Any 3D projectors coming? - Page 5

If there are any polarized 3D projector demos in driving distance from my house I may roll up my hipower and head there to see for myself too. I'd love to see a "screen shoot out" for passive 3D PJs once we get a good crop to see how various screen options work for polarized display.

Naturally, for active 3D your optimal 2D screen is fine as long as you're happy with the brightness in 3D mode.

^ The brightness issue is a big concern, I would think, since it seems to take such a big hit through the glasses. More lumens needed = more expensive projectors and bulbs. I hate to sound like such a cheap skate but I'm more of an audio guy than video, and like to put my money towards sound more than the picture. Then again, I want to do it as right as possible the first time with the PJ and screen so as to keep the upgrading to a minimum. Still, I hate to lose my HP, but if that's what it takes...oh well.

Light is interesting.. I don't think this is going to be as big of a deal as many think.

If front projection, the range of acceptabilty for lumen output ranges drastically. Some people are fine with very low ftl's.

You can cut your lumens in half with low lamp setting and/or ND filters and not even be able to tell to your eyes.

true. In a FP set up in a darkened room, your eyes use the image they see as the "benchmark" since they adjust to the dark and then adapt to the light of the screen.

that being said, I still find it to be generally true that brighter (all other things equal) is better... but I have a sneaking suspician that most HT 3D front PJ systems will be *at least* as bright as what we see in the theater, so I'm not worried. Right now in 2D I find the brightness and color saturation of my HT system much more satisfying than the local theaters, so I don't see why that wouldn't also end up being the case with 3D.

If I was happy with AVATAR in 3D in the theater with its really obvious lack of brightness, I think that home FP 3D solutions will be satisfactory as well, and probably more so.

What *is* a bit of a concern is will those satisfying solutions be LED or laser? I'd really like to say goodbye to the bulb!

dave

True, but I'm just going off the theatrical 3D experience, where raising the glasses from your eyes reveals just how much they darken the image. A commercial theater is already putting out much more light than I am at home, and it seems even more is needed for an adequate picture with glasses on (assuming the 3D home experience is a direct replica of the commercial one). I have a feeling that low ftl's won't cut it with 3D...not like it will in 2D anyway. Just speculation, though.

It may work if you choose a Active 3D PJ. It won't work if you choose a Passive 3D PJ. A screen is specifically designed for 3D Passive. It has special properties that the High Power doesn't have.

^ What will that 3D screen do to 2D viewing?

The key to the brightness issue may not be in getting a bigger/more powerful PJ. The culprit is the glasses themselves.

With passive glasses, there are cheap throwaways and their are high quality ones from a company like Gunther which are used in pro production. They don't have the same optical charastics.

IMO, active shutter glasses are in their infancy as far as R & D and the issue of light transmission through the glasses.The RealD Crystal Eyes ASGs boast a transmission rate of 40%. AFAIK, they are the best on the market and have been on the market for quite some time.

Who knows what advancements will be made in the next year or two.

a professional theatrical projector is putting out much more light than your home PJ, but the brightness-per-inch (or foot or whatever you want) is less because it's spread out so large.

Sitting 15 feet back from your 10 foot wide screen at home could produce a much brighter image because it's smaller... though it could still fill the same field of vision you get at the theater depending on your distance-width ratio.

My home JVC PJ even in low-blub-mode produces a much brighter, richer image that I see theatrically IMO. I'm hopeful that the same trend is true for home 3D projection.

Has it been established which system is the supposed "best" method yet (active or passive) for home projection?

Any opinions or is there a technical reason one may be better than the other?

Agreed.

Once active eyewear can reach the point of real transparency when "open", there will be virtually no perceptable light loss as the alternating blanking doesn't diminish your perceived brightness the same way that a filter does because the brain tends to use the eye with the brighter picture as it's guide. Active eyewear has the most chance to improve "brightness" because of its unique methodology, whereas polarized will always cut at least 50% regardless.

(anyone can close one eye and notice that the world doesn't get 1/2 as bright to your brain).

I must admit, part of my brightness concern may stem from the fact that I need a new bulb pretty badly, and I'm trying to wait and just get a new projector.

Hot Spot. That's the problem with using a 3D screen for 2D content. Works great for Passive 3D and needed. Not great for 2D.

I had a StewartFilmscreen 144" 16x9 perforated Silver 3D fixed screen in my HT back in 1998 to 2002. I was using a Zenith Pro 900 3CRT FPTV and made the sacrifice = big screen but with hot spotting which only occurred in the lower right hand corner so it wasn't that noticeable from prime seating position which was 14 feet from eyes to screen center.

