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

That's what it's all about, your personal 3D experience. Whichever you enjoy watching is the right choice for you.

Like many things in nature it's impossible to prove what the brain perceives, but arriving at conclusions based on physics is possible. That's what Kane does and I agree with him.

If you had identical images side by side and stood 2 feet from a passive and active display and were able to quickly switch glasses and judge the image. Believe me the passive image would be softer. I know that's not the way TV is viewed but to me it proves the perceived image of the passive is not 1080.

You will notice in the picture at the beginning of the article
http://www.hometheater.com/content/c...3d-flat-panels Joe Kane and Scott Wilkinson are doing that as well as more scientific tests described in the article.

I guess I have to go over this with you a little more carefully. I said "... this does not establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D...". What I said does not imply that I think 1080 lines in 3D can be resolved. I have no opinion as to whether 1080 lines can be resolved in 3D with the FPR displays. Nothing I have said implies that I have an opinion about that. I do have the opinion that you and Kane are wrong when you claim that the fact that each eye separately can see only 540 lines at any time proves that both eyes functioning together can distinguish only 540 lines. It doesn't follow. It could still be true, even though not yet shown to be true.

What physics? I don't see any physics going on here at all.

In the second Kane reference above, Kane says he thinks the FPR manufacturer has applied low pass vertical filtering to avoid vertical judder. If this is so, this is a sufficient reason for you and Kane to see a softer display, and so that may have nothing to do with your pseudo-scientific reasoning that at most 540 lines can be distinguished in FPR 3D displays.

Ultimately this is the most logical conclusion. However now I want both. I also agree that in my research, before buying the set I ended up buying, I am going on record as saying I agree that you do get a better image from an active display but I still prefer passive and think it is more comfortable on the eyes and produces a great 3d illusion.

Yeah passive looks amazing. Pundits of passive technology do seem to be quick to subtract what the brain can do versus adding what it may look like to our real world eyes.

Notice the two negatives. Removing the first one changes the statement to:

"... this does establish that a person with two eyes cannot resolve 1080 lines in 3D...".

Removing the second one changes the statement to:

"... this does not establish that a person with two eyes can resolve 1080 lines in 3D...".

Either a person can or cannot resolve 1080 lines with passive displays. There is no middle choice. Your statement in of itself implies the opposite argument.


There are only 540 lines to distinguish, ergo each eye cannot see 1080 lines. Explain how it doesn't follow. Explain where the other 540 lines come from.

Another logic experiment:

Let's say there are two ducks on a pond in front of you. If you cover your right eye and count the ducks, there are two ducks. If you cover your left eye and count the ducks, there are two ducks. Both eyes functioning together see how many ducks? Two or Four?

Passive 3D is the equivalent of top and bottom 3D in an active system.

In both, the left and right views are shown at half the vertical resolution (540 odd lines to one eye, 540 even lines to the other). What goes in is what comes out. The arguments for one being better than the other (active vs passive) only apply to these two formats. Apples and apples.

For Bluray3D shown on a passive 3D system, as in top and bottom, half the lines for each eye are discarded, and 540 lines are shown to each eye, as above. Bluray3D on an active 3D system shows all 1080 lines to each eye, so it is no longer an apples to apples comparison.

Also, the argument that the "brain sees" 1080 lines when presented 540 lines per eye, does not matter at all, as the same principle (even if the underlying mechanics are unknowm) has to apply to the 1080 lines per eye of active as well. If the 540 lines are doubled by the brain, the 1080 must be doubled also, so the half resolution argument still stands.

EDIT:

Does any of this matter? Probably not. The black lines in a passive filter are much like a screen door that one must look through. Try looking out a screen door up close. The screen blocks out much of the image of the outdoors (not half, but close enough for this example). As you step back from the door, you can focus more on the overall view than the screen, and the screen seems to disappear. However, if you immediately shift your gaze through a (clean) window, you can discern the difference in image quality quite readily. The screen is a compromise between a solid surface to keep out insects and an opening to let in air and light, just as passive is a compromise to keep out the right eye's view while letting in the left view (and vice versa). Both the screen door and the passive filter do their job to our satisfaction, even though there are compromises made.

