will swap eyes (left image to right eye, right to left eye) which scrambles the 3D effect and makes the image unwatchable. You also have to divide the resolution of your panel by the number of angles you beam out - for example, a 4K HDTV with ONE viewing position (2 lens angles, one per eye) would output 1920x1080 per eye, but only for one person in one location. Most of the panels have at least 4 angles per eye, so divide your effective resolution by 8, this means you need a 16k panel for four people to watch autostereo (no glasses required) 3D at full HD resolution, and then it would still have ghosting and they could never move their heads.

Most of the manufacturers I've talked to don't really see it as a solution for home viewing, but rather for digital advertising signage, because as you walk by the displays they do grab your attention. But their limitations are more than anyone I know would put up with in a living room display. For now shutter glasses are the best solution for home use.

Also, a lot of the eye fatigue that comes from watching 3D is not because of the glasses - it is because most cinematographers don't know (or don't care) how to compose stereo movies so that they DON'T cause eye strain. When you have lots of extremes in your 3D scene (like a T-rex or Scrooge's nose poking you virtually between the eyes) your eyes get fatigue because in the real world you don't spend 90 minutes focusing on something that would make you cross-eyed. When objects are composed at or outside the extremes of what the average person can comfortably focus on it causes severe eye strain and that will give you a headache. Movies like Up or Avatar don't do this (at least not all the time), and most people are fine watching them without discomfort.
Pravda is offline  
post #42 of 58 Old 01-13-2010, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 188
I love 2D,i can do without 3D,if OLED fails as a consumerproduct
i will buy a 40inch(1080P)LEDlcd five years from now.
8mile13 is offline  
post #43 of 58 Old 01-15-2010, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravda View Post

3D without glasses from a flat panel display is possible, but not without kind of sucking unless someone invents a completely new way of doing it.
....

Yeah, right but nobody ever will invent magic.

My claim is that 3D display without glasses for the living room
is impossible. This is not only because of problems inherent to 3D presentation. The major issue now is the requirement for perfect 2D HD rendering. In other words the 3D display must be top-notch 2D HD display, this is absolutely required for watching legacy 2D content and quality offered by 2D HD displays is nowadays very high. Nobody will buy for the living room a 3D display which would be a bad 2D display . Thinking that people could have separate 3D and 2D displays is outright crazy.

Making perfect 2D out of 3D display is impossible since physical barrier creating 3D would have to perfectly disappear. The current 3D with glasses is a perfect 2D display, this gives it a chance of getting consumer acceptance.

Perhaps some kind of projection technology may allow for coexistence of 3D and 2D but this won't be a TV display.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #44 of 58 Old 01-15-2010, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Yeah, right but nobody ever will invent magic.

My claim is that 3D display without glasses for the living room
is impossible. This is not only because of problems inherent to 3D presentation. The major issue now is the requirement for perfect 2D HD rendering. In other words the 3D display must be top-notch 2D HD display, this is absolutely required for watching legacy 2D content and quality offered by 2D HD displays is nowadays very high. Nobody will buy for the living room a 3D display which would be a bad 2D display . Thinking that people could have separate 3D and 2D displays is outright crazy.

Making perfect 2D out of 3D display is impossible since physical barrier creating 3D would have to perfectly disappear. The current 3D with glasses is a perfect 2D display, this gives it a chance of getting consumer acceptance.

Perhaps some kind of projection technology may allow for coexistence of 3D and 2D but this won't be a TV display.

I think it won't be long before you're embarrassed by your above statements. Apparently Phillips already has a 3D system without glasses, but not for the consumer market (too expensive) and from what I've heard some 2D to 3D conversion works quite well. Have you seen the TCL T.V. (3D without glasses)? Never say never, it just might come back to bite you. When I was a kid Star Trek's "communicator" seemed impossible. Now everyone uses one (cell phone)!
Deja Vu is offline  
post #45 of 58 Old 01-15-2010, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
westa6969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From Michigan now Retired to Naples, FL
Posts: 6,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I think it won't be long before you're embarrassed by your above statements. Apparently Phillips already has a 3D system without glasses, but not for the consumer market (too expensive) and from what I've heard some 2D to 3D conversion works quite well. Have you seen the TCL T.V. (3D without glasses)? Never say never, it just might come back to bite you. When I was a kid Star Trek's "communicator" seemed impossible. Now everyone uses one (cell phone)!

I'd agree that using the term "Impossible" may not make a lot of sense considering the number of Engineers and R&D staffs are working on this and lets not forget the other equation are the new Camera's, lenses, video processors and computer generative PQ assistance (like advanced GPU's). Even if we don't get to turn a 40" into a 3D box to reach into damn if it won't change sports, concerts, HT. I still think you need an immersive size to garner the impact much like an IMAX theater or a HT Size panel.

