3D TV - here to stay or flash in the pan? - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 76 Old 09-03-2011, 11:58 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 thebard View Post
Good point, I forgot about the polarization at the source (display).

But the overall conclusion stands; that there is less light loss with passive than with active.
Agreed . . . today . . . but that could change in the near future.

Active glasses can be improved upon to increase their light transmission % to get to the max of 50%. That would be a big increase over what is available today. Passive still could be brighter but not by much. Not enough to be a major selling point. But they will always be cheaper in price, never have to worry about a power source and not have any sync issues. Those are major selling points.

LOL - most people have their display's brightness level set too high anyways. Only those that have calibrated their displays have the brightness level where it should be. That and exercising light control in their TV viewing environment.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 04:28 AM
Senior Member
 
E-JTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I have the LG 65LW6500 and it's fantastic. Also, I can't stand active shutter. I can see the flicker and I see a dimming effect whenever I move my head (even if I move just small amounts). I sit 10 - 12' from the tv, depending on which seat I pick. I don't see any loss of resolution and the 3d is great. Also, the 2d great, and even SD material is perfectly watchable. While the rest of my family is what I would call "normal" viewers, I've been into HT for a while and can see the stuff that the "normal" people don't (which is more of a curse than a blessing, I tell ya!).

I'm convinced that the full hd active vs partial passive, while true in theory, just doesn't hold up in practice. If it were entirely true (like the absurd Samsung Megamind picture comparison on their website, where they show the superhero with huge black lines all through the picture, while the active shutter picture is crystal clear), then yeah......but it just isn't like that in practice. Maybe older passive sets? I don't know, but the LG isn't like that at all. Combine a great picture with no dimming, flickering, sync issues, headaches, heavy glasses, batteries and expensive glasses and i have a winner. Count me in the passive > active camp.

Also, I don't work for any sort of tv or display company. I'm nowhere near this business.

Finally, to answer the original question, I think 3d will stay around this time. The TVs are becoming more prominent, blu rays are coming out and there are quite a few new video games supporting it (hello, Uncharted 3 and Ratchet & Clank!). Enough of the manufacturer exclusives, though! I'd love to get Kung Fu Panda2, but I guess I'll have to wait a year or two.
E-JTL is offline  
post #63 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 05:42 AM
Member
 
avswilier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
3D is here to stay because of a simple fact. The incremental cost of adding 3d functionality to a tv is decreasing to the point of being cheap enough for mass market casual buyers to accept. With time we might see 3d capability as a given.
avswilier is offline  
post #64 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 08:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thebard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Agreed . . . today . . . but that could change in the near future.

Definitely. In fact, with the pending RDZ displays, these discussions could become largely academic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-JTL View Post

I'm convinced that the full hd active vs partial passive, while true in theory, just doesn't hold up in practice. If it were entirely true (like the absurd Samsung Megamind picture comparison on their website, where they show the superhero with huge black lines all through the picture, while the active shutter picture is crystal clear), then yeah......but it just isn't like that in practice. Maybe older passive sets? I don't know, but the LG isn't like that at all. Combine a great picture with no dimming, flickering, sync issues, headaches, heavy glasses, batteries and expensive glasses and i have a winner. Count me in the passive > active camp.

I think this is one of those things that varries from viewer to viewer. Me, for example, I don't see any flicker on 120hz active displays, but during my in-store viewing of the LG and Vizio passive sets, the lines were very evident, and diagonals looked terrible.
thebard is offline  
post #65 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 10:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Robut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebard View Post
Definitely. In fact, with the pending RDZ displays, these discussions could become largely academic.



I think this is one of those things that varries from viewer to viewer. Me, for example, I don't see any flicker on 120hz active displays, but during my in-store viewing of the LG and Vizio passive sets, the lines were very evident, and diagonals looked terrible.
There definitely is no flicker on 240 Hz active displays. so the flicker issue should be dropped.
Robut is offline  
post #66 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 12:21 PM
Senior Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post
There definitely is no flicker on 240 Hz active displays. so the flicker issue should be dropped.
I have an active Sony 3DTV with 240hz refresh, and while I would say that flicker is not a major concern, there are definitely times when it is noticeable. And when it is noticeable it can cause minor eye strain. So still an issue imo.
johnny905 is offline  
post #67 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tfoltz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 61
This thread has had too much passive vs. active talk. Who cares as long as 3D becomes more widespread? Stop trying to champion the set you purchased.

