or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Official 3D Projector Thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official 3D Projector Thread. - Page 5

post #121 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The Imax 3D theater in Columbia MD was nothing like that. A very nice clean facility. Lots of room and nice chairs. But you are right of course. They would not let me drink a buurbon and smoke a cohiba while I watched Avatar and they really get pissed off if a nice couple gets carried away in a moment of passion ans strips down to fornicate Fornicating in the theater is strictly prohibited.

I wouldn't suggest fornicating with a Cohiba either, at least not with the lit end!
post #122 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyaDawn View Post

I wouldn't suggest fornicating with a Cohiba either

According to President Clinton, it doesn't count as fornication...

Quote:


Wow, sounds like you have a real issue with anyone that doesn't share your "enthusiasm" for 3D

Nope, just not sure why some folks feel the need to post page-long diatribes against a new optional feature coming to HD with bold-faced rants as if their whole home-theater universe is being threatened by this new stereoscopic provision. That type of anti-3D reaction isn't "not sharing enthusiasm", its a reaction that's disproportionate to the landscape of what's really being proposed with the 3D augmentation for HD.
post #123 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

According to President Clinton, it doesn't count as fornication...



Nope, just not sure why some folks feel the need to post page-long diatribes against a new optional feature coming to HD with bold-faced rants as if their whole home-theater universe is being threatened by this new stereoscopic provision. That type of anti-3D reaction isn't "not sharing enthusiasm", its a reaction that's disproportionate to the landscape of what's really being proposed with the 3D augmentation for HD.

I agree 100%. The additional provision of 3D support in higher-end flat panel LCD and plasma HDTVs, that already support displaying 2D at 120Hz or higher, will have a very mininal impact on the cost. What we are talking about to add 3D support to these current higher-end HDTVs is mainly additional signal processing and once the one-time cost of developing the next generation chips and firmware are recovered the per unit recurring cost will be quite low. I would expect it will take several years before 3D support works its way into the lower-end HDTVs. As is typical with most new features or performance enhancements in consumer electronics, the manufacturers put them into their higher-end products first then those features work their way down over time into the main stream and finally budget products. By this time next year if you are in the market for a high-end HDTV then you will probably find models with 3D support for little or no extra cost as compared to todays 2D high-end HDTVs. However, I would expect the 3D shutter glasses will be an extra cost option that you need to purchase if you want to use the 3D feature of your new HDTV. There will likely be a significant drop in the price from the first generation 3D LCD shutter glasses, that become available in 2010, as compared to what will become available in a few years as they become mass produced.
post #124 of 346
Looks like RealD will be providing active shutter and passive polarized 3D technology to most of the major consumer brands and DirecTV for 3D broadcasts.

It does indeed look like broadcast (from those providers using MPEG-4, anyway) 3D-HDTV will, at least at the start, be half res. solutions:

640x360p/30 (each eye) for 720p/60 telecasts
960x540i/30 (each eye) for 1080i/60 telecasts.

This is in order for current MPEG-4 HD decoder boxes to be compatible with RealD decoding (in a RealD compatible TV or add-on box). I'm not sure if the providers would be willing to start selling or leasing new HD decoder boxes in the future and pumping the bitrate and resolution to entirely new levels of quality for at least their 3D capable channels. Cable, satellite, and FIOS TV services don't seem to be limited by carved in stone terrestrial FCC rules that probably won't change for another 30-40 years (if ever since OTA broadcasts seem to be pretty passe... some national networks are currently looking to move to "cable channel" status and give up their local affiliates).

Given the already resolution and bitrate starved situation with most broadcast HD, coupled with half res 3D... I think it will probably look like ass.
post #125 of 346
I assume by your first statement that real D would offer two solutions-shutter glasses or passive polarized. Unless I am wrong, shutter glasses can not be used with polarizer filters in the projector. I am not at all clear re the 3D broadcast or cable\\sat resolutions with existing hardware boxes. Couldn`t it be 1280 x 720p at 30 for each eye or 1920 x 1080i at 30 for each eye?
post #126 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Looks like RealD will be providing active shutter and passive polarized 3D technology to most of the major consumer brands and DirecTV for 3D broadcasts.

