or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D questions/clarification
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D questions/clarification - Page 3

post #61 of 110
Well, I kind of feel that when we had NTSC TV signals, 24p 2:3 pulldown seemed OKish, WIth so many more pixels on HDTV, even small movements on screen ,those that wouldn't cause blur on NTSC sets, causes blur on HDTV sets. Lets say in the movie scene you have a person dressed in black standing still (but in fact he sways 1 HDTV pixel back and forth (HDTV pixel keeps swithcning between white and black state during all the scene but in NTSC case it would be absolutely static )
Now with 3D picture, things are getting even more complicated and only solution that I personally see is 48p (preferably 60p) and no MCFI at all.
post #62 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

The X360 can render 3D better than the PS3 as it has larger frame buffer and the 10MB eDRAM.

However, it doesn't support any of the 3D protocols via HDMI. So either the vertical/horizontal resolution (or both in the case of check-board) has to be sacrificed. And the image can't be scaled either.

Anyway, both the PS3 and the X360 were designed for 2D viewing and sacrificing graphics to double the frame rate is not worth it IMO. Most likely Sony will only release/re-release games with simple graphics such as Wipeout HD.

I have both, Xbox360 and PS3. I played Avatar for over 70 hours in 3D on my Xbox on 82" DLP Mitsubishi using only shutter glasses with emittter. The 3D is amazing as good as in the theater.

My hope is that the IO Display Systems glasses will work for 3D BR movies on PS3. I know that I will have to buy an adaptor box from Mitsubishi when they become available to meet the new 3D standards.
post #63 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSX1992 View Post

I have both, Xbox360 and PS3. I played Avatar for over 70 hours in 3D on my Xbox on 82" DLP Mitsubishi using only shutter glasses with emittter. The 3D is amazing as good as in the theater.

My hope is that the IO Display Systems glasses will work for 3D BR movies on PS3. I know that I will have to buy an adaptor box from Mitsubishi when they become available to meet the new 3D standards.

Those glasses will still work. The glasses are dependent of the display, not the source of media. While I have the same glasses for my Sammy, they aren't the best available. Currently, the Xpand X102 and RealD CE5 are the best.
post #64 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 View Post

Yes, judder is going to be re-introduced with 3D Blu-Ray, for most displays. I'm sure with time, there will be true 240Hz displays released, which use 5:5 pulldown, per eye. Shutter glasses manufacturers have already said this isn't a problem, they can release shutters at 240Hz.

Yes, it's kind of a step backwards, but at the same time, this is something new. The BD spec is fine, it's up to the displays to handle the signal. The display manufacturers are going to try and release displays as cheap as possible, then move on to the "Holy Grail" of displays.



Each frame on a 3D BD consists of a "block frame" (1920x2205) with the two individual L & R frames (each 1920x1080) in the Over/Under config stored within it.

Looks like this:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

The "block frames" are sent to the 3DTV at 24FPS.

It is the job of the 3DTV to deal with them and display them in the frame sequential format. This can be done two ways as I see it:

LCDs with 240Hz/120 per eye - the block frame is split into the two different L & R frames which have a 5X multipler applied to them yielding the 120 per eye with no 2:3 pulldown.

The Panasonic PDP which is 120Hz/60 per eye can take the 24 FPS block frame - apply the 5X multipler to get to 120 then split the L & R image frames to 60 per eye. Again no 2:3 pulldown

For DLP RPTVs (at least for Mits) there is a converter box inbetween the 3D BD player and the set. It converts the block frame into the 2 seperate eye image frames then converts those to checkerboard. No 2:3 pulldown because they are 120hz/60 per eye - works like the PDP.

Or there is one way and the LCDs deal with the Block frame the same way the PDP and DLPs do.
post #65 of 110
Correct Lee.

Maybe he's talking about judder in 120Hz 3D sets?

I say this bcs a 120Hz 3D TV will only provide 60Hz per eye... which would show flicker as well as need 3-2 pulldown.

You're right that a 3D set that scans 240Hz won't have any judder as you'd get 120 per eye which is an even multiple of 24 fps.