PSN: PrankT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tfoltz is online now  
post #68 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 07:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ObsceneJesster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-JTL View Post

Well, I have the LG 65LW6500 and it's fantastic. Also, I can't stand active shutter. I can see the flicker and I see a dimming effect whenever I move my head (even if I move just small amounts). I sit 10 - 12' from the tv, depending on which seat I pick. I don't see any loss of resolution and the 3d is great. Also, the 2d great, and even SD material is perfectly watchable. While the rest of my family is what I would call "normal" viewers, I've been into HT for a while and can see the stuff that the "normal" people don't (which is more of a curse than a blessing, I tell ya!).

I'm convinced that the full hd active vs partial passive, while true in theory, just doesn't hold up in practice. If it were entirely true (like the absurd Samsung Megamind picture comparison on their website, where they show the superhero with huge black lines all through the picture, while the active shutter picture is crystal clear), then yeah......but it just isn't like that in practice. Maybe older passive sets? I don't know, but the LG isn't like that at all. Combine a great picture with no dimming, flickering, sync issues, headaches, heavy glasses, batteries and expensive glasses and i have a winner. Count me in the passive > active camp.

Also, I don't work for any sort of tv or display company. I'm nowhere near this business.

Finally, to answer the original question, I think 3d will stay around this time. The TVs are becoming more prominent, blu rays are coming out and there are quite a few new video games supporting it (hello, Uncharted 3 and Ratchet & Clank!). Enough of the manufacturer exclusives, though! I'd love to get Kung Fu Panda2, but I guess I'll have to wait a year or two.

I don't see scan lines on passive displays and I don't see flicker on 240 hz active displays using bluetooth to sync. Flicker was mostly seen when company's used infrared to communicate with the glasses. That being said, I can tell that the passive display is only in 720 and the active display is in 1080. It's really no different than 2D content. 720p does not look as good as 1080p. It is what it is. The active display is going to be clearer, crisper and sharper as long as passive displays are only 720.
ObsceneJesster is offline  
post #69 of 76 Old 09-04-2011, 11:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Lbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't understand why the "anti-glasses wearing" thing is a somewhat prevalent issue with those against 3D?

I always wear sunglasses when I am outside during the daytime. I wear safety glasses when I work on stuff. I wear glasses when I remove my contacts at night. Wearing glasses during a 3D movie is not that big of a deal. They even make 3D glasses that will go OVER prescription glasses.

As far as the best home 3D experience, DLP is the best. Love them or hate them, the DLP technology makes the 3D experience the best there is. When you can get a 73" DLP with 3D built-in for $1,200, what more can you ask for?
Lbear is offline  
post #70 of 76 Old 09-09-2011, 03:56 AM
Member
 
rene2kx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think when the myth among the idiot public that you dont have to put on 3d glasses everytime you watch something on a 3d tv is removed, more people will jump onto the bandwagon. Companies need to start advertising that 3d tv's also make for great 2d tv's and that you're getting the best of both worlds.

Autostereo still has a long way to be perfected and brought to consumer prices. Why i say this is because i hear sharp is soon demo-ing a Autostereo QHDTV but its performance still has a big question mark. Oh and the price for a 20" is 11000 usd. I dont see autostereo being the norm in consumer market before like 2018.
rene2kx is offline  
post #71 of 76 Old 09-09-2011, 04:04 AM
Member
 
rene2kx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObsceneJesster View Post

I don't see scan lines on passive displays and I don't see flicker on 240 hz active displays using bluetooth to sync. Flicker was mostly seen when company's used infrared to communicate with the glasses. That being said, I can tell that the passive display is only in 720 and the active display is in 1080. It's really no different than 2D content. 720p does not look as good as 1080p. It is what it is. The active display is going to be clearer, crisper and sharper as long as passive displays are only 720.

