Stay with active 3d or go with passive 3d - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 47 Old 01-30-2012, 09:44 PM
Member
 
Tracydick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

T
1080p recent LG passive 3D= 4 million pixels in an interlaced arrangement with

I have seen it in person and I found it pleasurable. I think this is probably the superior choice until autosteroscopic is available.
Tracydick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 47 Old 01-31-2012, 12:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
rockaway1836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaticalism View Post

What is the size and how far are you from the display? I see jaggies at the similar viewing distances from my 55VT30 from passive LG. Active glasses are also becoming lighter and lighter.

The C series panels also suffered from crosstalk amongst other things (even more so if it is an LCD panel.)

The Samsung is a 55 inch led. The LG is a 47. I sit anywhere from 8-10 ft from the LG, depending on which seat I choose. With the Samsung, I sat at about 12 ft back when I had it out in the man cave, and about 10ft back when I moved it to the living room.

Yes, the Samsung can have some cross talk, but nothing terrible, as it to be too distracting. With the LG, I have not ever seen jaggies or scan lines. In fact I ended up liking the LG enough that I bought a second one and sent it to my daughter back up in NY as a Christmas/Birthday gift.

Veiwing via passive is just all around easier on the eyes. My biggest gripe with active is compatibility. My active glasses from 2010 won't work with my friends 2011 Samsung nor my other friends 2010 Sony 909. Adding insult to injury Samsung is changing the glasses yet again. (don't think they are bacward compatible either) I think I read that Panasonic is also changing their glasses for 2012. As far as I'm concerned active is just a mess in that regard.

I got 2 pair of free glasses with my Samsung and bought 2 more pair following. One pair was the regular battery type the other was rechargeable. That cost me $350 additional. I know glasses have come down in cost since, however they are still way too expensive.

I have quite a bit of company out in the man cave. It's not unusual to have 6 or 8 guys (sometimes more) out there watching a game. The main TV is an 80inch Sharp, so it's not like they are over to see 3d. But when there is something on in 3d that we want to see, I just hand out the glasses and fire up the LG. Did I mention it came with 14 pair ?

I'm very much looking forward to see if LG actually brings that 84 inch to market this year. If they do; and the price is not over the moon, I may have to jump all over it. I will tell you though I may be torn. The rumored 90 inch Sharp also has my attention as well as the 4K Sharp. In a way I hope none of them make it to market this year. I will save a ton of cash !!!

BTW; The Samsung now hangs from the wall in my son's room.
rockaway1836 is offline  
post #33 of 47 Old 01-31-2012, 04:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracydick View Post

I have seen it in person [LG's passive implementation where adjacent pixels are shown sequentially to display full 1080p 3D] and I found it pleasurable.

Thanks for your impressions. I don't doubt it looks good, as I think even traditional passive with half resolution is still enough to look good. The real question is if it looks as good as a 1080 active display, and I'm still quite skeptical. I think a professional side by side evaluation would be needed to convince me. Just thinking about how it works, it's hard to believe that it would look as good (as far as resolution) as an active display. Imagine if they did the same on a 2D TV. For example, a 720p TV that cycled between original pixels and otherwise missed adjacent pixels to show every pixel of a 1080p source. You'd see every pixel, yes, but half would be overlapping with the other half. Wouldn't it make the picture more blurry if anything?

Another issue is that you will still see lines if you sit too close to a passive TV. That is, if you're sitting close enough to resolve 1080p, you'll see lines. You have to move back precisely so that you can't resolve 1080p.

Here's an interesting look at LG's passive implementation that's skeptical without being too conclusive: http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles...s-my-pixel.php
Airion is offline  
post #34 of 47 Old 01-31-2012, 09:15 PM
Member
 
Tracydick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post


Another issue is that you will still see lines if you sit too close to a passive TV. That is, if you're sitting close enough to resolve 1080p, you'll see lines. You have to move back precisely so that you can't resolve 1080p.

If your sitting that close your not really watching the TV you can only see the lines from less than a foot away or so. In a side by side you will be able to tell little if any difference in quality of the 3D or the picture just make sure you get a decent panel full LED.

As to the above poster passive is much better for more people and Samsungs smart hub software is horrible enough for me not to want to use it. With LG current gen you get the magic motion remote with the qwerty on the back so its much better.