480Hz 3D TVs are also perfectly suited for native 24 fps material... like the upcoming VIZIO 3D sets.
post #66 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Correct Lee.

Maybe he's talking about judder in 120Hz 3D sets?

I say this bcs a 120Hz 3D TV will only provide 60Hz per eye... which would show flicker as well as need 3-2 pulldown.

You're right that a 3D set that scans 240Hz won't have any judder as you'd get 120 per eye which is an even multiple of 24 fps.

480Hz 3D TVs are also perfectly suited for native 24 fps material... like the upcoming VIZIO 3D sets.

Yep, I was talking about 120Hz 3D displays, I should have been more specific.
post #67 of 110
got it.

My recommendation would be to *not* buy a 120Hz 3D TV... but at minimum get a 240Hz 3D set.

Problem solved.

I think that most 3D enabled sets will start to move towards 240Hz as the starting point pretty quickly... except for the lowest-priced sets. Some first-generation 3D sets will even start at 480Hz giving 240 per eye... not bad and should not have any visible flicker. VIZIO will have some very affordable 480Hz 3D sets (LED with local dimming) that should be investigated.

60Hz per eye is not suitable for high-end 3D performance period... both for reasons of 3-2 judder with 24fps source matieral in addition to strobing/flicker. Just say no. Go with 240Hz minimum instead.
post #68 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Correct Lee.

Maybe he's talking about judder in 120Hz 3D sets?

I say this bcs a 120Hz 3D TV will only provide 60Hz per eye... which would show flicker as well as need 3-2 pulldown.

You're right that a 3D set that scans 240Hz won't have any judder as you'd get 120 per eye which is an even multiple of 24 fps.

480Hz 3D TVs are also perfectly suited for native 24 fps material... like the upcoming VIZIO 3D sets.



Quote:


The Panasonic PDP which is 120Hz/60 per eye can take the 24 FPS block frame - apply the 5X multipler to get to 120 then split the L & R image frames to 60 per eye. Again no 2:3 pulldown
post #69 of 110
Quote:


The Panasonic PDP which is 120Hz/60 per eye can take the 24 FPS block frame - apply the 5X multipler to get to 120 then split the L & R image frames to 60 per eye. Again no 2:3 pulldown

sorry, didn't realize what that meant before.

You're right... that would still keep 2:3 judder out of the 3D image even with only 60Hz per eye. Good info!

though 60Hz per eye would still flicker IMO too much for a satisfying experience.
post #70 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

sorry, didn't realize what that meant before.

You're right... that would still keep 2:3 judder out of the 3D image even with only 60Hz per eye. Good info!

though 60Hz per eye would still flicker IMO too much for a satisfying experience.

We have had 60Hz for TV in the USA for decades. Have you seen flicker? I haven't.

Theaters have been using 48 FPS for film for even longer - do you see flicker? How about when you go to a 15/70 IMAX 3D presentation. That is also 48 FPS per eye.

I haven't seen anyone who has seen a Panasonic 3D demo and posted about it, complain about flicker and their 103" PDP is also 120Hz/60 per eye.

I think we are on the edge of "Myth Territory" here.
post #71 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

We have had 60Hz for TV in the USA for decades. Have you seen flicker? I haven't.

Theaters have been using 48 FPS for film for even longer - do you see flicker? How about when you go to a 15/70 IMAX 3D presentation. That is also 48 FPS per eye.

I haven't seen anyone who has seen a Panasonic 3D demo and posted about it, complain about flicker and their 103" PDP is also 120Hz/60 per eye.

I think we are on the edge of "Myth Territory" here.

Hey Lee,

per the flicker issue... there are indeed folks who see flicker with 60Hz refresh. It's one reason why most computer monitors provided a 72Hz option even long before flatscreens were common.

But the real issue is that with the on/off state of LCD shutter glasses, keep in mind that it's not a simple "refresh rate" we're talking about, but a 50% on time and a 50% off time. Some folks will notice. I know that 60Hz CRT displays always bothered me with a slight flicker... one reason why I love "contant on" displays like my LCOS projector which don't flash on/off at all... they simply re-paint a new image when they refresh.