It does indeed look like broadcast (from those providers using MPEG-4, anyway) 3D-HDTV will, at least at the start, be half res. solutions:

640x360p/30 (each eye) for 720p/60 telecasts
960x540i/30 (each eye) for 1080i/60 telecasts.

. . . . .

These resolution numbers produce only 1/4 (not 1/2) resolution images since 1/2 vertical x 1/2 horiz. = 1/4 image pixels. Thus each 960 x 540 image would be about 0.5 Mpixel while a 1080i image is 2 Mpixel. Even providing both a right and and left image stream would still result in sending only 1/2 the information content of a standard 1080i video. Therefore I doubt that your resolution numbers are correct.
post #127 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

These resolution numbers produce only 1/4 (not 1/2) resolution images since 1/2 vertical x 1/2 horiz. = 1/4 image pixels. Thus each 960 x 540 image would be about 0.5 Mpixel while a 1080i image is 2 Mpixel. Even providing both a right and and left image stream would still result in sending only 1/2 the information content of a standard 1080i video. Therefore I doubt that your resolution numbers are correct.

You may be right about the math, but they are using the MPEG-4 HD boxes already in the field, not new ones.

The current satellite, cable, and FIOS decoders cannot do dual 1080i or dual 720p stream decoding for each eye. It'll have to be half res. for each eye, whatever pixel count that finally is. Probably some metadata will come in on the TV signal that'll synch with an outboard RealD decoder so it can make heads or tails of it. You're giving up whatever HD detail is left in the overly pixelized mess of broadcast HDTV for the 3D effect until they can start over from scratch with new, higher quality broadcast standards.

Blu-ray, as speced, can barely squeeze in two 1080p/24 MPEG-4 streams as it is and maintain some semblance of quality PQ without artifacts or softening (and it remains to be seen how that'll hold up for longer movies that are not 90 minute cartoons). The PS3 can do the decoding via software because of the Cell's horsepower, but all new 3D Blu-ray players will need much more powerful hardware decoding chips that can do dual stream decoding and increased RAM. Hopefully, this will help improve regular Blu-ray playback, especially load times and menu operations, etc. -- a side benefit of the internal upgrades needed.

Just imagine the hurdles of broadcast HDTV in 3D!
post #128 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

.

. . . .Blu-ray, as speced, can barely squeeze in two 1080p/24 MPEG-4 streams as it is and maintain some semblance of quality PQ without artifacts or softening (and it remains to be seen how that'll hold up for longer movies that are not 90 minute cartoons). . . . .!

