3D LCD - nasty visual quality?

Yes, this is true if you are watch 3D only. The is a better article Ars Technica Review

Ars says that 3D on LCD sucks, Plasma is good, but not great but we will need to wait for AMOLED to knock our socks off. Sadly, they say that the Samy LCD was the worst

And as far as I know , Sony Bravia TVs have the worst 3D PQ among all the LCD TVs. (According to some Japanese guys)

Wow -- I guess good 3D is probably at least a few years away.

I heard all of them sucked xD
The Samsung sucked most because of it's 2D to 3D conversion...

It's not surprising that the first batch of 3-D TVs will suck.

New technology does take a while to perfect. Hopefully the 2nd or 3rd gen 3D TVs will be better.

The slower response time of LCDs is definitely an impediment to good 3-D. The best I saw at CES was Mitsubishi rear projection lastervue (DLP) set. It was the only 3-D that I thought was worth watching. I thought Plasma demos at Panasonic were also dismal despite the Arts article. The field of view is just too small with a flat panel to make the experience convincing. Plus there are way too many other artifacts.

Nice thread.

will shutter glasses reduce light and as result image brightness and contrast by factor 2?
As just each eye will get half that another half will be dark!
Human eye adjusts to bright and dark by increasing and decreasing Iris
if it will flicker 60 times / sec - how the Iris will react?
Any health post effects?

Not sure about you, but I can't watch 3D in I-Max for more then 1-2 hours, where I can watch 2D for 6 hours just fine.

what do you think?

Yes, you lose light whether it is shuttered glasses or not. It is the polarizer effect.


No, it can't respond that fast.


I think everyone gets more tired watching 3-D than 2-D. Some will be affected more than others.

Definitely interesting. I'm going to be in the market for a new TV in the next month, and during CES I was wondering if I should hold off until I could get one of the first 3D sets. It's sounding like that may not be the case, and I may be better off getting a current gen LED LCD, possibly during the inevitable Super Bowl sales.

Is the general consensus here that this first gen tech is not ready for prime time?

hmmm

i'm in the market for a new tv (46"er) and am planning on holding off to get a 3dtv just so i get something that isn't outdated immediately, but i prefer an LCD for my viewing area. Maybe i should just get something cheap now (everything is on clearance...) and upgrade in 2-3 years when 3d is improved?

Its because LCD refresh rates are just not comparable to plasmas. Most LCD gives you an illusion of fast refresh rate by highspeed backlight switching.

Very interesting. I will likely buy the new Panasonic 65vt25 but for the 2d viewing. I doubt I will watch much 3d stuff at all and agree that the technology will likely get better over time though it might just end up being a fad that never catches on.

In 2-3 years 3Dtv's with 3Dglasses could work well but approximately 2015
3Dtv's WITHOUT 3Dglasses,4K2K tv's with eight million pixel and bigger sized OLED's wll be introduced.

I'm curious... has anyone here actually seen one of these 3d sets in person? At CES or some other show? Impressions?

They said the best LCD looked similar to realD in theaters. I noticed flicking and choppy motion with reald at my theater also.

Personally if I were in the market for a new T.V.I'd keep what I had until I could have a look for myself. If I like what I see I may buy one. Most of these T.V. s won't be for sale until the summer so there may be some changes or improvements by then. The eyes I trust the most are my own!

I saw the 3D-Demos and Prototypes at the IFA 2009 in Berlin and Sony was by far the best from all LCD manufactures. I don´t know what he saw and what he is talking (Plasma fanboy?). I also saw the NeoEco PDP at the IFA and was not impressed because of the typical Plasma flickering issues. How can this be better, than LCD when all these Plasmas has flickering issues with 2D? Also LCD is much brighter, which is a big advantage for LCD, because with 3D shutter technology the pictures gets much darker.
The LCD 3D flickering issues has nothing to do with refresh rates. No human eye can see the differences between refresh rates of Plasma and 4ms from LCD (sample and hold effect has nothing to do with refresh rate!).
The flicker comes from the shutter technology itself. 2x60ms is not enough - LCD with UV²A for example can do 2 x 240Hz and that´s the best way to eliminate flickering. 2 x 120Hz is also better and no problem for modern LCD´s. If the LCD manufactures choose 2 x 60 Hz than not by technological limitation (Toshiba and LG will release sets with 240Hz MCFI + 240Hz Backlight Scanning = 480Hz - If they can do 480 frames per second, than they can also split the signal for each eye at 240 frames per second), only because they want that you can buy the new 2x120Hz/2x240Hz 3D-Sets in 2011...
Sony said at the IFA that their 3D LCD´s will work with 2 x120Hz (=240Hz).
Sony builds 3D cameras for Hollywood, makes 3D movies and has the PS3 which is "3D Ready" so no way Sony will used the worst technology for their 3D LCD´s!

