New LG passive TV has best 3D - Opinion - Page 4

I half disagree with your statement. Yes, passive interlaced 3D is the same amount of pixels as 2D 1080p, but that means nothing at all when you put the glasses on and see what happens to fine detail.

Have you seen a passive LG in person? More importantly have you seen what it does to fine detail? Have you seen my MPO?

Yes, I've seen an LG in person but only very briefly. Yes, I saw your MPO (great demonstration).

When I say a 1080p passive TV lets you see the same number of pixels in 3D as 1080p 2D, I mean that literally. The exact same number of pixels, half in one eye and half in the other. I don't mean to suggest that you'll get images as sharp as 1080p 2D. However, you certainly get more perceived detail than a 540p 2D image because one eye sees things the other can't.

Please read this thread about the perceived detail advantage of 3D: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1402400
It includes a study that found that the perceived detail of 3D images equals that of 2D images only when the 3D image's resolution is reduced.

I repeat! All of those issues are being addressed with some success by Manuf. of newer displays and glasses.

Well, my 65" DLP is big enough and bright enough, and shows no crosstalk or ghosting. Same goes for my son's 73" DLP.

As stated by numerous people, with 3D, size is everything.

DLP isn't full 1080p anyway :O

I read a few pages of the PDF. It's far from similar to what happens in interlaced passive where half the lines are completely nixed from each eye and no pixel interpolation processing is performed to smooth the aliasing artifacts.

You are misinformed.

There's no such thing as "full 1080P". What you mean is "full HD" which is the marketing term for 1080P.

1080P means the picture is displayed as 1920 x 1080 lines, progressively scanned.

Resolution is measured in lines, as in 720 or 1080 lines of resolution for HD. With 1080i, the "i" is for interlaced, and when manufacturers began making 1080P (P=progressive scan) they called it "Full HD" to separate themselves from the pack.

Regardless, DLP is 1080P, as it displays using 1920 x 1080 lines, progressively scanned.

What I obviously meant was in 3D mode.

And so did I.

You must be thinking of the amount of data that is transmitted. I am talking about the real world, seeing with my own eyes, in terms of perceived clarity in the stereo image formed in the brain and the two eye views. To look like 1080p the image needs to be at or very very close to 1080p PER eye. Argue this and I will put you on ignore. You should get away from the paper and pencil and open your eyes.

I am thinking and talking about facts, as in the definition of 1080P and resolution. DLP 3D is 1080P. Not very close to, but exactly 1080 lines per eye, progressively scanned, just as passive is 540 lines. Real world facts. Open your own eyes.

http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/tv/WD-73740

http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducing%20DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Whitepaper.pdf

(Bold added by me and additional notes added by me are in red and bracketed)

This is real world, and you can see it with your own eyes. Ignore the truth if you want, but it has been proven both in theory and implementaion.

If one were to screen up the AVCHD calibration disc, and play Chapter 4. Horizontal Resolution 1 Pixel, it displays a pattern of alternating black and white lines, each one pixel high.

You can count them in 3D mode while looking through the 3D glasses with one eye. 540 black lines, and 540 white lines = 1080 lines per eye.

A test pattern with horizontal or vertical lines is not going to reveal the black and white of it all, because the LR signals are alternated in a checkered pattern. Put your DLP in 3D mode and if you're close enough with the glasses off you can see the checker pattern very clearly.

My eyes were opened and looking at a DLP TV screen. Yours are open looking at marketing speak meant to hide the fact that the resolution is cut significantly.

DLP has all 1920x1080 lines per eye, BUT since every other pixel in that line is missing, it's not full 1920x1080 per eye.

Turn the glasses on. Resolution is measured in lines, so the test pattern is the only way to test it.


I quoted a peer-reviewed scientific white paper, not marketing speak (remember your "full 1080P" comment?), not some obscure article or blog. I tested it with the proper test pattern, looking at a DLP screen in 3D mode with the glasses on. Try that test pattern on a passive set, and you'll see it displays 540 lines per eye.


