or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion - Page 5

post #121 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

I apologize if either of you were confused as to what I meant by True 1080p. If DLP and passive can claim "1080p" in 3D, there needs to be a term for the LED/LCD/Plasma sets that conveys their superior full 1920x1080 per eye. To my eye the LCD/LED/Plasma sets' 3D modes look as sharp but not sharper than 2D 1080p, so I would call them 1080p, plain and simple. To my eye DLP and passive sets have significantly REDUCED picture resolution compared to a 2D 1080p image, so I would not call them 1080p. If I'm forced to consider them as 1080p as I am in this thread, then I'm going to assign the LCD/LED/Plasma sets with a prefix of "true" or "full" to differentiate the BS.

No need to apologize. Blame the admen.

I don't think passive is claiming 1080P per eye, I think that's the interpretation of less technical readers. I could be wrong though. As I understand it, LG is claiming all the pixels to each eye, but that's not the same as 1080 lines.

Bluray started all this with their "Full HD to each eye" advertising. If we all called it "framepacked" (which I believe only Bluray is) the confusion would end. But evidently that's not catchy enough to sell to joe consumer.
post #122 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

..And so it is with 1080p, technically it refers to lines, but it is generally understood to mean 1920x1080 pixels, 2 million pixels...

Well the problem with that is that resolution was defined back in the CRT days when there were no pixels, so it never referred to pixels, only to lines. Pixels and lines are not the same thing, and thus the confusion.

As with any term (especially technical terms) that people are not familiar with they tend to assume it's meaning without really investigating. Which is also why so many people erronerously assume DLP 3D is 960x1080 or 1920x540 because it uses "half the pixels". They dont bother to investigate and learn the true nature of things. (DLP is actually referred to as 960x540 interlocked pairs)


See this comparison.

960 x 1080 interleave left eye sub-frame looks like this (side by side 3D)

960 lines x 1080 lines


1920 x 540 interleave left eye sub-frame looks like this (Top and Bottom, and passive 3D)

1920 lines x 540 lines


Checkerboard interleave left eye sub-frame looks like this

1920 lines x 1080 lines


All have the same amount of pixels, but the lines of resolution differ. Checkerboard retains 1920 x 1080 lines. It is still 1080P.
post #123 of 237
Guys, you can't settle whether a TV has 1080P resolution on technical grounds (unless you can show that a TV simply can't display enough pixels). This discussion resembles a medieval discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What is the meaning of "angel"? What does 1080P truly mean? But who cares what it means, for this question? A claim about vertical resolution is a claim about human perception. The only way to settle a dispute about the matter is an empirical test to see just what humans can resolve. It's never going to resolved (so to speak) by meditating on the essence of 1080Pness.
post #124 of 237
The problem isn't that we don't understand checkerboard, the problem is we don't agree on terminology. You didn't answer my question. What term should we use for a 1080p panel with 2 million pixels? Full HD 1080p?
post #125 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Guys, you can't settle whether a TV has 1080P resolution on technical grounds (unless you can show that a TV simply can't display enough pixels). This discussion resembles a medieval discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What is the meaning of "angel"? What does 1080P truly mean? But who cares what it means, for this question? A claim about vertical resolution is a claim about human perception. The only way to settle a dispute about the matter is an empirical test to see just what humans can resolve. It's never going to resolved (so to speak) by meditating on the essence of 1080Pness.

The difference is, 1080P resolution has a standard definition [no pun intended] in the industry, and can be measured. The rest is lay interpretation.
post #126 of 237
Today this thread grew by 20% and it is a great discussion.
post #127 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The problem isn't that we don't understand checkerboard, the problem is we don't agree on terminology. You didn't answer my question. What term should we use for a 1080p panel with 2 million pixels? Full HD 1080p?

A 1080P panel is called a 1080P panel. A 720P panel is called a 720P panel. (a 1080i panel also has 2,073,600 pixels)

We were discussing 3D resolution per eye, however. A DLP is a 1080P panel with over 2 million pixels, as is a passive LCD.

The difference is that while they display the same amount of pixels to each eye in 3D (half), passive displays them using 540 lines of the panel, while checkerboard displays them using 1080 lines. Both are progressive displays.
post #128 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

We were discussing 3D resolution per eye, however. A DLP is a 1080P panel with over 2 million pixels, as is a passive LCD.


What about a 1080p DLP projector with 2 million pixels which doesn't use checkerboard? What can I call it? EDIT: What may I call it?
post #129 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

... What can I call it? EDIT: What may I call it?



Sounds like its a 1080P projector to me.
post #130 of 237
How do I differentiate it from a 1080p checkerboard DLP?
post #131 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

How do I differentiate it from a 1080p checkerboard DLP?

By not using the word "checkerboard".

Not all DLPs use checkerboard, and not all checkerboard displays are DLPs.

You know, there are some non-DLP TVs out there that can display both frame packed (2,073,600 pixels per eye), and checkerboard (1,036,800 pixels per eye), both of course, at 1080P.