Of course, that all being said, the degree of "flicker" or how negatively it impacts one's viewing is not really demonstrated just yet. If the panny demo didn't have folks noticing flicker at only 60Hz per eye that's a good thing.

p.s. regarding 48 fps theatrical projection: I most certainly *do* see flicker. So do most people. But since it's just the way projected film looks, most folks just ignore it.

Next time you go to the theater during bright moments look at bright white areas of the image and you'll plainly see the flicker of the projector shutter.
post #72 of 110
Yeah, I don't notice any flicker at all, so it may be display or shutter dependence.
post #73 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

Hey Lee,

per the flicker issue... there are indeed folks who see flicker with 60Hz refresh. It's one reason why most computer monitors provided a 72Hz option even long before flatscreens were common.

But the real issue is that with the on/off state of LCD shutter glasses, keep in mind that it's not a simple "refresh rate" we're talking about, but a 50% on time and a 50% off time. Some folks will notice. I know that 60Hz CRT displays always bothered me with a slight flicker... one reason why I love "contant on" displays like my LCOS projector which don't flash on/off at all... they simply re-paint a new image when they refresh.

Of course, that all being said, the degree of "flicker" or how negatively it impacts one's viewing is not really demonstrated just yet. If the panny demo didn't have folks noticing flicker at only 60Hz per eye that's a good thing.

p.s. regarding 48 fps theatrical projection: I most certainly *do* see flicker. So do most people. But since it's just the way projected film looks, most folks just ignore it.

Next time you go to the theater during bright moments look at bright white areas of the image and you'll plainly see the flicker of the projector shutter.

Yes - I understand that flicker is more apparent in bright scenes versus dark scenes and some people are more susceptible to ficker just like some are to frame judder.
post #74 of 110
I do not understand all this "new equipment" need. Isn't 3D simply a 2D image with two versions with the glasses needed to see the 3D effect? What is the new technology that still requires the glasses PLUS new DVD device and new viewing device?

When I go to the theater and see "Avatar", I use glasses. Is there something more to the projector and screen that I did not realize?

Thanks, way confused.
post #75 of 110
A lot more to the new 3D than most would realize. People here are really talking about what it is going to take to match or even beat the performance at the pay 3D theaters.
post #76 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike191 View Post

I do not understand all this "new equipment" need. Isn't 3D simply a 2D image with two versions with the glasses needed to see the 3D effect? What is the new technology that still requires the glasses PLUS new DVD device and new viewing device?

When I go to the theater and see "Avatar", I use glasses. Is there something more to the projector and screen that I did not realize?

Thanks, way confused.

stereo vision requires a left and right eye image (as you know, just laying the grounds for discussion...)

At the theater, they do this (Real3D) by putting a polarized filter in front of the left and right eye image coming out of the projector to polarize the light in the opposite direction for each eye. Then they project onto a special screen designed specifically to preserve polarized light... and then your glasses are able to filter the correct image for each of your eyes.

At home, there will actually be similar polarized projection options... LG just demonstrated one ($10K) at CES that works just like the digital 3D polarized projectors at the theater... and you'd use a silver type screen at home and polarized glasses.

However, for direct-view TVs, polarized light is complicated an expensive (JVC said they'll have a direct-view polarized 3D TV FYI) so instead for TVs that can scan fast (like 120Hz or higher) most manufacturers are taking a different approach to how to deliver two left/right eye images: they will quickly *alternate* left-right-left-right etc. so that the two will never actually be both on the screen at the exact same time. Then you wear active LCD glasses that synchronize with the TV to blank out each eye back/forth so that each eye only sees its correct left or right image.

So that requires a new HDTV that can do this left/right thing along with synchronize with your active LCD shutter glasses.

Some 3D blu-ray players will probably have a crappy mode allowing on-the-fly red/blue tinting to use on regular TVs with "old fashioned" red/blue 3D glasses... but that would be no better than the crap you've lived with in the past and wouldn't be part of the discussion of high-fidelity stereoscopic reproduction.
post #77 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike191 View Post

I do not understand all this "new equipment" need. Isn't 3D simply a 2D image with two versions with the glasses needed to see the 3D effect? What is the new technology that still requires the glasses PLUS new DVD device and new viewing device?