I would say I can see more flickering than most people though on the active TVs a small amount of cross talk on active and neither on passive.
Tracydick is offline  
post #35 of 47 Old 01-31-2012, 09:16 PM
Senior Member
 
OldSchoolMETAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago area/Indiana
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Here's an interesting section on how the resolution of passive 3D does equal a full 1080 lines of resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisplayMate View Post

FPR Resolution and Image Fusion
Because FPR TVs provide only 540 lines to each eye, it’s easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD 1080 lines resolution. That conclusion is reinforced when you walk up close to an FPR TV wearing Passive Glasses and see the gaps between the odd and even TV lines in each eye. But it’s not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can’t get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

The theory and fundamental principle behind full FPR vertical resolution and sharpness is that the 3D TV 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. So as long as the viewing distance is sufficient so that the raster lines are not visually resolved (for 20/20 vision the visual resolution is 1 arc min, which corresponds to 6.1 feet for a 47 inch TV) the brain should fuse the images from the right and left eyes into a single full 1080p resolution 3D image. One important detail to note is that there are actually two entirely equivalent odd-even and even-odd line pairings for both the right and left FPR images, so both FPR TVs alternate between them at their full Refresh Rate. This also eliminates image artifacts that would result from picking just one pairing or the other.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OldSchoolMETAL is offline  
post #36 of 47 Old 01-31-2012, 10:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracydick View Post

If your sitting that close your not really watching the TV you can only see the lines from less than a foot away or so.

Sure, it might be very close, but that's nonetheless how close you'd need to be to resolve 1080p isn't it? That's always been the case with 1080p, you either need a very large screen or sit very close. Passive's resolution disadvantage is probably not an issue in many (most?) real world situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMETAL View Post

Here's an interesting section on how the resolution of passive 3D does equal a full 1080 lines of resolution.

Yep, and active 3D does equal a full 2160 lines of resolution by the same math. The article does make an interesting claim that the left and right images in 3D are "identical" vertically (a tacit acknowledgement that pixels are in fact being thrown away on passive). This is probably true for a lot of objects if they're flat or symmetrical, but most definitely not everything. This is easy to demonstrate: look at the left edge of your monitor and close your left eye. Now open your left eye. Notice how you can see more of whatever is behind your monitor. Alternate closing your right and left eyes to compare. All that extra stuff you can see, exactly none of its vertical image is seen by your other eye.
Airion is offline  
post #37 of 47 Old 02-01-2012, 01:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

I don't know why this solution isn't being pursued. Samsung dropped it when working with RealD. It seems like a better solution than a 4k passive display with FPR.

Then we are back to the same problem of having time-separated images, flicker, and requiring much faster panels. (displays currently drop the bit-depth in an attempt to improve panel response times) OLED may at least solve the response time issues, but then you are still putting another layer on top of the screen, reducing image quality and brightness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Imagine if they did the same on a 2D TV. For example, a 720p TV that cycled between original pixels and otherwise missed adjacent pixels to show every pixel of a 1080p source. You'd see every pixel, yes, but half would be overlapping with the other half. Wouldn't it make the picture more blurry if anything?

It's not 720p, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobulation


Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

4k passive displays will be great, but they wouldn't be everyone's choice. Some might decide a 1080p active display with some extra glasses is a cheaper path to full 1080 3D than a 4k display. Others (me) might ask why settle for 1080 3D on a 4k display if you can have 4k 3D on a 4k display.

It's definitely a problem, but with Active 4K, the interlacing becomes harder to see, and you aren't dropping the vertical resolution below (PAL) standard definition resolution.

And I wonder if changing from alternating vertical lines to using a checkerboard arrangement might help improve the image with a 4K passive display.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracydick View Post

I have seen it in person and I found it pleasurable. I think this is probably the superior choice until autosteroscopic is available.

Autostereoscopic displays drop the resolution far more than passive 3DTVs, but they drop horizontal resolution rather than vertical, and they have a far greater impact on 2D image quality as well.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #38 of 47 Old 02-01-2012, 02:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

It's not 720p, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobulation

Ah, good point, didn't think of wobulation. One difference though is the overlapping pixels are shifted 1/3 to 1/2 a pixel, so it's not a complete overlap like in LG's passive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

It's definitely a problem, but with Active 4K, the interlacing becomes harder to see, and you aren't dropping the vertical resolution below (PAL) standard definition resolution.

