Beware of these early 3D projectors... they will need HDMI 1.4 to work with PS3 in 3D - Page 3

Originally Posted by Anthony1

I agree with you for the most part, but I have my suspicions regarding Sony's insistence of requiring hdmi 1.4 . I honestly wonder if it truly is necessary for them to basically shun the folks out there that already have 3D ready displays. It would be nice to think that Sony is a benevolent corporation, with only our best interests in mind, but lets get real...

They don't have any 3D ready displays on the market, and their first 3D ready displays will have hdmi 1.4, so they figure might as well lock out everybody that doesn't at least have hdmi 1.4. Maybe I'm completely off the mark with this assumption, but I certainly wouldn't doubt it if my intuition is right on the money.

Originally Posted by Blue Rain

Excuse me if I'm wrong in this as I don't keep up with the whole 3D
thingy so I'm not up to date with it. All I heard is 1.4 HDMI is required.

This is where I'm confused...any explanation would be helpful.


In one hand Sony insists that you need 1.4 hdmi but in another hand they say the Playstation will work with 1.3 hdmi.


If it (3d) can work in Play station why can't they do whatever they're doing with play station to make it work.

Some small gizmo attached to make the conversion which would cost less than replacing equipment . If not possible how about giant rebates on the new stuff to get the ball rolling more quickly.

Have they backed off from previously stating the PS3 will work with HDMI 1.3 for 3D ?

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

If we're talking about a new "3D" HDTV or projector, you'll need HDMI 1.4 on the display device as HDMI 1.4 is set up to "talk" back and forth with the source component and say "send me 3D because I'm a 3D display". Older 1.3 displays, even those marked "3D ready", won't be able to talk to the source components about 3D bcs all of that protocol was agreed upon just recently and built in to the HDMI 1.4 from the start.

Now...

you *can* get away with 1.3 in certain cases... here is how the exceptions appear to work:

In the case of the PS3, because its internal processing will be able to handle 3D blu-ray with a firmware upgrade and because the PS3 was designed with upgrading in mind, they have found a way to add both full 3D decoding for the blu-ray and the "3D conversation" stuff into the HDMI port even though it's technically a 1.3 chipset (basically, as far as 3D stuff goes, the PS3 will sound and act like an actual HDMI 1.4 chipset as far as the 3D conversation and signal is concerned). This is because the 3D stuff on HDMI 1.4 doesn't really require a physical difference from 1.3... same bandwidth etc. as 1.3, just new meta-data protocols. So the PS3 is a rare exception in the "1.4 rule" because as far as 3D is concerned, it can be upgraded to *act* like an HDMI 1.4 device even though it's really a 1.3 chipset. Again, this is only possible because the PS3 was designed from the ground up with radical firmware updating in mind. It's doubtful that other processors will be so lucky, and 1.3 BD players other than the PS3 won't be lucky because they lack the internal circutry necessary to perform the 3D *decoding*, even if their 1.3 chipsets could be made to handle the output, so there's stuck in 2D mode because their MPEG decoding chips are hard-wired for 2D and not designed to be upgraded.

The other big unknown is what would happen if you routed a "1.4" 3D signal (including the 3D output of the PS3 here) through an HDMI 1.3 receiver on its way to the TV or display. Chances are that if your receiver is acting as a blind switch box, it would all work as the receiver wouldn't be manipulating the signal in any real way. But if the receiver is pulling out the audio stream for sound, as would usually be the case, it may not work with preserving the 3D bcs it has to un-pack and re-pack the bitstreams and might not know how to repack the 3D on its way back to your 3D TV.

So whether 1.3 receivers work with HDMI 1.4 3D signals will be a case-by-case issue that we won't know until we try.

That's the way it's looking so far based on what we've been told...

Originally Posted by Blue Rain

WOW David Great Post.. I really appreciate it .Very clear and to the point and easy to understand.

Are there any other rare exceptions out there like the PS3 that can be updated to output 3D ?

Thanks for your time .

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

Jeez, I can't get my eyes to cross. I have a lot of these images, and generally I have no problem. Today, I think I might need someone to smack me in the face. I can't get my eyes to cross enough to bring the images together.

Originally Posted by BowerR64

Yeah that one wasnt as good as a few others i shot because of the black bands on the side maybe? Its not really that great though because you wind up with 3 total images when your watching it but you only focus on the center one. It doesnt have the same depth as one shot with 2 cameras.

Originally Posted by nsguy

I am taking a stand!! I am throwing out my satellite system, HD TV and going back to my black and white TV with rabbit ears!

Originally Posted by mbrennem

The Mitsubishi's use a checkerboard system to do 3D which I believe inherently limits the resolution to less than full HD (unless the actual display panel is much higher-resolution than 1920X1080, which I seriously doubt).

I would bet that the resolution of 3D when converted to work on the Mits sets will be basically 540p (effectively DVD resolution). But I am no expert so take this with the appropriate grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

It always bothered me that the ads for the Mits and Sammy products failed to say that there was no accepted standard for 3D movies. Of course, that's been true for any manufacturer of 3D displays in the past. As always, it's buyer beware.

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

I created a few such clips several years ago, but it was motion and not contrast that created the effect. I was in the passenger seat shooting straight out the window as someone drove slowly in a cemetery. What happens is that the darker image in one eye takes a bit longer for the brain to process. As you watch the clip on a 2D screen, the brain perceives the dark eye view with a delay. If the car is moving at a slow enough speed, the difference is enough to create an artificial "distance" between what the two eyes are seeing (really, it's how the brain combines the normal eye view with the slightly delayed eye view). There is an accompanying 3D effect. It did work, but only when there was just the right amount of motion. Like colored glasses, though, it was fatiguing to look at things with one eye seeing things significantly darker than the other eye. One round of experiments was enough.