Remember, resolution is defined as the number of lines that can be resolved at a standard distance from the TV screen, the distance being based on the size of the screen.

Just as with the screen door experiment, if you're watching a passive 46" TV from far enough back, the resolution loss won't matter, because from that distance 1080 looks the same as 540 anyway. That is where most of the "looks fine to me comments" come from.

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics...es/284986.html

While this is a comparison of 1080 and 720 in relation to viewing distance and TV size, the principle applies to 1080 vs 540 as well.

The physics that says opposite polarized lenses produce a black image. Therefore, the polarized lines of the filter applied to the screen and the polarized glasses together produce a black line over every other pixel line. Since when is that not called physics. I learned that in high school physics.

I can agree with this. When I view passive 3D it has striking depth. its nice and bright and more comfortable 3D glasses. I just can't stand claims on this forum and by LG advertising firms that the picture is full 1080 high definition.

I'm certainly not saying my display is perfect. Any crosstalk bothers me, but it is 1080p 3D, that's obvious.

The next display I purchase if technology is the same I would give passive some consideration. Hopefully that decision will not be necessary because technology will have advanced to include and go beyond the positive aspects of both technologies.

The brain combines both eyes images into a 1080 line image every 60th of a second. I never see two 540 images. Does anyone? When watching 1080i, which is the output of Blu-ray and HDTV, the passive is displaying exactly what it is being fed. I don't believe the brain can distinguish 1080i to each eye or alternate eye 1080i. Just like 1080i as compared to 1080p, 1080i passive can cause artifacts.

Part of the problem is that resolution numbers are often treated the same whether they're 2D or 3D. It's true that 540 plus 540 equals a full 1080, but that ignores the fact that 1080p 3D isn't the same as 1080p 2D. 1080p 3D is two 1080p 2D images, so it's really 2160 total. There's a lot more perceived detail in 1080p 3D vs 1080p 2D, and I think it's one of the hidden benefits of 3D. The only problem is that current passive displays miss out on this advantage. 4k passive displays will pretty much solve the problem though.

Here's a thread where I wrote more about this issue: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1402400

I took 2 photos of my passive LG, through the left and right lenses, and put them into an MPO file.

http://www.mediafire.com/?28c1wkwpnlkb32x

This is an extreme example, the image is blown up and dealing with super fine PC text is far more demanding than real images- but it will put to rest some debate.

540 +540 or 1080, they're the same pixels. It's not 2160 different pixels. Like I said 24fps 1080p is assembled from 1080i or vice versa, there is no difference. I don't think you really want to watch 24fps. It seems to me that 4K passive will display the lines to each eye offset from each other. If this causes a problem, remains to be seen (by me).

There's 2160 different lines of pixels for each frame stored on the Blu-ray. On a 1080p active set, there's physically only 1080p's worth of pixels, but each one is doing double duty, so you see 2160p's worth of video data.

The passive is displaying them also AFIC in two frame flashes instead if one frame and a blank frame from active. It's like saying 720p is really 1440 because it displays twice as fast as 1080i, no.

Are you referring specifically to LG's passive implementation where each pixel does double duty? I don't know how well it works in practice, but technically, yes, it lets you see every pixel of data on a 3D Blu-ray.


720p 3D is 1440 lines of data. 720p left, 720p right. It's not displayed as 1440p, but if it's frame packed it's sent through HDMI that way and then left to the TV how to display it. Whatever you want to call it, 720p 3D is much more than 720p 2D. Google frame packed and you'll see that each frame on a Blu-ray pretty much is 2160p.

Wow, now we have taken 540p passive 3d, make it 1080p 3d? Which then took active 3d up to 2160p? Is this the new argument? :rolls eyes: lmao lol

Yeah, if it were true wouldn't a side-by-side 1920x1080 file look as sharp as full 1080p 2D?