It definitely made a HUGE improvement in the contrast ratio with 2D. I had also ordered the same screen (an extra) in 1.0 Gain white matte. The image was dim - too dim to my liking

I feel you pain. Really! That's the delimma I was going through too before I finally bit the bullet and got the used JVC RS2 clone (FPJ1). I'm 100% happy with my decision because my picture has improved in *so many ways* other than just brightness.

If all you need is a new bulb for you existing machine, here's a consolation: you'll get more $$ when you sell it used if it has a bulb with fewer hours, so don't worry about "throwing money away" on the bulb. If you need a brighter image, get that bulb and enjoy your HT now... because affordable 3D projectors are MONTHS away, and in the meantime you're just short-changing yourself and your HT experience by suffering with a dim picture you mentally criticize the whole time you try to enjoy a movie.

If they could get to 60% or 70% transmission rate, that would make a huge difference in the brightness of the images reaching the eye

I think They will have Front 3D pj in a few months maybe before xmas As why shouldnt they? Does anyone remeber the 3d kit you buy for about 100.00 about 6yrs ago that you hooked up to your standard Tv and dvd player the kit came with two standard dvds I think one was called hunted castle with elvira.

Benefit of Passive:

Cheap 3D glasses

Negative of Passive:

Requires a silver screen

Off Axis brightness drop off


Benefit of Active:

Works with an existing screen

Negative of Passive:

Expensive glasses

they will.

But similar to when 1080p hit the FP scene, manufacturers may try to "cash in" on a generation or two to get some profit before 3D machines become a commodity item. so just because 3D machines will be here before Christmas doesn't (necessarily) mean you'll be buying one to wrap to put under the tree...

of course, until CEDIA we won't really know what the landscape of options and price will really start to look like.



yeah, but it only really worked on hard-wired 480I NTSC sets... when we tried it on my DLP projector at the time, the slight delay from the deinterlacing processor in the projector caused serious ghosting because of the mis-timed glasses.

Hey Lee,

While those things you listed are true, they're not comprehensive. Many of the additional pros/cons of the two methods depend a lot on particular implementations.

For instance, a "pro" of Passive is that there is no flicker beyond what you'd see in 2D viewing

A "con" of active is that there can be flicker (like we see with the Sony sets to many people's eyes) in 3D mode depending on the blanking interval.


Another area where the issue is implimentation specific: Lots of viewers see ghosting with the Samsung 3D LCD (active), but no one sees it with the Panasonic Plamsa (also active) so really some of the pros/cons between active/passive then become a more complex discussion of the particular *implimentation*. Active LCDs might have pros and cons that are different than active Plasmas. Active DLP projectors might have pros and cons that are different that active LCD projectors.

So your list is true, but it's only a partial picture, and if someone's goal is to maximize image quality, the real proof will be in the impliementation of whatever methodology is being evaluated.

(though some of the "cons" might steer an individual one way or the other regardless... like not wanting to have to replace batteries for 10 pairs of active shutter glasses or not wanting to install a second projection screen for polarized light).

I'm sure I'll end up getting the bulb...probably next week (My wife's been asking what I wanted for my birthday). What you say makes perfect sense, and it's not like I'm getting a 3D projector any time soon. Even if they're released in just a few months, I still won't be one of the guinea pigs. I'm only an early adopter sometimes.

I never said they were comprehensive - just a "short list" of the differences.


Flicker can be seen in 2D at the movies - in very bight scenes due to the 48 FPS presentation frame rate. Yes, it is not an issue with home video due to higher frame rates/refresh rates


That can also be caused by other issues. No one is seeing flicker in the Panasonic 3DTV demos are they? I don't believe that issue can be "put on a list" until there is further investigation.


And I thought we were discussing FPTV and 3D. That is the topic of this thread Dave.


We need to stay on topic and discuss positive and negatives for FPTV and active versus passive.

Agreed. Regrouping to keep the conversation FP focused.

The similarity is that LCD has latency issues which may negate some of the "pros" of active-shutter depending on implimentation. LCD and its sister technolgies LCOS and SXRD share many characteristics so the discussion of what we're seeing with some active-3D LCD flat-panels may extend to LCD/LCOS/SXRD front projection as well. Since at present we have no active 3D Projectors using the new full 1920x1080p spec, we can hypothosize about some of the pros and cons for front projection based on realted technologies in sequencing 3D flat panels.

For instance, the Samsung LCD has no reported flicker, but does have lots of reported ghosting, where as the Sony LCD has no apparent ghosting, but does have flicker.