Sometimes I'm amazed with some of the sports replays where they can rotate around the players and it becomes very close to 3D and improves each year and anxious to see what we get at the Superbowl this year. Not only the 3D but the Japanese and Brit's are working on Super HiVision for the 2012 Olympics and this will eventually blow away 1080P and 3 years ago it was felt to be impossible for the bandwidth and despite naysayers it was successfully tested 2-3 yrs ago in Japan and yet that impossible scenario will be destroyed by Moore's Law and advances in bandwidth.

A step at a time and eventually the impossible BARs are destroyed. Also, often as you reach for the impossible a few surprises serendipidously may also be discovered - who knows what else good can come out of this while the Holy Grail of 3D is sought.

I think some members are stuck on the Panel as being the end all and forget the technology that's feeding the beast which evolves constantly! For 3D to make money they truly MUST transition it so it has an impact on 2D panels or else the market "Audience" is miniscule for years to come. Watch for the content and the devices feeding your HT to truly champion 3D (or an assimilation thereof) rather than the Panel itself IMO!

Samsung 65F8000, 60D8000, 40HU6350, Panasonic 50E60 LCD's
westa6969 is online now  
post #46 of 58 Old 01-15-2010, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
topr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm in my mid 40's and a complete skeptic when comes to 3D...that was until I seen Avatar...pretty impressive. If the home version even comes close in the quality of that viewing experience I can't help but think there will be a major push to get source content into the home. But like Westa said, you will need a larger display or a close setting distance to truly appreciate it.
topr is offline  
post #47 of 58 Old 01-15-2010, 04:08 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
Good 3D stereoscopy (and perhaps autosteroscopy) is an inevitability. No rational person will argue this. The idea has been around for over one-hundred years, the practical application over fifty.

Right now the capacity and bandwidth for both transmission and processing 3D is the main problem. But manufacturers don't want you to know this. Basically they are selling a product not ready for primetime. Just like they sold you broken DLNA. Just like edge-lit LED actually reduce picture quality, taking one step forward and two steps back.

You're not getting anywhere near Avatar-like 3D performance in this generation's HDTV... that's for certain. That's how it will be sold though.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #48 of 58 Old 01-16-2010, 02:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I think it won't be long before you're embarrassed by your above statements. Apparently Phillips already has a 3D system without glasses, but not for the consumer market (too expensive) and from what I've heard some 2D to 3D conversion works quite well. Have you seen the TCL T.V. (3D without glasses)? Never say never, it just might come back to bite you. When I was a kid Star Trek's "communicator" seemed impossible. Now everyone uses one (cell phone)!

Heh, I am not THAT kamikaze to be prepared recalling my statements soon (but I would be GLAD to do so ). I saw the Philips display, forget about it. Look at the problem from my perspective. You have to have impeccable 2D HD performance on any 3D living room display. In fact as the 2D HD performance is improving to a near perfection this puts increasing strains on any 3D display possibility. Consumers will never accept reduced 2D quality as the cost of having 3D. That makes the problem impossible to solve.

Above does not preclude having 3D displays for non-living room applications (e.g. advertising) and as dedicated 3D systems (e.g. with game console) or even some kind of projection systems. But mainstream TV sets are different story.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #49 of 58 Old 01-16-2010, 07:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
Ballz2TheWallz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
4k resolution is totally un****ing necessary, the ONLY time I even feel 1080p is being utilized properly is in games being rendered in 1080p or the occasional IMAX scene in big blockbuster movies.

90% of the movies I watch filmed on 35mm seem like a blurry mess considering what the resolution is capable of, what is 4k going to do, give me high res grain so I can look at the TV with a magnifying glass?

I can only see this being practical for those with 73"+ DLPs in their living rooms or projector setups, but like I said movies usually don't resolve anywhere near a 1080p resolution when you aren't factoring grain.
Ballz2TheWallz is offline  
post #50 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 08:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballz2TheWallz View Post

4k resolution is totally un****ing necessary, the ONLY time I even feel 1080p is being utilized properly is in games being rendered in 1080p or the occasional IMAX scene in big blockbuster movies.

90% of the movies I watch filmed on 35mm seem like a blurry mess considering what the resolution is capable of, what is 4k going to do, give me high res grain so I can look at the TV with a magnifying glass?

I can only see this being practical for those with 73"+ DLPs in their living rooms or projector setups, but like I said movies usually don't resolve anywhere near a 1080p resolution when you aren't factoring grain.

There was research showing that even perfect 35 mm cinema transfers (copies) are practically less than 720p when displayed in cinema. Digital movies and projectors can go higher since they register from pixels and there is no copy loss (and digital movies can be produced entirely in computers and displayed digitally without any visual loss).

However, the 4k is total overshoot for home video applications. From basic properties of human vision and typical viewing distance one obtains that 1080p is maximum for television. In fact the 1080p was designed based on such considerations.

There is however application where 4k displays can be useful and that is watching still pictures from good quality digital cameras. Human visual system has much better static resolution than for motion pictures. So 4k home displays
could have some use.