My 3d led lcd uses infrared to sync but i have rarely noticed the flicker, i think it also depends on the performance of the 3d set and having the right tv settings. My led lcd automatically switches to 3d mode upon detecting 3d content and the settings get optimised for 3d viewing.

And how is passive 720p? It just cuts your vertical resolution in half so you see 540 scan lines instead of the 1080 lines in 1080p content like blu-ray 3d. I do think this wil get rectified ,passive technology is still in its infancy and when the full resolution can be shown with passive the other big manufacturers will adopt it too. The advantage passive holds is lesser pricer, lighter weight glasses and somewhere i read passive is slightly brighter to the eye meaning the passive glass is allowing a little more light passthrough compared to AS glass, but i cannot confirm this one.
rene2kx is offline  
post #72 of 76 Old 09-10-2011, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
The frustrating thing for the anti-3D guys is that 3D is now becoming a normal part of the features on T.V.s and projectors. It has become a future proof issue. Just about all
projector manufactures offer 3D on most of their new line up. Too big a risk not to offer it. That tells you something.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #73 of 76 Old 09-10-2011, 09:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Lbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
The frustrating thing for the anti-3D guys is that 3D is now becoming a normal part of the features on T.V.s and projectors. It has become a future proof issue. Just about all
projector manufactures offer 3D on most of their new line up. Too big a risk not to offer it. That tells you something.
Eventually the anti-3D people will become like the guy I know who still refuses to buy a DVD player and uses VHS.
Lbear is offline  
post #74 of 76 Old 09-10-2011, 09:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ObsceneJesster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rene2kx View Post

My 3d led lcd uses infrared to sync but i have rarely noticed the flicker, i think it also depends on the performance of the 3d set and having the right tv settings. My led lcd automatically switches to 3d mode upon detecting 3d content and the settings get optimised for 3d viewing.

And how is passive 720p? It just cuts your vertical resolution in half so you see 540 scan lines instead of the 1080 lines in 1080p content like blu-ray 3d. I do think this wil get rectified ,passive technology is still in its infancy and when the full resolution can be shown with passive the other big manufacturers will adopt it too. The advantage passive holds is lesser pricer, lighter weight glasses and somewhere i read passive is slightly brighter to the eye meaning the passive glass is allowing a little more light passthrough compared to AS glass, but i cannot confirm this one.

I don't think the technology allows for a full HD picture. I don't know why anyone would need a brighter picture. Christ. If my 3D picture was any brighter, I would probably get a head ache and eye strain. Both Passive and Active are already bright enough. If you want it brighter then just crank the back light to 100%.
ObsceneJesster is offline  
post #75 of 76 Old 09-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Senior Member
 
rcandiloro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I think the answer depends on the quality of the content being produced. Avatar did it right, Clash of the Titans did it wrong. If you saw that movie and used it as your litmus test for 3D then you were thinking "What's the big deal. Not impressed.". If movie and game companies take their time to do it right then I think it's here to stay. I hope it does stick around because when it's done right it's incredibly immersive. My 2 cents. I'm sure the total answer is much more complex, but content, IMO, is the most important factor.
rcandiloro is offline  
post #76 of 76 Old 09-11-2011, 09:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Lbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcandiloro View Post
I think the answer depends on the quality of the content being produced. Avatar did it right, Clash of the Titans did it wrong. If you saw that movie and used it as your litmus test for 3D then you were thinking "What's the big deal. Not impressed.". If movie and game companies take their time to do it right then I think it's here to stay. I hope it does stick around because when it's done right it's incredibly immersive. My 2 cents. I'm sure the total answer is much more complex, but content, IMO, is the most important factor.
You strike on a great point. As long as movies are recorded in 3D and done correctly, it will do much better. If you take a non-3D movie and try converting it to 3D, it is usually OK but nothing like a correctly done 3D movie.

How To Train Your Dragon, Avatar and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, are three such movies that have done 3D correctly.

http://www.empireonline.com/promotio...ms/default.asp
Lbear is offline  
Reply 3D Content

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