You don't seem to grasp the definition of resolution, or of 1080P. The first part is correct, except there is no "but". Again, there's no such thing as "full" 1920 x 1080. It either is 1920 x 1080 lines or isn't 1920 x 1080 lines. DLP in 3D is still 1080 lines per eye, and resolution is measured in lines. No market speak required, it's an industry standard.

You would however, be correct if you said that every other pixel "in the source" was missing, but let's see how DLP translates that to the screen.

While passive, or even Top and Bottom, skips entire lines in order to work (and by definition, half the lines is half resolution), DLP skips pixels, maintaining the same amount of lines via the checkerboard pattern. The lines are still there. Thus it is still 1080p, can't argue around that.

Pixels are indeed missing from the source, but DLP goes one or two steps further. Unlike a fixed pixel display such as LCD or plasma, the mirrors in each subframe of a DLP are diamond shaped and displayed twice as large as the original pixel, so that it overlaps the adjoining "missing" pixels with its points. Thus the entire screen is used for each eye's view.

In this diagram, the mirrors are shown as diamonds, overlayed on the active pixels. Notice how the mirrors are twice the size of the square pixels (which are shown as gray squares behind the diamonds). The squares with dots in their center are the active pixels, the squares without dots are "blank" pixels, left out of the source because of the checkerboard sampling.

click to enlarge

Let's look closer at just one pixel. Note the different colors of the diamond pixels surrounding the “hole” where "blank" pixel 2-7 (Line 2, Column 7) should be. Although blank in the source, the color of pixel 2-7 appears as a combination of the other four diamond colors, and is formed by the intersection of their adjacent corners. (The other three corners of each of the adjacent colored diamonds are left blank for pixel clarity). It is in this way that the entire line is painted (no pixel location is left blank), unlike passive and other half resolution formats. This is not opinion or conjecture, this is how checkerboard 3D works, and why it works so well.

Call it pixel interpolation, magic, or even cheating, but it works. And by definition, it was always 1080P per eye.

I say resolution isn't everything, look for a bright display with little crosstalk, and people make assumptions! I have a DLP active 3D projector with a 90" high gain screen FTW!


Of course, the study used an ideal 3D display method to remove all other factors such as interlacing, glasses, even motion. It looked strictly at perceived detail of 2D vs 3D images, and nothing else. This is good science, and it tells us about an inherent quality of 3D. I don't think you can dismiss it just because a particular 3D display has other issues.

That said, I can see how the aliasing you describe can be a problem. I do in fact trust your opinion on these things since I don't have the experience of sitting down and viewing one of these things for hours on end, while you do. I'm curious though, is the resolution and detail of your passive LG really so bad in practice? I mean, I wrote a bunch of posts here about how the full 1080 claim is bogus, I'm not cheer leading for passive. It just seems to me that half 1080p 3D (heck, even 2D) is still in HD territory at the end of the day, and will be just fine in the right setting.


As to the 1080 checkerboard thing, you're both right. Augerhandle's full 1080p claim reminds me of LG's full 1080p claim, it's technically correct but misleading (it's not the 1920x1080 people think of as 1080p). On the other hand, he's right that the checkerboard pattern works amazingly well and you can't say it looks like half 1080p. But hey, have at it!

I would reword that to "people sometimes don't understand what 1920 x 1080 actually means".

It is 1920 lines wide x 1080 lines tall, which is the definition of 1080P.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
red by me
One can argue all day that DLP 3D uses only half the source pixels per eye or half the diagonal resolution, and I will defer. But if you think it isn't 1080P, you are simply mistaken.

dlp tv's are too fat for my taste :-p I'll stick with projectors for large size entertainment!

6-7 feet away viewing an image on my 42" passive LG, I can totally live with the resolution loss. But I must say that most of the speculation is either exaggerating or downplaying the actual impact, and that it's best if people see these displays in person and examine content from normal seating distances as well as examine with a microscope up close.

On one hand, very small PC text will distort/alias because the clarity of a single pixel is extremely important for the readability of text. A regular photograph or video, however, will have less noticeable aliasing- but there is a risk of seeing the individual horizontal lines if you try to get too close.