I generally don't agree with your assessment of Blu-ray capability to support 3D. I've examined many of the BDs in my own collection using the program mediainfo. Since the audio track size does not change with 3D its only the video H.264 encoded video that will need to grow. For the vast majority of movies that are encoded in H.264 the 1080p/24 video stream is seldom more than 25 MB. The BD Assoc. press release says that it takes about 1.5 times the data to encoded 3D as compared to 2D and this seems like a reasonable estimate since the right and left video streams are not independent of each other and if they have taken advantage of this then the encoder doesn't have to deal with each right and left as an independent video stream (which would have required 2 times the data to encode). In any case I suggest that a double layer BD has the capacity to encode the 3D video with the audio tracks (incl. Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA) as well and the modest space required for subtitles and misc. essential tracks for at least a 2 hour movie and perhaps up to a 3 hr. movie at a quality level equal to most of today's H.264 2D titles. A 3D BD release will more often require a second disc to be included if there is much in the way of extra videos to be included, but many of the latest BD titles are already doing that anyway, with digital copies, DVD versions and other extras. As examples here are 2 typical movies: Quantum of Solace (tier 1 AVS video quality) is 1 hr. 46 min. long and uses 21.7 GB; Angels and Demons is 2 hr. 26 min. long and the video plus English DTS HD-MA track plus subtitles required 31.5 GB (approx. 25GB for just the video) so adding a 50% increase for just the video portion of these first titles would be possible. My third and forth examples are the "worst cases" examples that I have found. The first of these is Transformers-2. Its main stream is 41.6 GB in size and includes the video, the multi-language audio tracks with the main one in DTS HD-MA, multi-language subtitles and the running time is 2 hr. 29 min. This titled uses a very high data rate with a max. of 48 Mbps (video plus audio) and has an AVS video rating tier 0 (i.e., top tier). The second "worst case" example is another AVR Tier 0 BD title, POC At Worlds End. In this case movie is 2 hr. 48.5 min. long and includes uncompressed LPCM surround audio runing at 6.91 Mbps plus 3 additional tracks of Dolby Digital each running at 640 Kbps. The max. overall data rate is 48 Mbps with the max. video rate near 40 Mbps. Ther overall file size that includes all of the movie's video plus the multiple audio and multiple subtitles is approx. 40GB of which the video only is under 30 GB. Thus it appears to me that even a reference quality (i.e., AVS tier 0 quality encoding) 2 hr. movie should fit onto a dual layer BD and perhaps a 2.5 to 3 hr. movie with still very good quality (AVS tier 1 or tier 2 quality encoding) should work with Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD-MA for the main audio track. Some people have suggested that the limitation of BD will be the increase in the peak data rate requirement rather than disc capacity. The max. data rate that either of the first two above movies used was about 36 Mbps and the first BD spec. (2004) did mention a max. 36 Mbps rate. However, in 2005 documentation from the BD Assoc. they show a max. MPEG-2 transport stream of 48 Mbps and the 3rd and 4th examples above used that as their max. data rate. However, I have seen even later BD docs, but still pre-3D enhancments, mention a min. requirement to support a 54 Mbps rate. The spec. for the 3D BD media and players has so far only been released to those manufactures that are members of the BD Assoc. and the details of this 1"+ thick document have not been made public. Therefore it's certainly too early to make claims that BD cannot support the peak (or average) data rate requirements for 3D. I would speculate that max. read rates of perhaps as high as 72 Mbps may be included in the new spec. for 3D capable BD players. The 72 Mbps rate would be considered 2X and virtually all of the BD-ROM drives currently being sold for use with PCs are at least 4X and some are 8X, so requiring a 2X drive for a 3D capable BD player is not a technical, or cost, driver.
post #129 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Please be aware that this method of so-called "3D" is an abomination plain and simple... that's not the high-quality 3D that we're discussing coming to hometheater in 2010, which basically takes the 1920 x 1080 we enjoy now in 2D and puts it in stereoscopic form. The red/blue method of pushing "3D" out into existing video channels is the reason that most people who (think that they) hate "3D" feel so negatively towards it.

Do yourself a favor and go see AVATAR if you want a taste of the real thing!

I think my only judgement about it I hoped to gain was, can I sit there for extended periods of time with glasses on period?

The glasses.. I just don't think it is ever going to fly with the masses.

Screened:
"Fly me to the Moon"- SD-DVD-3D
"Final Destination" BD-3D
"Friday the 13th Part 3" SD-DVD-3D

The increased resolution on BD kept ghosting down and colors way more vibrant.

Friday the 13th Part3, the SD-DVD video quality is / was lacking.

The only other 3D I had ever screaned was Coraline....
The night peeked my interest a little more. Enough to by a new 3D setup when my current projector has reached end of life? (remains to be seen)
Enough to make me go see Avatar in 3D at the theater? Probably not as long as glasses are involved in any way.
post #130 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I think my only judgement about it I hoped to gain was, can I sit there for extended periods of time with glasses on period?

The glasses.. I just don't think it is ever going to fly with the masses.

Screened:
"Fly me to the Moon"- SD-DVD-3D
"Final Destination" BD-3D
"Friday the 13th Part 3" SD-DVD-3D

The increased resolution on BD kept ghosting down and colors way more vibrant.

Friday the 13th Part3, the SD-DVD video quality is / was lacking.

The only other 3D I had ever screaned was Coraline....
The night peeked my interest a little more. Enough to by a new 3D setup when my current projector has reached end of life? (remains to be seen)
Enough to make me go see Avatar in 3D at the theater? Probably not as long as glasses are involved in any way.

