New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion - Page 2

Agreed

Just got out of Fry's. Verdict: Still half resolution guys. :P

I'm really surprised to read this; I honestly can't see a drop in resolution between my active plasma and my 7600, which appears to my eyes to be so much sharper than earlier generation passive sets.

I guess different people have different tolerances for stuff like this.

Out of curiosity, what was playing on the TV?

I wish claims could be proven on line using photos of a test pattern. Unfortunately all the claims that "the brain combines right left eye half resolution images and somehow make them equal to right and left eye full resolution images" make that impossible.

Like I said everyone has different tolerances and what looks great to me may be unacceptable to someone else. I was very much against passive and could easily make out a drop in resolution with earlier sets (check out some of my earlier posts) but this new TV worked for me.

In the end all anyone can really do is see it for themselves and decide how it looks to them.

Despicable Me was playing. The salesman wasn't informed if they had any glasses for testing. I was close to the screen and without the glasses on. I could see the interleaved rows whenever there were parallax differences:

Maybe the early demos you saw Tony had the sharpness set too high. It makes a big difference on my 42" LG when I switch between picture presets.

One difference between the first passive sets and the newer ones is that they do actually send every pixel in the source image to screen whereas before only half the pixels were ever displayed to each eye. Now for the first 120th of a second each eye sees half of the pixels of a 60hz frame, and then for the second 120th of a second each eye sees the remaining half of the pixels. Rear projection DLPs sort of do a similar thing for 2D except instead of alternating lines, they sample every other source pixel in an overlapping checkerboard pattern. If you get really close to a passive set, you can see the alternating line structure when looking through 3d glasses, while on a DLP you can't because each half-frame is a solid image. The downside is that with 3D on a DLP set, each eye only sees a half-resolution image for 120th of a second and then black for the next 120th of a second, so half of the pixels in the source image are never seen.

Well on a passive set using FPR, you will always see rows when looking at a 3D without glasses. Even when they switch to a 4K set, you will still see rows if you get close enough, it's just that then they will be able to have a full 1080p frame displayed simultaneously for each eye at the same time because they would have 2160 display lines available. They won't have to resort to showing half the lines at a time.

I think you are partially right. At 2160 the pixels are smaller therefore the lines will be thinner and less visible, unless the screen is a large size like 84" which would have pixel lines Approx. the size of a 42" 1080 display.

That remaining half of the pixels are displayed on the same pixel lines the first half of the pixels were displayed on. The blacked out lines to each eye remain black because of the opposite polarity of the glasses and the hardware pattern applied to the screen. LG then can claim all 1080 lines are displayed, but the black lines are still black.

I agree that scientifically you are correct, however when the ILLUSION is applied in real world situations the comfortability of passive displays far outweigh the comfortability of active displays.

True and false. While half the pixels of the source image are never seen, it is not because the are black, but because only half are sampled.

They are not "black" for the next 1/120th of a second because they don't exist in that 1/120th of a second (and the shutters are closed in the glasses for the same period). However, due to the nature of the checkerboard pattern, there is information from all 1080 lines shown to each eye, unlike passive, where every other line is completely blocked by polarization and used for the opposite eye.

As Robut stated, the polarization never changes, so if it is done as you say, the second set of lines would have to be superimposed on top of the first set, rather than be above and below, where they belong. You still only see 540 lines per eye.

Thanks for the reference. Kane's talk was interesting, but I found it totally unpersuasive. The problem was that he didn't give any evidence about what people can resolve spatially watching 3d on an FPR display. The only experiment he described concerned how differing colors to the two eyes are resolved. What does that have to do with spatial resolution? Apparently, nothing. He just kept saying "they [the left and right images] don't add", as though that meant something.

I don't know what you mean "spatial resolution". I understand Kane clearly. Each eye gets 540 lines of vertical resolution and the perceived image is not additive. It does not add up to 1080 vertical resolution. If the resulting image was combined by the brain it would not be 3D. the eyes and brain have to see two separate images to be 3D and those images are 540 vertical resolution.