Well, whether it looks as bad as half 1080p isn't the argument I was having- I'm just saying it's definitely nowhere near as as good as true 1080p per eye. I subscribe SLIGHTLY to the theory that the resulting stereo image MAY achieve SLIGHTLY better perceived resolution than one eye alone with the same single resolution, but in practice it's nowhere NEAR 1080p 2D. Not even close.

Once again, you're technically right, but it reminds me of my 10th grade English teacher.

Me: "Can I go to the bathroom?"
Her: "I don't know, can you?"

That is misleading. All 1920 columns only have 540 pixels per eye instead of 1080, and all 1080 rows have only 960 pixels per eye instead of 1920.

The result is aliasing, jaggies, blocks and a picture that looks much closer to half 1080p 2D than full 1080p 2D.

True 1080p? Really? I don't think you will ever understand.

Just for giggles, I googled "true 1080p" and got this
"True 1080P" meaning "not 1080i".

Might as well say it's "Cakefoo1080P" as long as you're going to unilaterally redefine the terminolgy of an industry.

The only thing misleading is your concept of the term. You listed the terms correctly yourself above (1920 x 1080), though you called the columns rows and vice versa. Top and Bottom is 1920x520 per eye and Side by side is 960x1080 per eye. Checkerboard is neither.

I'm not arguing the half pixel thing, or the supposed artifacting, or how you think it looks. Those are all valid concerns. But resolution is measured horizontally and vertically, not diagonally. It is in fact 1080P per eye.

How do you differentiate between 1080p with 2 million pixels and 1080p with 1 million pixels in a checkerboard format? What's the terminology that would satisfy you?

Yes, a 24fps 1920x1080p image is packed into a 1080i signal for transmission, then unpacked to 1920x1080p for the TV display. "a true 1080p quality image" means 1920x1080 progressive when viewed on a set that performs the telecine properly.

If you guys are just arguing the semantics of my terminology and citing Wikipedia, then look here:


True 1080p and Full HD are not official terms but they are generally widely accepted and used to convey 1920x1080 progressive and I only used the term to differentiate between 1920x1080 per eye (most non-DLP active shutter sets) and anything less than that (most DLP and passive).

And you didn't get the point that she was trying to teach you back then?

Words have correct meanings and usages. If everyone understands the meanings and uses the correct words, there is no confusion. Just like in school, if one insists on their own personal meaning of a word rather than using it properly, one causes confusion, and in later life one ends up in an unnecessary back and forth argument on the forums.

You should call your teacher, and tell her you get it now.

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.

And that's where the confusion sets in. 1920x1080 progressive means just that, nothing more. It doesn't matter if they are dotted lines, wavy lines, or zigzag lines.

Use the term the way it was designed to be used, and no confusion.

"Checkerboard 1080P per eye", or just "Checkerboard" says it all. We know by definiton that checkerboard uses half the pixels, and we know by definition that it is 1080P, All other statements, such as your original one "checkerboard is not 1080P" are incorrect and confuse the issue.

Point is, words don't always mean exactly one thing. Just because "can" means "able to," doesn't mean "can I go to the bathroom" is asking if I am physically capable of moving myself to the bathroom , or asking if I know how to use a toilet. In context, it's asking for permission. I know this, you know this, my teacher knew this (she was being facetious, and just wanted me to use the more polite "may I"). The irony is now that I teach English in Japan, we teach them "can I" for asking permission. Right there in the text book! So I'm going to call my teacher and tell her that!

And so it is with 1080p, technically it refers to lines, but it is generally understood to mean 1920x1080 pixels, 2 million pixels. Clinging to a narrow, literal definition of 1080p has not facilitated communication. If you're going to say this notion of 1080p is wrong, fine. But then we have to ask, what is the term we can use for 1920x1080, 2 million pixels, if not "full" or "true" 1080p? EDIT: That is, to differentiate it from checkerboard 1080p, if that is considered full or true 1080p as well?