I've also tried a few releases with the 3D glasses. I could not watch more than 10 minutes - had to switch the movie to 2D! Avatar is a completely different experience. It can be so engrossing that you forget about the glasses (obviously some don't forget, but it is a small inconvenience and worth the effort).
post #131 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I think my only judgement about it I hoped to gain was, can I sit there for extended periods of time with glasses on period?

The glasses.. I just don't think it is ever going to fly with the masses.

Screened:
"Fly me to the Moon"- SD-DVD-3D
"Final Destination" BD-3D
"Friday the 13th Part 3" SD-DVD-3D

The increased resolution on BD kept ghosting down and colors way more vibrant.

Friday the 13th Part3, the SD-DVD video quality is / was lacking.

The only other 3D I had ever screaned was Coraline....
The night peeked my interest a little more. Enough to by a new 3D setup when my current projector has reached end of life? (remains to be seen)
Enough to make me go see Avatar in 3D at the theater? Probably not as long as glasses are involved in any way.

Just because you can't stand red/blue cardboard glasses (which are really bothersome) for more than 10 minutes tells you * nothing * about whether you can tolerate high-quality polarized glasses for extended periods. None of us can tolerate those horrid red/blue cardboard glasses. Hence the very intentional term I used: abomination. That form of 3D has nothing to do with what we're talking about... and the glasses are entirely different too. It's not relevent to how you'd feel about real 3D in any way... glasses or no glasses. This horrible form of so-called 3D is the biggest reason that we have such a battle to re-educate folks about what 3D is all about, and having it ever available on so-called "3D" DVDs and Blu-rays was a HUGE mistake in my opinion... the BD producer for Coraline should be publically flogged for having, right before *real* 3D on blu-ray was coming to market, tried to cash-in by slapping "3D" on the existing Blu-ray and confusing consumers even more and driving even more people to think that this 3D thing is just a pointless gimmick that gives you a headache.

Can you tolerate wearing sunglasses for more than 10 minutes in the sunshine?

That's your answer as to whether or not you can handle high quality 3D glasses with high quality 3D content.

Go see Avatar to see what we're all talking about... you won't regret it.
post #132 of 346
Once again I had mixed emotions about the3D in Avatar. Some of it was very realistic, close up objects when they were in 3D.When close upobjectsweren`t in3D but mid and distant objects were given a layering tupe depth, something you would never see in reallife, I thought it was very unrealistic. Now the immersive effects,the seeds floating in front of your face and the gas canister looking like it would hit you in high velocity right in your face,that was interesting and quite realbut that is not 3D either in the classic sense, rather it is something like immersive, something that you won`t see in live 3D sports.

Alsothe imax 3D used linear polarizer glasses and I think that circular would be better allowing more head movement without the artifacts.

the movie theaters willmostly use linear polarizers. the glasses are the cheapest of allthe alternatives.any filter technology leads tothe cheaper glasses alternative but the more expensive projection technology using two engines,wo projectors,or rapidly spinning filters and syncing.t but commercialtheaters are likely to stumach the projection costs as look as the glasses costs are minimal.

For consumer displays,the obvious solutionis alternating frames and shutter glasses.This will keep display costs low with only minor incremental increaes in costs over todays non 3d sets. The higher costs will be the shutter glasses.but that will be an accccessory market. An add on just like any display add on. verious qualities and prices wil abound.the video enthuseast will have the choice of buying high quality glasses. well fitting and good glass just like the filter Infitec system glasses having glasses or various quality with the best costing about $500.

Now seeing this flickmultiple times. yes I would see it multiple times tojudge various display alternatives.but the plot? Once is enough for me. rather save the money for a great pair of shutter glasses and a Bluray 3D player.

For over the cable or sat box 3D,new set top boxes will be required. It will be interesting to see if these are available by late spring when the first sports broadcast start.What will be the resolution for each alternating frame as broadcast/Does anybody have a real clue.Does anybody really know.I have asked this question severaltimes here on AVS and really don`t get any answers other than guesses.
post #133 of 346
Hey Mark,

I still have yet to see it via IMAX but still plan to before it leaves the cinema. But damn... the real3D was so crystal clear.