Introducing 4k home format for video would go same way as the "super audio" format which had 24-bit representation instead of 'mere' 16-bit CD. Consumers could not hear any difference and the format died.

However, 4k makes sense for digital cinemas with huge screens. In fact it would be a good candidate for "digital" Imax.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #51 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 08:06 AM
Member
 
ronerik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have no desire for 3D. I can barely stand to watch it at IMAX for 2 hours. The glasses suck. It's cool for showing off, but for regular use the glasses break it for me.
ronerik is offline  
post #52 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
topr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's already been stated and I tend to agree...first and foremost make a quality 2D display and if 3D can be implemented on top of that I'm all for it as long as the additional cost to add the technology is within reason or even transparent.
The glasses have come a long way and on occasions like movie night or big sporting events they're more than fine...even the ones they handed out at Avatar weren't that bad.
"If" the size of your display is 1.5 or 2 times your seating distance it will have a huge impact on the 3D experience much more so than 2D.
"If" the quality of the 3D is anywhere near the Avatar level it has a good chance of being a factor in how you shop for source material and equipment.
topr is offline  
post #53 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chaz01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
ok for novelty viewing, but America is too lazy to wear special TV glasses in the living room...
chaz01 is online now  
post #54 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 05:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
tipstir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Need to be more on Holography scale instead of 3D. I always hope that watching AB (America Band Stand) would be able to have all those dancers from the 70's be in my living room. 3D just going to bring the objects in the visual in direct line of vision into your viewing area. This year will be the first crop of these sets and along with 3D-Blue-Ray and network. I'll give two years for prices to drop down to where everyone can get one. Once all the 720P, 1080P, 60Hz, 120Hz go away. The HDTV should be to the point where it can be fun to use.
tipstir is offline  
post #55 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I looked at LCDs and plasmas at the CES. They both did 3D very well. Sometimes at the Samsung display, some of the sets in a group would have a choppy video look to them, but anyone here would have realized it was a server issue and not the fault of the TV. Samsung had a stack of TVs that were for the most part showing the same material--one feed to all. The 3D video on all of the sets in the group looked fantastic--very smooth and very 3D. Occasionally some of the TVs in the group would switch to a different feed, and that feed had video on it that stuttered quite a bit. Then they would switch all of the sets back to the same feed and the stuttering problem went away. I also played with a Samsung Blu-ray player showing a 3D movie, and the player worked great and the 3D looked very good. Personally I think that the shuttered glasses 3D is way better than the polarized glasses 3D shown in most theaters. With the shuttered glasses, each eye gets a discreet picture with no crosstalk, while even circular polarization can't totally separate what each eye sees in a theater. I was considering getting a Panasonic VT25 plasma, but the extra brightness and size of some LCDs will have me looking at them closely when they become available. Again, this thread is misleading, because LCD 3D looks great.
fire407 is offline  
post #56 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 07:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fire407's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

I think it won't be long before you're embarrassed by your above statements. Apparently Phillips already has a 3D system without glasses, but not for the consumer market (too expensive) and from what I've heard some 2D to 3D conversion works quite well. Have you seen the TCL T.V. (3D without glasses)? Never say never, it just might come back to bite you. When I was a kid Star Trek's "communicator" seemed impossible. Now everyone uses one (cell phone)!

I spent a lot of time at the CES staring at the TLC 3D display. In two words--it sucked. For that system they divide the HD screen into low rez segments that are viewable from certain angles. Each segment has to be the same image at a slightly different angle. The final result is a really low rez image that almost looks 3D depending on where you are standing. They did show animation of an airplane where the wing appeared to extend from the screen, and they showed coins coming out of a slot machine toward you. The airplane looked the best---but still far from great 2D, much less great 3D, and the coins looked horrible--again depending on where you were standing. If you were between angles, you would see multiple images of the video that were a blurry mess. This is so far away from being useful it's laughable. Well, it could be used on signs or billboards where quality wouldn't matter, but people walking by would see a suedo 3D effect. I too look forward to the day of holagrams like in Star Wars, but that is so different from anything available today. Right now the shuttered glasses give a realistic 3D effect and I think it will be great when everyone can see a good demo and judge for themselves.
fire407 is offline  
post #57 of 58 Old 01-17-2010, 07:29 PM
Member
 
AVSSVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Any guesses as too how much these new 3d tv's will cost?
AVSSVA is offline  
post #58 of 58 Old 01-19-2010, 10:00 AM
Member
 
Topmounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The biggest problem with "3D" is that as long as it depends on optical tricks to simulate 3D, everyone's experience is going to be different (just look at the wide range of opinion in this thread alone). Personally, I find that the 3D effect causes me an extraordinary amount of eye strain (yes, including Avatar) and I can't see how that is going to be good for my eyesight.

--
Topmounter 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