I saw a ton of demos at CES and none came even remotely close to what I saw with RealD in a local theater. Even if the 3-D panels were perfect in this regard, they face an impossibility: small screen. Something is very odd when you are staring at a 50 inch set from 8 to 10 feet away with the objects losing their 3-D perspective at the edges. It makes the display more fake than it is otherwise. In theater, the screen is much larger, filling your field of view completely.

I highly recommend people go and see Avatar in 3-D in theater now. Seeing it later at home simply won't be the same thing.

I did too but imagine those kind of artifacts getting doubled and tripled.

Overall, 3-D should be a "nice to have" option for your display purchases.

I was at CES and I saw them. I agree with the above poster that the gizmondo report sounds fishy to me.

The shutter glasses sets are the only ones worth considering, though. The sets with polarized glasses reduce the resolution by half as they have alternating rows of opposite-polarized pixels, and can not show the full-HD 3D stuff at HD resolution. Maybe he's talking about that.

Also, with the Samsung shutter glasses set, when I tried on the glasses (after picking them up from a stand) it took them about 3-5 seconds to sync with the displays and they were out-of-phase at first. So maybe the reviewer put the glasses on, saw it out of phase and said "Gak!" and immediately took them off. That said, I also tried really hard to make the glasses lose their sync again while I was wearing them by turning around for a few seconds, looking at the ceiling, etc. and I couldn't do it. Once they were locked in sync they stayed that way and the picture was really quite awesome.

So... I came away from CES thinking this 3D tv stuff is for real, and works impressively well.

I just don't know about 3D movies. The amount of good movies that were released last year that would be worth seeing in 3D is significantly smaller than the number of movies it would ruin:

3D might be able to benefit:
Star Trek
District 9
Up

But it would ruin:
The Hangover
Hurtlocker
500 Days of Summer
Inglourious Basterds
Fantastic Mr. Fox
A Serious Man
Moon
etc, etc, etc

I'm thinking mostly of indie films here, but that's just because i'd say 90% of mainstream movies are pretty terrible. I understand that for most of us, it will be a viewing option if we own these TVs. But does the PQ of regular HD go down because your TV is 3D capable? Exactly how much more am I spending to get this feature that i'll hardly use? It's brand new technology... so people can say it looks good all they want, but until I see it I'm calling it a fad. If it's a cheap add-on that doesn't add much cost to the televsion... than bring it on I guess, can't say i'll be using it much. Not unless Avatar all the sudden brings a sh*t storm of new 3D movies to the table. I guess what I'm saying is it's cool that they're working on them... I see any new technology as a good thing, but I think it's a little sudden to be talking about owning these in our homes. I can't see anything being released in the next 2-3 years being very good.

Thanks for that! It seems there's some hope for 3D T.V.s. We'll all get to see for ourselves in a few months when some 3D T.V.s turn up at the local retailers. Personally I'm planning on buying a 3D ready front projector, but something like the Vizio 72" 3D LED LCD isn't out of the question.

may be 3D holograms will deliver real 3D?
And those have to be less harming our eyes than shutter glasses.

as example http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives...nnovision.html

I saw a 3D TV at the Sony Store and I was blown away. I thought the contrast was terrific compared to anything I've seen in a movie theater. The HD programming - like the nature stuff and sports shows - were outstanding, as were the video game demos. There were some issues here and there but the PQ surpassed my expectations several times over.

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.

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

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.

Wait for 4D... I can't wait to watch Food Network then.