One curiosity that folks should realize is that Real3D in most cinemas is actually an alternating-frame methodology *combined* with polarized filters. this is because the single-chassis 3D digital projector alternates left/right as it also alternates the polarized filter. The use of the polarized filter and goggles is merely a way to keep costs down with the eyewear needed for a group audience: in theory since the projector is already alternating left/right, a superior image would be gained by merely getting rid of the polarized filters completely and using active shutter-wear to sync with the PJ's left/right cadence. That's what we could expect to enjoy in 3D home-cinema.

The one thing I'd love to see with IMAX is the added vertical picture content given the opened frame to 1.78 (according to Cameron, who said he did all CGI and production at 1.78). Also, a brighter image would be better: I noticed in the last real3D theater that the image did at times make me think "it should be brighter" for for the most part I didn't think twice. Certainly already brighter than the 2D image I live wtih from my aging JVC HD2K bulb!
post #134 of 346
Thanks David. I didn`t realize that but it makes sense.
post #135 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Just because you can't stand red/blue cardboard glasses (which are really bothersome) for more than 10 minutes tells you * nothing * about whether you can tolerate high-quality polarized glasses for extended periods. None of us can tolerate those horrid red/blue cardboard glasses. Hence the very intentional term I used: abomination. That form of 3D has nothing to do with what we're talking about... and the glasses are entirely different too. It's not relevent to how you'd feel about real 3D in any way... glasses or no glasses. This horrible form of so-called 3D is the biggest reason that we have such a battle to re-educate folks about what 3D is all about, and having it ever available on so-called "3D" DVDs and Blu-rays was a HUGE mistake in my opinion... the BD producer for Coraline should be publically flogged for having, right before *real* 3D on blu-ray was coming to market, tried to cash-in by slapping "3D" on the existing Blu-ray and confusing consumers even more and driving even more people to think that this 3D thing is just a pointless gimmick that gives you a headache.

Can you tolerate wearing sunglasses for more than 10 minutes in the sunshine?

That's your answer as to whether or not you can handle high quality 3D glasses with high quality 3D content.

Go see Avatar to see what we're all talking about... you won't regret it.

I think you quoted the wrong person. I really did not fatigue at all. I watched three movies in a row. The experience was actually pleasant. The 3D actually worked pretty darn well too. I think as much as anything, this was to give me some sort of baseline. I'll not make Avatar at the theater though. I don't have enough interest in it, from a film, or a 3D perspective. But my 3D Marathon Friday night actually helped my acceptance of it all quite a bit.

PS: And actually "No" I cannot tolerate sunglasses period, ever.. So the non substanative nature of cheapo red / green 3D glasses may have been a plus there for me personally.
post #136 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I think you quoted the wrong person. I really did not fatigue at all. I watched three movies in a row. The experience was actually pleasant. The 3D actually worked pretty darn well too. I think as much as anything, this was to give me some sort of baseline. I'll not make Avatar at the theater though. I don't have enough interest in it, from a film, or a 3D perspective. But my 3D Marathon Friday night actually helped my acceptance of it all quite a bit.

PS: And actually "No" I cannot tolerate sunglasses period, ever.. So the non substanative nature of cheapo red / green 3D glasses may have been a plus there for me personally.

If for whatever reason you choose to not watch AVATAR, please please please go and see some real high-quality 3-D when a film comes out that suits your taste (what's sad is that Coraline was STUNNING in 3D in the theater... a real work of art unlike the bastardized "3D" version out now. That will be a gorgeous 3D event when re-released properly on 3D blu-ray).

Interesting that you were able to tolerate the red/blue 3D compromise. If that's the case, you should have no problem whatsoever when actual stereo 3D comes along.
post #137 of 346
well, I know a lot of Audio / Video geeks with dedicated theaters. I would think I'd be able to check out a home version in the next 12 months or so if it really comes availbale through to fruition. I am no longer the type to actually go to a pay theater.