What it appears is that the two manufacturers are addressing the latency in the on/off of LCD in two different ways (and we may see similar approaches with active LCD/LCOS/SXRD projection): Samsing is likely keeping their LCD blanking very closely tied to the left/right sequencing, and so the latency of the LCD in the image transition shows some mild ghosting (I noticed it much more during motion) but there's no visible flicker.

Sony may be putting in an all-black "transition" period where both eyes go black for a moment to give the LCDs a chance to switch state (my guess as to why they say their eyeware isn't interchangable with other brands). That eliminates ghosting, but at the cost of a little noticable flicker. These are my theories as to why we're seeing these trends, but they're a great point to start conversations about how different approaches can affect LCD/LCOS/SXRD 3D active projection.

that's one reason why I think that the optimal active 3D LCD/LCOS/SXRD projectors would be dual light engine... that way the shutter device in the PJ could do its job instantaneously without worrying about state-change of the imaging panels to have to produce clean instantaneous left/right sequencing.

DLP is probalby going to be the only single-light-engine sequencing left/right active technology that works because DLP really is instantaneous and can sequence left/right via the same DMD... though it probably won't work with color wheels as it would double rainbow artifacting potential. BUT LED or laser-lit DLP could be astonishing with single light-engine PJ design and active eyewear.

BTW, does anybody know what type of technology is inside a Real3D projector? Is it DLP or LCOS? I belive those are single-engine so I'd be very curious to know. I think I'll do some googling.

According to Wiki (as far as I got before work kicked in)...

"The projectors use Texas Instruments' Digital Light Processing device or Sony's reflective liquid crystal display. RealD has an exclusive agreement with Sony to provide technology to project 3D movies with the Sony 4K projector".

This is a Sony SXRD 4K projector with RealD twin lens adapter:




And this is how Sony uses 4K to deliver (2) 2K images




RealD calls their Sony 4K system; RealD XLS

RealD is an add on to an existing projector. They don't make one. They are made by Christie, Sony, NEC and Barco. The same goes for the Dolby 3D system - also an add on.

^ Didn't know it was an add-on.

So I was giving some thought to this issue of what technology will be offerred consumers who want FPTV and 3D.

Who will be more likely to buy one? An existing PJ owner or a new to the tech person? IMO, it will be someone who already has a FPTV setup, PJ and screen. And I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of those owners do not have a silver screen.

IMO, an exisitng 2D screen will work with 3D as long as it's active shutter glasses. Those with a higher gain will produce better results due to the light loss through the glasses. This could be compensated for by a higher output bulb.

The first 1080P 3D PJ's may just be Checkerboard models with wobulation. This is already present in DLP RPTVs. The ASGs can be either DLP-Link, or provide a VESA port on the PJ for a small dongle like emitter that the Bit Cauldron glasses use for their RF comm, so there will be no line of site issues like there could be with IR, seeing as how the PJ is above and probably behind the viewers. Could also be Bluetooth.

All the infrastructure is in place for the above. Changing to Passive 3D IMO, is reinventing the wheel. Everyone would have to add a silver screen by some way or another. And for what reason? One thing about PJ's, add more chips/engines and the price skyrockets.

Agreed. Unless there's a significant gain in 3D or overall image quality or lower cost to compensate for the new screen purchase, polarized 3D will have more hurdles for a current PJ owner who's eager to "upgrade" his/her projector to 3D status. Yes, polarized eyewear is cheaper, but when you consider the cost of a new screen, that investment (in active eyewear) becomes less of a barrier for a FP consumer unless he/she plans to host very large 3D parties.

After digging, I mean really digging and a lot of cost / effort soul searching ... I also decided to do 3D, I will get the least expensive projector that will do it. (DLP with DLP-LINK Glasses)

I'll just set the darn thing up when I want to screen something 3D.

Ease and cost? Nothing really beats the DLP 3D solutions. I actually think this whole thing will bring DLP back to a more prominant position in the market place.

yes, but only when DLP 3D solutions can provide full 1920 x 1080 HD in 3D. The current wobblation approach is a great compromise for those not interested in full HD 3D, but it's not the end-game that will satisfy ardent videophiles and it won't compete too favorably along side 3D solutions that do brag about full 1080p HD 3D performance.

I'm confident that this year's CEDIA will showcase several high-performance DLP 3D solutions that utilize the entire 1920 x 1080p DMD matrix for each eye to render full 1080p 3D.

Are a projector's throw ratios and zoom ability going to be affected by 3D? My particular setup requires some flexibility that LCD's have traditionally been able to handle, so I may have to come up with something for a DLP solution if that's what it takes. However, I was just wondering if you'd lose any more placement flexibility with a 3D DLP projector over a standard 2D one.