One would call it a 1080P 3DTV, capable of displaying in frame packed or checkerboard 3D. The difference being no mirrors to interpolate the missing pixels in checkerboard mode.
post #132 of 237
The problem is we're now using "1080p" to describe the number of pixels difference between checkerboard and non-checkerboard. Weren't you saying "1080p" should refer only to the lines rather than the number of pixels? We're calling one "1080p" and the other "1080p checkerboard," to describe the pixels now.

It seems like we could use a term to better describe the difference in the number of pixels. For example, a Full HD 1080p vs Half HD 1080p (checkerboard). Or at least some term that will make things less confusing.
post #133 of 237
I was never arguing that the panel itself isn't full 1920x1080. Rather that the resulting images are not 1920x1080 per eye, and that the eyes do not fuse the two signals into a double resolution 3D image- the resulting image is less clear than a 1920x1080 per eye 120hz 3D image.
post #134 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The problem is we're now using "1080p" to describe the number of pixels difference between checkerboard and non-checkerboard.

Not at all. 1080P describes the lines of resolution, not the pixel count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

...You know, there are some non-DLP TVs out there that can display both frame packed (2,073,600 pixels per eye), and checkerboard (1,036,800 pixels per eye), both of course, at 1080P.

One would call it a 1080P 3DTV, capable of displaying in frame packed or checkerboard 3D. The difference being no mirrors to interpolate the missing pixels in checkerboard mode.

Quote:


Weren't you saying "1080p" should refer only to the lines rather than the number of pixels? We're calling one "1080p" and the other "1080p checkerboard," to describe the pixels now, with no word that actually refers to pixels....

The word referring to pixels is checkerboard.

Frame packed, Side by side, Top and Bottom, and Checkerboard all refer to the number of pixels for each. In the same order; 1920x1080, 960x1080, 1920x540, and 1920x1080 all refer to the lines of resolution per eye for each.

Frame packed, 1920x1080, (2,073,600 pixels) per eye
Side by side, 960x1080 (1,036,800 pixels) per eye
Top and Bottom, 1920x540, (1,036,800 pixels) per eye
Checkerboard, 1920x1080, (1,036,800 pixels) per eye

Only frame packed displays 2,073,600 pixels per eye
Only frame packed and checkerboard are 1080P per eye

None of this ever changes.
post #135 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Frame packed, Side by side, Top and Bottom, and Checkerboard all refer to the number of pixels for each. In the same order; 1920x1080, 960x1080, 1920x540, and 1920x1080 all refer to the lines of resolution per eye for each.

All I'm saying is that with DLP every other pixel in those rows/columns is blank to one eye and all other pixels are blank to the other eye, so each eye only ever sees about a million pixels on the grid. Though due to this checkerboard pattern the artifacts aren't as noticeable as passive's sharp solid horizontal lines.

In the end, neither passive or DLP are full 1920x1080 PIXELS per eye, which is why they both look inferior in terms of resolution and clarity, to full 1920x1080p per eye active shutter LED, LCD, Plasma, etc.
post #136 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

All I'm saying is that with DLP every other pixel in those rows/columns is blank to one eye and all other pixels are blank to the other eye, so each eye only ever sees about a million pixels on the grid. Though due to this checkerboard pattern the artifacts aren't as noticeable as passive's sharp solid horizontal lines.

In the end, neither passive or DLP are full 1920x1080 PIXELS per eye, which is why they both look inferior in terms of resolution and clarity, to full 1920x1080p per eye active shutter LED, LCD, Plasma, etc.

That's fair if you were to change the bolded part to "2,073,600 PIXELS", because while passive is not 1920x1080 per eye, DLP is 1920x1080 per eye (though they are both only 1,036,800 pixels per eye)
post #137 of 237
Auger, I see by your calculations of DLP's number of pixels (1 million as opposed to 2 million) you and I are on the exact same page.

I think of resolution in terms of pixels, where 1920x1080 means a completely fully saturated grid of pixels. So when you were saying DLP is 1920x1080 per eye, I took it to mean 2M pixels per eye- even if you did think you were being clear enough to me by using the term line and not pixel.

I only ever think of lines when referring to interlaced signals.
post #138 of 237
Reading this thread has given me a headache that's not from active shudder glasses.
post #139 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

That's fair if you were to change the bolded part to "2,073,600 PIXELS", because while passive is not 1920x1080 per eye, DLP is 1920x1080 per eye (though they are both only 1,036,800 pixels per eye)

I think of 1920x1080 as a fully saturated grid of pixels. I think of the x as a multiplier. I think of an image that is 100% full density, 1920x1080 with no blank pixels.

You need to be able to differentiate during a discussion, between 1920x1080 lines and 1920x1080 pixels, instead of calling them both 1920x1080. I would have been much less confused if I had known you understood the difference in density.
post #140 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Auger, I see by your calculations of DLP's number of pixels (1 million as opposed to 2 million) you and I are on the exact same page.

I think of resolution in terms of pixels, where 1920x1080 means a completely fully saturated grid of pixels. So when you were saying DLP is 1920x1080 per eye, I took it to mean 2M pixels per eye- even if you did think you were being clear enough to me by using the term line and not pixel.