So much seems up in the air here. I mean, we don't know which system(s) it will be and what glasses will be needed yet right? I would also assume that the cheesy red/green glasses 3D isn't really going anywhere anytimes soon. I mean likr when Avatar comes out, I'd think there will be at least red / green version of it out on SD-DVD?
post #138 of 346
So... there weren't any < $3k true 120hz projectors announced at CES? I know the Panny 4000 just came out and they probably don't want to announce the 5000 right away... but I was hoping they would have announced it as a fall 2010 release. My Panny AE500 is about due for an upgrade and I was hoping to know what my 3D options were going to be in the fall.
post #139 of 346
I hope we get 3D content that is better executed than Avatar.In Avatar most 3D was added after the fact.nerfore soneone rants about my statement,let me give an example.Why weren`t all objects in the foreground in 3D.Often,foreground objects while in focus were two dimensional/ Its almost like a suroundsound film.the sound is added after te filmisshot. Effect channelsare almost all artificialand with rare exception most often they are silent.
post #140 of 346
Quote:
So much seems up in the air here. I mean, we don't know which system(s) it will be and what glasses will be needed yet right? I would also assume that the cheesy red/green glasses 3D isn't really going anywhere anytimes soon. I mean likr when Avatar comes out, I'd think there will be at least red / green version of it out on SD-DVD?

3D will be available with a variety of methodologies for both direct-view and projection. There's no "system it will be" in that sense... we'll have two dominant flavors however: passive or active. Active would be like LCD shutter glasses that will alternate left/right to match the frame cadence of a sequential display that delivers 3D by alternating left/right/left/right etc. You'll see a lot of that with direct-view because basically any 120Hz display can be tweaked to work this way for 3D (tweaked by the manufacturer... don't expect to play this type of 3D via your current 120Hz LCD TV).

Passive systems will use polarized or other types of filter options. Some will use ciruclar polarization just like Real3D. There are other types of passive as well... some of which use more costly processors but use less expensive reflective screens.

Bottom line is that you'll have many choices, just like you have many choices of what type of 2D display you buy. As far as high-quality solutions go, red/blue should NOT appear in the list.

Let's hope for the sake of averting consumer confusion and frustration they do NOT release AVATAR in so called "3D" with the abomination of red/blue filtering. That's the reason why so many people hate 3D right now and think it's just a gimmick. Once real actual stereo 3D is really here on Blu-ray and via new 3D HDTVs, the industry needs to support it without pissing off consumers by falsely advertsing red/blue as "3D". Hopefully they'll resist the temptation, otherwise they just may snuff out their own new 3D format by perpetuating the consumers' misperceptions about 3D because of the red/blue crap.
post #141 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I hope we get 3D content that is better executed than Avatar.In Avatar most 3D was added after the fact.nerfore soneone rants about my statement,let me give an example.Why weren`t all objects in the foreground in 3D.Often,foreground objects while in focus were two dimensional/ Its almost like a suroundsound film.the sound is added after te filmisshot. Effect channelsare almost all artificialand with rare exception most often they are silent.

Hey Mark,

maybe you need to see this film again but in Real3D?

AVATAR is native 3D through and through, and in my viewing (now 3 times) there was plenty of real actual depth scene after scene after scene. What impressed me was the realism of the sense of depth... it wasn't "pumped up" to over-emphasis like we usually see with so-called 3D films which are trying to impress you with the "effect" of 3D.
post #142 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

3D will be available with a variety of methodologies for both direct-view and projection. There's no "system it will be" in that sense... we'll have two dominant flavors however: passive or active. Active would be like LCD shutter glasses that will alternate left/right to match the frame cadence of a sequential display that delivers 3D by alternating left/right/left/right etc. You'll see a lot of that with direct-view because basically any 120Hz display can be tweaked to work this way for 3D (tweaked by the manufacturer... don't expect to play this type of 3D via your current 120Hz LCD TV).

Passive systems will use polarized or other types of filter options. Some will use ciruclar polarization just like Real3D. There are other types of passive as well... some of which use more costly processors but use less expensive reflective screens.