When I go to the theater and see "Avatar", I use glasses. Is there something more to the projector and screen that I did not realize?

Thanks, way confused.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as showing one 2D image and wearing some glasses!

The 3D in the theater is actually 2 overlapping 2D images which have each been polarized in different ways. They are projected on a special silver screen which preserves polarization (a regular white screen will not preserve polarization). The glasses then only allow one type of polarized light through each eye, so each eye sees only one of the 2 overlapping images.

Home 3D will mostly be done by showing separate left and right eye images in quick succession (say 60 or 120 times per eye per second) and using shutter glasses which alternately block light in each eye at the exact same rate as the display.

Note that there may be polarized front projection 3D at home in some situations but a special silver screen will be required to preserve polarization.


EDIT: sorry, posted same time as David...hopefully we said basically the same thing!
post #78 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike191 View Post

I do not understand all this "new equipment" need. Isn't 3D simply a 2D image with two versions with the glasses needed to see the 3D effect? What is the new technology that still requires the glasses PLUS new DVD device and new viewing device?

When I go to the theater and see "Avatar", I use glasses. Is there something more to the projector and screen that I did not realize?

Thanks, way confused.

The basis for Stereoscopic 3D is using a camera rig where the two camera lenses are spaced apart the same distance that our eyes are. The images they capture are offset. You can see this for yourself by just closing one eye, then alternate and close the other eye.

The camera rig looks like this:

post #79 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The Panasonic PDP which is 120Hz/60 per eye can take the 24 FPS block frame - apply the 5X multipler to get to 120 then split the L & R image frames to 60 per eye. Again no 2:3 pulldown

This doesn't make sense to me.

Consider what happens in the first 1/24 of a second. The 3D BD player sends its first frame containing the images for both eyes. Before the next frame arrives from the player, the 120Hz Panny has exactly five screen refreshes to make.

Refresh 1: R eye (top of the frame)
Refresh 2: L eye (bottom of the frame)
Refresh 3: R eye
Refresh 4: L eye
Refresh 5: ???

Refresh 5 must be a repeat of R or L eye. And that's a telecine type of effect. It has to be a repeat since at this point in time the next frame hasn't yet arrived from the player.
post #80 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

This doesn't make sense to me.

Consider what happens in the first 1/24 of a second. The 3D BD player sends its first frame containing the images for both eyes. Before the next frame arrives from the player, the 120Hz Panny has exactly five screen refreshes to make.

Refresh 1: R eye (top of the frame)
Refresh 2: L eye (bottom of the frame)
Refresh 3: R eye
Refresh 4: L eye
Refresh 5: ???

Refresh 5 must be a repeat of R or L eye. And that's a telecine type of effect. It has to be a repeat since at this point in time the next frame hasn't yet arrived from the player.

Frame buffer/memory?
post #81 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Frame buffer/memory?

Hmm, so it does work as you say, only one frame behind real time (the time of the player)?
post #82 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

Hmm, so it does work as you say, only one frame behind real time (the time of the player)?

Just a solution to the problem. Could be one frame - could be more than one frame.

Just speculation. I find it hard to believe that after solving the frame judder issue, they would reintroduce it.

Notice that even though the refresh rate of the set is 120Hz, when playing normal 1080x24P content, they are using 96Hz and not 120Hz:

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045_1-10427983-269.html
post #83 of 110
OK, at risk of appearing dense, I'm going to take another stab at this ...

You say that first the display memory performs an internal doubling or rather 5x multiplication of the big 3D (1920x2205) 24fps frames. So the TV internally converts 1920x2205 24fps to 1920x2205s 120fps. No problem there.

Next, when it comes to displaying this, the 1080p120Hz TV alternately shows the R and L eyes of each frame as follows (e.g.):

1/120 Frame 1 R (top)
2/120 Frame 1 L (bottom)
3/120 Frame 1 R
4/120 Frame 1 L
5/120 Frame 1 R

6/120 Frame 2 L
...

Because each frame gets just 5 refreshes, though the entire frame can't of course be seen at once.

Now here's what I don't get. From time 5/120 to 6/120 you are seeing first the R eye of the first frame and then the L eye of the next. And isn't this a stuttering / telecine type effect?

In other words, even if frames are being buffered in memory, there are an uneven number of L and R views of each frame. There should not be -- at 6/120 (well, on the sixth view) we should be viewing Frame 1 L! Won't this create telecine-type artifacting?

Note that at 5/120 we cannot be seeing frame 2 already, that would be 96Hz.
EDIT: That is very badly said; what I mean is, at 5/120 we cannot be seeing frame 2 (can we?) since we have already said that each frame gets five views.

If this is wrong, what am I missing?
post #84 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

OK, at risk of appearing dense, I'm going to take another stab at this ...

You say that first the display memory performs an internal doubling or rather 5x multiplication of the big 3D (1920x2205) 24fps frames. So the TV internally converts 1920x2205 24fps to 1920x2205s 120fps. No problem there.

Next, when it comes to displaying this, the 1080p120Hz TV alternately shows the R and L eyes of each frame as follows (e.g.):

1/120 Frame 1 R (top)
2/120 Frame 1 L (bottom)
3/120 Frame 1 R
4/120 Frame 1 L
5/120 Frame 1 R

6/120 Frame 2 L
...

Because each frame gets just 5 refreshes, though the entire frame can't of course be seen at once.

Now here's what I don't get. From time 5/120 to 6/120 you are seeing first the R eye of the first frame and then the L eye of the next. And isn't this a stuttering / telecine type effect?

In other words, even if frames are being buffered in memory, there are an uneven number of L and R views of each frame. There should not be -- at 6/120 (well, on the sixth view) we should be viewing Frame 1 L! Won't this create telecine-type artifacting?

Note that at 5/120 we cannot be seeing frame 2 already, that would be 96Hz.
EDIT: That is very badly said; what I mean is, at 5/120 we cannot be seeing frame 2 (can we?) since we have already said that each frame gets five views.

If this is wrong, what am I missing?

The L & R "seperated" frames aren't being shown at 120Hz. They are being shown at 60Hz per eye.
post #85 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The L & R "seperated" frames aren't being shown at 120Hz. They are being shown at 60Hz per eye.

Right, that part I get. My question is, how does this fact eliminate the telecine-type stuttering effect? It seems to me that it does not at all. There is stutter in one of the channels. This is seen from the fact that, for each frame, there are three views of one eye and two views of the other.

One could eliminate the stutter by going to frame 2 at 5/120. In this case the video would be too fast and the movie would end early!
post #86 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

Right, that part I get. My question is, how does this fact eliminate the telecine-type stuttering effect? It seems to me that it does not at all. There is stutter in one of the channels. This is seen from the fact that, for each frame, there are three views of one eye and two views of the other.

One could eliminate the stutter by going to frame 2 at 5/120. In this case the video would be too fast and the movie would end early!

As we agreed, the 1920x2205 frame is coming out of the 3D BD player at 24FPS. Then the display steps those frames up to 120Hz with a 5X multiplier. No frame judder there.

Then it is just showing each L & R frame in alternating sequence to each eye at 60Hz syncing up with the active shutter glasses.
post #87 of 110
120Hz 3D TVs will suffer the same 2:3 pulldown judder that 60Hz TVs do because we're back to 60Hz per eye with the source at 24Hz per eye. The only way to avoid it is to drop to 96Hz, which will introduce significantly more flicker. Even then you will still have the "double flash" 2:2 judder associated with repeated frames. A 5x multiplier would require the refresh rate to be 240Hz, not 120Hz because each source frame is two TV frames.
post #88 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

As we agreed, the 1920x2205 frame is coming out of the 3D BD player at 24FPS. Then the display steps those frames up to 120Hz with a 5X multiplier. No frame judder there.