Active flashes one eye, then the shutter closes while the other eye is displayed, so yes, that is effectively half the light output to each eye, just as passive is half the light output to each eye. (Passive is covering half the lines to each eye with the filter, cutting out half the picture for that eye, so it is also half the light output to each eye, in addition to the loss of resolution.)

I think what is meant is the fact that Bluray 3D uses a different frame system, fitting two (one left, one right) 1080 frames into one without losing resolution, effectively making each frame 2160 (actually 45 pixels larger because of other data).

As most of us know, active 3D displays separate the info into two complete 1080P images, and flash one after another for each eye.


http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-frame-packing-3d/


Top and Bottom 3D, while similar, fits half the information into a standard 1080 frame, thus cutting resolution in half.



http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-over-under-top-and-bottom-3d/

Unlike a passive 3D theater, where two full resolution pictures are projected through polarizing filters onto the screen one after the other* and then separated by the glasses, passive TV displays pull half of the lines for one frame and half of the lines for the other frame and interlace them together behind a striped filter. This, in combination with the filters in the glasses, blocks out every other line to only allow the odd lines through to one eye while the even lines go to the other eye. (for a Top and Bottom frame as shown above, it interlaces the existing half resolution image)

*In a theater, each polarized full frame (left/right) is flashed in sequence, similarly to how an active 3DTV system works





http://www.miracube.net/technology/

Yeah Auger, that's possibly what he meant, which is accurate.

These physics seminars are really confusing. Can't people just cut the theories and jump straight to the lab tests? Just check out my MPO and you'll see the truth. It doesn't combine to full resolution because 3D requires identical but horrizontally shifted images to work properly. If there are differences then there will be flickery disparities between the left and right eyes and your brain won't piece the opposing lines together properly. It looks like full resolution without the glasses on because the full resolution is there and is being displayed to both eyes identically. But wearing the glasses half the resolution is lost to each eye and the eyes see two completely different sets of 540 lines. With text it's the most obvious.

Every pixel yes, with half of them on the wrong line. One is still only seeing 540 lines per eye. It is called clever marketing.

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles...ve-methods.php

I agree, it lets them check that box ("full 1080p 3D, for real this time!"), it's brilliant marketing. Except, it's still not full 1080p 3D the way people would want it. I could see how maybe flashing the missed lines allows for more perceived detail, but I could also see how it might do the opposite, blurring the image and degrading clarity. I mean, you could do the same on a 2D panel, for example a 720p panel which flashes the missing 360 lines of a 1080p Blu-ray, but it doesn't sound like a good idea.

Jeez, after reading this thread, you guys are making me doubt the move from my Sammy UN55D8000 to the upcoming LG 55LM9600. It's too bad BB and similar stores run crappy signals to these sets. I watched some passive demos on the LM7600 and I liked the depth and brightness of the LG. But my D8000 wiped the floor when it came to overall PQ while watching 3D. Then again, it is a crappy source they're playing. What to do......

A lot gets said about resolution because there's a lot of confusion. What gets missed, I think, is how little it matters. While passive displays may have half resolution in 3D, it's still a ton of detail and the same number of pixels you get in 1080p 2D. At that point, things like brightness, crosstalk, comfort, etc matter much more.

This is your "opinion". I think the jury's out. All of those issues are being addressed with some success by Manuf. of newer displays and glasses.

It's my opinion, not my "opinion." My point is just to consider all factors in a particular 3D display, not just resolution. Brightness and crosstalk are also very important to consider. Full 1080p per eye isn't any good if it's dim and full of crosstalk. You also have to ask yourself if the TV is large enough and your viewing distance close enough to resolve 1080p in the first place. I don't think this is a controversial opinion.

There is no truth to any of any of this.

I LIKE 3D

So glad I get to enjoy 3d whenever I want and with my personal photos, video games and movies too. That I come here to share a passion with others, but there isn't any truths in opinions, just opinions.

This is a general message to anyone who hasn't examined a passive LG up close: please stop talking.

Can't tell if you're agreeing with my statement or telling me to shut up.