Bottom line is that you'll have many choices, just like you have many choices of what type of 2D display you buy. As far as high-quality solutions go, red/blue should NOT appear in the list.

Let's hope for the sake of averting consumer confusion and frustration they do NOT release AVATAR in so called "3D" with the abomination of red/blue filtering. That's the reason why so many people hate 3D right now and think it's just a gimmick. Once real actual stereo 3D is really here on Blu-ray and via new 3D HDTVs, the industry needs to support it without pissing off consumers by falsely advertsing red/blue as "3D". Hopefully they'll resist the temptation, otherwise they just may snuff out their own new 3D format by perpetuating the consumers' misperceptions about 3D because of the red/blue crap.


So from beginning to end can you name all equipment and/or glasses and what type this is needed for Avatar Blu-ray true stereoscopic 3D when it comes out? That was my point, right now it seems so up in the air. Will the glasses type depend on your display you choose?
post #143 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

So from beginning to end can you name all equipment and/or glasses and what type this is needed for Avatar Blu-ray true stereoscopic 3D when it comes out? That was my point, right now it seems so up in the air. Will the glasses type depend on your display you choose?

That's what I'm saying... it *all depends* on what type of 3D system/display you choose to buy.

Let's assume that you have a 3D source like a new 3D Blu-ray player, updated PS3, or Direct-TV set top box with the firmware update. Now that we have a 3D source...

If you buy an auto-scopic 3D, all you'd need to do is watch 3D on your new autoscopic set. with no glasses. However, these sets are pricey and have pretty bad picture quality since they use lenticular-lens screens that give lots of motion aliasing as you move your head. Hopefully over the next 10 years autoscopic 3D displays will improve to the point where they are competitive with current designs that use eyewear to deliver the discrete left/right images.

If you buy a "active" 3D flat panel or projector, then you'd need active shutter glasses designed to work at your set's refresh rate. Some 3D sets may be sold with a few active-eyewear goggles included. Others might leave those up to the consumer to buy separately.

If you buy as "passive" flat panel or projector (yes, there is actually a passive-flat panel by JVC if I'm not mistaken), then you'll need the appropriate passive glasses for that display... chances are that means circular polarization which means you could just take the glasses home from your next 3D movie and use them at home.

Read through this and other threads to familiarize yourslef with the details of these different approaches. For now it's accedemic anyway... wait until later in 2010 when products are actually for sale and then go and test-drive some 3D content on actual displays to see what type of methodology looks best to your eyes and wallet.
post #144 of 346
Thanks,, the connection I was not making was that, your display decides the glasses which also decides what 3D system you are actually using.

I suppose from a source perspective it doesn't matter? The display's processing works it out for you and shoudl work with any 3D capable bluray player and any 3D content being played on it.
post #145 of 346
Exactly.

You feed the "3D" display the 3D signal... which has actual left/right images packaged in a way that conforms to the 3D protocol that was just approved.

Then the 3D display does whatever it needs to with that signal to render the images for your left/right eyes... which can vary in a number of ways depending on the method your particular display is going to use.
post #146 of 346
Auto-scope? Not now for the consumer market. Sorry David.I disagree with your assessment of the 3D in Avatar. I tookmy glasses off frequently to see what wasactually being flashed on the screen.Alltoo often foreground actorsetc were in flat 2D. that is BS. Alltoo often mid distance and far distance objects were layered, too give the illusion.But in reallife with two eyes you would not see it that way.i amnot talking an immersive effect such as the floating seeds or an immersive effect. This was a lame attempt tomake it appear as it.one might imagine your eyes if there would see it. But your eyes just don`t see layered mid and far.your eyes are not far enough apart for that. go back and see it again and see what I mean. its an effect made possible by 3D technology but it does not approximate the realthing.that was only do when Mr. Cameron choose toput foreground objects in 3D.

and colored glasses are just fine for 3D comic books.iloved them when I was a kid.