Then it is just showing each L & R frame in alternating sequence to each eye at 60Hz syncing up with the active shutter glasses.

OK, I think I now see where you're coming from, so I should explain myself another way.

Strictly speaking there is no telecine judder involved since after all the 3D video has not gone through a telecine conversion process. There we are agreed.

Also as you have indicated there is no judder _of a complete frame_. So in any case we will not be seeing something which looks exactly like the stutter we are used to seeing on 2D 60Hz displays.

The problem I see in showing the 24p 3D on a 120Hz (i.e., 60Hz devoted to each eye) TV is that there will be a quasi-telecine effect in this respect: for each 1920x2205 frame, half of the frame will get more display time than the other half.

So e.g. for every of those 24fps frames, one eye gets 3 views and the other eye gets 2 views.

This is not ideal.

Since each view is 1/120 of a second, for each frame, half the frame is on screen slightly longer than the other half. There's slightly more R eye than L or vice-versa.

I believe that though this is not telecine judder properly so-called, it will produce an artifact which roughly resembles it (is a kind of 3D version of the telecine stutter).

Now I think the observation you made with respect to frame doubling and the rest (in the post from a couple days back which got me going on this subject) -- I think that observation simply reflects the fact that indeed you can get a 24p 3D signal working on a 120Hz (i.e. 60Hz per eye) display. It does not however show that this will work without artifacting.
post #89 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt73 View Post

The problem I see in showing the 24p 3D on a 120Hz (i.e., 60Hz devoted to each eye) TV is that there will be a quasi-telecine effect in this respect: for each 1920x2205 frame, half of the frame will get more display time than the other half.

2205P frames @ 24 FPS X5 = 120 2205P/sec - frames are in storage memory/buffer (not necessarily all 120 frames)

Display then splits the 2205P frame into L 1080P and R 1080P frames and displays them sequentially; L, R, L, R 60 times a second each. Each frame has the same on screen time.

When they use 720P HD cameras to shoot something, they are shooting at 60FPS. No frame judder.

That is what we see when we watch Frame Sequential 3D at 60 Hz per eye.

Quote:


So e.g. for every of those 24fps frames, one eye gets 3 views and the other eye gets 2 views.

This is not ideal.

Since each view is 1/120 of a second, for each frame, half the frame is on screen slightly longer than the other half. There's slightly more R eye than L or vice-versa.

I believe that though this is not telecine judder properly so-called, it will produce an artifact which roughly resembles it (is a kind of 3D version of the telecine stutter).

See above

Quote:


Now I think the observation you made with respect to frame doubling and the rest (in the post from a couple days back which got me going on this subject) -- I think that observation simply reflects the fact that indeed you can get a 24p 3D signal working on a 120Hz (i.e. 60Hz per eye) display. It does not however show that this will work without artifacting.

We can theroize all we want. When the equipment gets into reviewers hands and into retail stores (displays, 3D BD players and 3D BD content, we will have more information.
post #90 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

2205P frames @ 24 FPS X5 = 120 2205P/sec - frames are in storage memory/buffer (not necessarily all 120 frames)

Display then splits the 2205P frame into L 1080P and R 1080P frames and displays them sequentially; L, R, L, R 60 times a second each. Each frame has the same on screen time.


This is right; each frame gets exactly 5/120 s screen time. In that sense it can be said that there's no judder from frame to frame. (No judder "in a complete frame" as I awkwardly put it.)

However, this 5/120 of screen time does not divide evenly into the R and L channels, as it should. For each frame, one channel gets 3/120 of screen time and the other only 2/120. (Alternating.)

I agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating -- if on viewing this we don't see any artifacting, then there's no artifacting. But "a priori", on analogy with what we know about telecine judder in 2D systems, it looks to me like there will very, very probably be a subtle problem here. We'll have to wait and see to know for sure and/or to see how bad it is.


Addendum:
It's worth bearing in mind that when we all saw Avatar in the theatres, each eye enjoyed exactly the same frame time. The bottom half of each Avatar frame was not biassed against the top (or vice versa). There was probably a reason for this ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D questions/clarification