Instead of piecing them together as one whole full resolution image it just looks like thousands of pixel-size retinal rivalries, confusing flickers resulting from there being differences between the left and right eyes. Sit back far enough though and it looks fine, as long as you're not reading small fonts.

That's what Kane said, I know, but that inference makes no sense to me. If the distance information is extracted before before the left and right images are amalgamated into a single coherent picture, why shouldn't you wind up with a 3D 1080 line image? It just depends on how the human eye-brain works. What do Kane and you know about that that I don't? There is nothing conceptually impossible about a system that examines two 540 line images, detects objects and measures horizontal disparities to determine distances of the objects, then combines the two 540 line images into one 1080 line image, then finally adds back in the distance information to produce a 1080 3D image. If Kane wants to prove something about how much vertical resolution a human can resolve in one of these 3D images, why doesn't he just test that directly?

I think Kane knows a lot more about this than both of us. He studies this stuff for a living.

Maybe you should read this.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels

Okay, I've read it. Is there supposed to be some evidence there relevant to how much vertical information humans can resolve in FPR 3D images? There's nothing there of relevance. I see an argument that to reduce "vertical judder" the manufacturers of FPR sets have been forced to reduce vertical resolution. Maybe that's true. Does it show that humans can resolve at most 540 vertical lines in a display of the FPR type? No, not at all. It's irrelevant to that claim.

Please, the next time you have a reading recommendation for me, kindly mention specifically the passages that you think are relevant to the discussion? I just don't have the patience to read through reams of material, taking it on faith that it is actually relevant.

I give up.

All quotes (in green) are from the article you just read.

I appreciate your trouble in making the important parts green. It's a fact that with this type of display, each eye sees only 540 lines at any instant. I already said above why this does not establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D. Each 60th of a second, all the information for 1080 lines is present. Can you say why it is you think that human perception of vertical resolution is limited to the maximum lines that each eye alone can see at any instant?

This is 100% correct, how do we know, if perhaps I was focused on each individual dot then I probably wouldn't even be able to process a 3d image cause my brain would be superior?

Let's use logic.

If the argument applies for passive, it must also apply for active.

If what you claim is true (that 540 lines per eye at any instant = 1080 resolution in 3D), then someone watching active (1080 lines per eye at any instant) is resolving those 1080 lines for a total of 2160 lines in 3D, which is still double that of the passive claim.

By your own argument, passive would still be half the resolution of active.

I don't know, but when I view passive it looks like 540 lines to me with the 3d effect making it look a little better and producing a soft image compared to active 720 or 1080 3d.

Let's try a diagram.

Picture information in each line is shown by a + symbol, and a blacked out line is shown by a - symbol. Information flashed twice (even lines added on top of odd, or vice versa) is shown by a # symbol.

Line of information ++++++
Line blacked out by filter --------
Line of double information ######

Active (1080 lines per eye)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

passive (540 lines per eye)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Passive (double the info, still 540 lines per eye)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
##################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
##################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
##################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
##################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
##################################################
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

With active all lines are resolved by the eye.

With passive, every other line (540) is resolved by the eye, regardless of content. Flashing a line twice or even flashing two different lines in the same space does not matter, as the other 540 lines are always blacked out by the polarization of the glasses. The only solution would be to alternate the polarization of each line, to enable the second flash to be in the proper location. Of course, this would require an active screen, which would be way more expensive and complicated (if it's even possible to do) than using active glasses.

To each their own, whether it be passive or active. There's no need to make up theories or parrot marketing spin to justify owning a passive set. If you like it, watch it.

What matters is that one can still enjoy 3D either way.

I did not make such a claim. For all I know, Kane could be right that the FPR system limits resolution to 540 lines. But I'm not prepared to believe it without evidence. In the two references given above, I don't think there is any evidence. I've said why.

ahem

Amen to that. I don't get hung up on the numbers. If the display looks pleasing to my eyes then I am happy. What more needs to be said.