And I wonder if changing from alternating vertical lines to using a checkerboard arrangement might help improve the image with a 4K passive display.

I'm sure checkerboard would improve the image quite a bit. I'm sure it would improve 1080 passive displays right now, so I wonder why it's not used. I'm guessing it's prohibitively difficult or expensive to apply the filter pixel by pixel rather than line by line.
Airion is offline  
post #39 of 47 Old 02-01-2012, 04:10 AM
Senior Member
 
ferro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I'm sure checkerboard would improve the image quite a bit. I'm sure it would improve 1080 passive displays right now, so I wonder why it's not used.

Note that the depth information comes from the horizontal plane (your eyes are left and right, not top and bottom), so keeping the full horizontal resolution for 3D is probably a good idea.

The vertical plane is mostly the same for the left and right eye, and is the best candidate to cut in half and have stitched back together by your brain
ferro is offline  
post #40 of 47 Old 02-01-2012, 06:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferro View Post

Note that the depth information comes from the horizontal plane (your eyes are left and right, not top and bottom), so keeping the full horizontal resolution for 3D is probably a good idea.

The vertical plane is mostly the same for the left and right eye, and is the best candidate to cut in half and have stitched back together by your brain

This relies on the mistaken assumption that 3D is produced only by shifting images left and right. In fact all this would do is provide 2D cardboard cutouts arranged in 3D space. It's better to think of each eye as a unique camera angle. Your right eye will see things your left can't (including all the vertical detail contained within), and this is an essential component of quality stereoscopic 3D. I'll agree that the horizontal plane is more important than the vertical plane for 3D, but that doesn't mean you can throw away half of the vertical pixels and not lose anything. Cutting the vertical resolution shows that that passive 3D makes smart compromises, not no compromises.

I'm sorry I don't have comparison shots of checkerboard vs even/odd line photos on hand, but the checkerboard arrangement is far clearer and sharper than just showing every other line, despite using the same number of pixels. Complaints of visible lines would disappear if a checkerboard pattern was used.
Airion is offline  
post #41 of 47 Old 02-01-2012, 07:38 AM
Senior Member
 
ferro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

This relies on the mistaken assumption that 3D is produced only by shifting images left and right. In fact all this would do is provide 2D cardboard cutouts arranged in 3D space. It's better to think of each eye as a unique camera angle. Your right eye will see things your left can't (including all the vertical detail contained within), and this is an essential component of quality stereoscopic 3D. I'll agree that the horizontal plane is more important than the vertical plane for 3D, but that doesn't mean you can throw away half of the vertical pixels and not lose anything. Cutting the vertical resolution shows that that passive 3D makes smart compromises, not no compromises.

I'm not sure how this relates to what I have written.

All I wrote is that depth cues are taken from the horizontal plane, because our eyes are oriented horizontally, that the horizontal resolution is therefore most important for depth perception, and that reducing vertical resolution is therefore the right trade-off for passive 3D.
ferro is offline  
post #42 of 47 Old 02-02-2012, 09:51 PM
Member
 
Tracydick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferro View Post

I'm not sure how this relates to what I have written.

All I wrote is that depth cues are taken from the horizontal plane, because our eyes are oriented horizontally, that the horizontal resolution is therefore most important for depth perception, and that reducing vertical resolution is therefore the right trade-off for passive 3D.

I have seen Airion posting about how LGs new tech supports all 3million pixels by interlacing the two images and the showing them in a sequenced order. I have seen one it person as I said before it looked good to me but I did not have enough time to make a full review.

I'm not a super big fan of watching things at 30fps or less with active glasses.

I would really like an autostereoscopic Oled TV that would be nice.
Tracydick is offline  
post #43 of 47 Old 02-03-2012, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracydick View Post

I'm not a super big fan of watching things at 30fps or less with active glasses.

At 720p, you can do 60fps with HDMI 1.4. Nvidia's 3D Vision supports 1080p at 60fps per eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracydick View Post

I would really like an autostereoscopic Oled TV that would be nice.

Autostereoscopic displays are even worse than current passive tech. For one angle, you halve the horizontal resolution. Most TVs have more than one viewing angle, so the horizontal resolution is cut down dramatically lower than this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #44 of 47 Old 02-05-2012, 03:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 59
For all my talk about passive vs active, I hadn't actually seen a passive set until this weekend! I happened to walk by the TVs in an electronics store and spotted some lightweight glasses, so I knew I had found my chance. The glasses are certainly nice, though they didn't fit over my glasses as cleanly as my "bulky" active ones. Once I put the glasses on, the image didn't appear any different and I could clearly see the left and right images interlaced. A salesman quickly came over and reminded me that you can't view it from above the TV. You see, they brilliantly decided to display the TV below eye level of any standing person! So I squatted down and I could see the 3D. I could make out lines if I looked for them, but otherwise it struck me as a bright, vibrant 3D image. I didn't spend more than a few moments with it as the salesman and my wife were hanging (towering) over my shoulder.

In all the talk about passive vs active resolution, I'd like to note that I don't think resolution is even the most important factor to look for in a 3D display. Most important is crosstalk and brightness. If you can find a display that is bright and has no crosstalk, then you'll have a great 3D display whether it's passive or active, half resolution or full.
Airion is offline  
post #45 of 47 Old 02-05-2012, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
OldSchoolMETAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago area/Indiana
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

For all my talk about passive vs active, I hadn't actually seen a passive set until this weekend! I happened to walk by the TVs in an electronics store and spotted some lightweight glasses, so I knew I had found my chance. The glasses are certainly nice, though they didn't fit over my glasses as cleanly as my "bulky" active ones. Once I put the glasses on, the image didn't appear any different and I could clearly see the left and right images interlaced. A salesman quickly came over and reminded me that you can't view it from above the TV. You see, they brilliantly decided to display the TV below eye level of any standing person! So I squatted down and I could see the 3D. I could make out lines if I looked for them, but otherwise it struck me as a bright, vibrant 3D image. I didn't spend more than a few moments with it as the salesman and my wife were hanging (towering) over my shoulder.

In all the talk about passive vs active resolution, I'd like to note that I don't think resolution is even the most important factor to look for in a 3D display. Most important is crosstalk and brightness. If you can find a display that is bright and has no crosstalk, then you'll have a great 3D display whether it's passive or active, half resolution or full.

You also have to be back at least 2X the screen size to get rid of cross talk. I didn't know that and wasn't impressed with passive at all, as I couldn't focus on it. I hated active as it flickered to much giving me eye strain and headache on top of other performance problems.

When I went back to see the 47LW5600 on display for it's 2D performance, I stood a full 8' - 9' back (after reading the manual online) and just fell in love with the picture. It was then, I finally decided that 3D had made a turn for the better so that it may be more than just a fad. Now no more $100 glasses that aren't compatible with any set, other the one your using. Passive glasses are compatible so that if you want to use them on another passive 3D TV in the house, you can or you can even upgrade your tv with another passive TV, without the need to buy new glasses.

BTW, that display 47LW5600 was only about stomach height yet still had a great 3D picture once I stood back far enough. Maybe your problem was more of the distance from the TV, when added to the height difference from your view.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OldSchoolMETAL is offline  
post #46 of 47 Old 02-05-2012, 05:30 PM
Member
 
Tracydick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdo View Post

Joe Kane in that video states that passive does not have to employ resolution loss. If you have alternating polarized images, then you can have full resolution images with passive glasses, or as he calls it "active-passive."

I was in another thread where some one brought up this same point. I saw a new LG 2012 model TV that uses this system and it looked great to me very pleasing.

I was however not there long enough to do any sort of real review on the TV.
Tracydick is offline  
post #47 of 47 Old 02-05-2012, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Autostereoscopic displays are even worse than current passive tech. For one angle, you halve the horizontal resolution. Most TVs have more than one viewing angle, so the horizontal resolution is cut down dramatically lower than this.

Are you sure this is what the Toshiba 3840x2160 one does? Do you have any links? Doesn't it have 9 views/viewing zones? Surely each view wouldn't be 3840/9= 427x2160 pixels? Wouldn't they reposition the views slightly so it uses more of the vertical resolution too? I thought they'd be more like (3840x2160)/9=about 1280x720p per view?

Also according to engadget "however switching into 3D mode drops the resolution to 720p".

edit:
Also this link
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/03/t...with-more-spe/
Quote:
This time the company dropped a few more details, revealing that in lenticular 3D mode it's limited to an effective resolution of 1280x720

So that does sound more like they spread the resolution loss more evenly across the horizontal as well as vertical (eg. if it does have 9 zones it would be (3840x2160)/9 instead of reducing horizontal res only)?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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