Now i would add to your very informatuive post that while many consumer sets now can do120hz or 240 hz refresh the reason why they won`t work for 3D.They must also accept a 120hzsignalin and split it as you know but others may not.So the input module needs tobe designed todo it.A rather easy task with chips now or shortly available.

please donot read my post the wrong way.i really do appreciate your posts here and find them invaluable.

now another question.Are your sure which systems use linear polarizers vs circular. The imax 3D I saw I think used linear polarizers.
post #147 of 346
I've been contemplating the different technologies.

Doesn't shutter glasses have a major drawback in brightness compared to polarized glasses?

The way I see it, shutter glasses works using LCD panels. So, even when they are fully open they only transmit plane polarized light, right? However, the incoming light is not polarized so lot of it will be blocked by the glasses?

If you wan't to avoid the light loss, you'd have to use an LCD/LCOS system, which are inherently polarized, AND a silver screen to keep the polarization. In addition, you'd need to keep your head straight to align the polarization in the glasses with the light from the screen. Furthermore, LCD/LCOS systems would have problems producing the necessary refresh rate with a single projector system. Unless they'd use a 6 panel design like the LG, which I think would add complexity and cost?

Projector central actually reported that the shutter glasses ALONE cut the light by 70%. In addition to that you'd have light loss in the projector when in 3D mode.

To me, circular polarization seems an easier solution. Glasses are cheap, thin and no syncing or batteries are needed. In addition you'd only loose the light once (in the projector with a polarization wheel). You would of course need a special screen to maintain the polarization, but I think this is easier than to get the mega lumens required for shutter glasses?

What do ya think?
post #148 of 346
Quote:


Auto-scope? Not now for the consumer market.

There were several auto-scope stereo displays at CES. But like I said, the image quality was incredibly lacking the the price was excessive. I don't think we're actually disagreeing on this point. The reason I felt it was worth mentioning in my technology-run-down is that if you don't mention it some anti-eyewear 3D naysayer is bound to jump in and say "why don't they make a dislpay that doesn't need glasses?" as if there are no technical hurdles to delivering discrete left/right information to each of your eyes from a single point source. Figured it makes more sense to discuss the technology and its current limitations that to leave it out of the list.

Quote:


and colored glasses are just fine for 3D comic books.iloved them when I was a kid.

It should be obvious that my remarks concerning red/blue 3D deliver are in regards to purportedly high quality video reproduction.

BTW, sorry you didn't enjoy Avatar in 3D!
post #149 of 346
My point is I want better than Avatar I iwant 3D shot with a two lens camera without gimmicks. OK. Perhaps some immersive effects like things flying around you and in my face but please no depth for objects mid or far field. Make it look like Iwas there.
post #150 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I've been contemplating the different technologies.

Doesn't shutter glasses have a major drawback in brightness compared to polarized glasses?
The way I see it, shutter glasses works using LCD panels. So, even when they are fully open they only transmit plane polarized light, right? However, the incoming light is not polarized so lot of it will be blocked by the glasses?

If you wan't to avoid the light loss, you'd have to use an LCD/LCOS system, which are inherently polarized, AND a silver screen to keep the polarization. In addition, you'd need to keep your head straight to align the polarization in the glasses with the light from the screen. Furthermore, LCD/LCOS systems would have problems producing the necessary refresh rate with a single projector system. Unless they'd use a 6 panel design like the LG, which I think would add complexity and cost?

Projector central actually reported that the shutter glasses ALONE cut the light by 70%. In addition to that you'd have light loss in the projector when in 3D mode.

To me, circular polarization seems an easier solution. Glasses are cheap, thin and no syncing or batteries are needed. In addition you'd only loose the light once (in the projector with a polarization wheel). You would of course need a special screen to maintain the polarization, but I think this is easier than to get the mega lumens required for shutter glasses?

What do ya think?

If the circular polarized lens in the 3D glasses have characteristics similar to circular polarized filters used on cameras (as I would expect them to), they will also only pass 25% (2 'f' stops of loss in photographic terms) to 30% of the light (reference is HERE). Plus the projector must also have circular polarizers. So bottom line is 3D systems using either LCD shutter glasses or polarizer glasses require a much brighter light source than required for good 2D.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Official 3D Projector Thread.