I only ever think of lines when referring to interlaced signals.

Understood. Think of the DLP lines as dotted lines, if it helps. Lines are what's counted, and in today's TVs those lines are made up of pixels, so there's the rub. In top and bottom or passive the lines are missing. In DLP they are there. They may have only half the pixels, but they are there.

The good thing is, people with active plasmas, active LCDs, active DLPs, or passive LCDs all seem to be pretty happy with their resolution, so everything's just fine.
post #141 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Frame packed, 1920x1080, (2,073,600 pixels) per eye
Side by side, 960x1080 (1,036,800 pixels) per eye
Top and Bottom, 1920x540, (1,036,800 pixels) per eye
Checkerboard, 1920x1080, (1,036,800 pixels) per eye

Only frame packed displays 2,073,600 pixels per eye
Only frame packed and checkerboard are 1080P per eye

The problem here is we're now describing the video signal rather than the panel. A 1080p passive display will display 1 million pixels per eye whether you give it 1080p side by side, 1080p top and bottom, 720p frame packed, or 1080p frame packed.

In any case, as I said before I don't think that we're misunderstanding any of the technologies, we just disagree on how to define it. I still think the majority of the time 2 million pixels is meant when "full 1080p" is stated in practice. Call it the colloquial definition vs the technical one. You might call it the wrong vs right definition, but I think personality and attitudes toward language usage come in to this.

I wish "1080" could mean just one thing, but I think it's important to realize it doesn't. When salespeople or marketers promote passive displays, they can take advantage of the confusion. When they say it's full 1080 3D they're giving one definition (540p plus 540p in a 3D arrangement, unless they're confused themselves) but hoping you'll take it as another (1080p per eye).
post #142 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The problem here is we're now describing the video signal rather than the panel. A 1080p passive display will display 1 million pixels per eye whether you give it 1080p side by side, 1080p top and bottom, 720p frame packed, or 1080p frame packed.

In any case, as I said before I don't think that we're misunderstanding any of the technologies, we just disagree on how to define it. I still think the majority of the time 2 million pixels is meant when "full 1080p" is stated in practice. Call it the colloquial definition vs the technical one. You might call it the wrong vs right definition, but I think personality and attitudes toward language usage come in to this.

I wish "1080" could mean just one thing, but I think it's important to realize it doesn't. When salespeople or marketers promote passive displays, they can take advantage of the confusion between the colloquial (2 million pixels) and technical definitions (1080 lines). When they say it's full 1080 3D they're giving the technical definition (unless they're confused themselves) but hoping you'll take it as the colloquial definition.

That's because they're all 1080P panels.

It's a highly technical field, thus the technical definitions. Without them, the things couldn't get built.

1080 does mean only one thing. The confusion comes from trying to dumb it down. Sometimes, you just can't make it simple enough for people.

That's why one does their homework, and if the subject is too deep, asks for help. But one shouldn't just go by what a few people say, and shouldn't repeat things as gospel that they don't really understand.
post #143 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

... I would have been much less confused if I had known you understood the difference in density.

Well, with all the back and forth, it must have been missed, as I agreed about the pixel density several times. I guess I could have been clearer, or posted diagrams sooner.
post #144 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

The confusion comes from trying to dumb it down.

The confusion comes from 3D as well. In a 2D world a 1080p panel would be a 1080p panel as you say. In passive 3D, you're getting 540p per eye, 1080p total. In active 3D, you're getting 1080p per eye for 2160p total. On a 4k passive panel you can get 1080p per eye, etc.

1080 means 1080, but the context makes it into many different things.
post #145 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The confusion comes from 3D as well. In a 2D world a 1080p panel would be a 1080p panel as you say. In passive 3D, you're getting 540p per eye, 1080p total. In active 3D, you're getting 1080p per eye for 2160p total. On a 4k passive panel you can get 1080p per eye, etc.

1080 means 1080, but the context makes it into many different things.

Agreed.
post #146 of 237
The thing is, 3D resolution is probably the smallest part of the equation. Some people will buy passive purely for the fact that they can use free glasses from the theater. Some will buy plasma because it's... well, a plasma. Some will buy DLP TV or a projector simply because it's the biggest. Others will weigh a combination of all these factors, and prioritize them according to their needs and assumptions. Some will just pick the first one they see that fits over their fireplace. Everybody wins.
post #147 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Agreed.

We'll just have to find something else to argue about then.

This isn't the first time Augerhandle/Cakefoo/Airion have argued about definitions. Good times. I think the more people share a particular interest, the more they argue with each other about it.
post #148 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

We'll just have to find something else to argue about then.

This isn't the first time Augerhandle/Cakefoo/Airion have argued about definitions. Good times. I think the more people share a particular interest, the more they argue with each other about it.

and no juggling squirrels this time
post #149 of 237
I've only ever had two sisters, no brothers, so you two are like sisters to me :P
post #150 of 237
after reading through this thread. I have the new 2012 LG 55lm7600 and thoroughly impressed by the 3d and very impressed with the new 3d settings depth and viewport to allow for much deeper depths and more pops.

so you others can fight all you want over the tech haha.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion