AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › After three years of 3D my conclusion is
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

After three years of 3D my conclusion is - Page 2

post #31 of 250
5/23/12 at 1:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

I have watched a lot of 3D content on my HW30ES since taking ownership in February. I have had no significant issues using it for 3D BDs. Granted I primarily use the Monster/Optoma RF glasses.

Again passive would be nice, but it would require multiple projectors, specialized filters, effort and mounting system for aligning them.

Have you used active system for projection or are you just being a zealot since you view passive as better. Polarized front projection still has a ton of issues with extinction due to screen issues. Very few screen manufacturers even market 3D silver screens and those that do have very specific criteria for maximizing and maintaining polarization. The Dolby/infintec/omega systems still require some sort of color correction. Not to mention the high price of hardware like demuxing boxes and additional projectors including maintaining multiple units.

So what's your laundry list of what's wrong with current 3D projection setups? I am sitting back and enjoying some great 3D in my HT.

As I have stated many times, I must be able to view 3D in non full screen format as that's more important then all other issues.
Not one 3D projector on the market can do it to my knowledge.
I already stated earlier in this thread how I am forced to do it.
Too bad really as it would be trivial for the manufacturers to include it.
At this point it doesn't matter anyway as I'm done with active 3D.
Three years of putting up with it is enough.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 250
5/23/12 at 2:02pm
So it's basically because you are not getting the one feature you deem necessary that you are calling the whole thing bad. Hate to tell you but you are the first person I have heard that requires this nonstandard 3D not in full screen mode.

Not saying you don't need it, but it sounds like you have some specialized need for this mode. I know my HW30 supports all the the standard 3D display modes that are available through broadcast or physical media.

The active design made the projector upgrade practically plug and play for a front projection setup at least.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 250
5/23/12 at 2:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

So it's basically because you are not getting the one feature you deem necessary that you are calling the whole thing bad. Hate to tell you but you are the first person I have heard that requires this nonstandard 3D not in full screen mode.

Not saying you don't need it, but it sounds like you have some specialized need for this mode. I know my HW30 supports all the the standard 3D display modes that are available through broadcast or physical media.

The active design made the projector upgrade practically plug and play for a front projection setup at least.

I am painfully aware that I seem to be the only person in the world who has this requirement.
Let me point out however that everyone who has viewed my methods agrees with me that it should be standard.
In the last three years I have shot many hundreds of hours of 3D video and watch uncounted hours of it.
I used to be able to wear the active glasses for hours at a time but now I find that I can not longer tolerate them for very long at all.
My friends and relatives have always complained about them.
Since my wife started watching my 3D videos on my passive monitors she made if very clear that she is not about to put on the active glasses anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 250
5/23/12 at 2:55pm
Thread Starter 
I forgot to mention that with my passive 3DTVs/computer monitors, I am now able to watch my 3D videos all day long with no fatigue at all.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 250
5/23/12 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

.
I used to be able to wear the active glasses for hours at a time but now I find that I can not longer tolerate them for very long at all.

Why were you previously able to wear active glasses for "hours at a time" but now you can't tolerate them for very long?

Are your glasses getting heavier? Is your face getting weaker?
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 250
5/23/12 at 3:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickoakdl View Post

Why were you previously able to wear active glasses for "hours at a time" but now you can't tolerate them for very long?

Are your glasses getting heavier? Is your face getting weaker?

I don't know why.
The weight always bothered me.
My age (almost 65) might be a factor but that doesn't explain why my Kids and grandkids feel the same way.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 250
5/23/12 at 4:42pm
So if I'm following this, some people (including Frank) prefer passive, while others prefer active.

What exactly is the point here?
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 250
5/23/12 at 4:45pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

So if I'm following this, some people (including Frank) prefer passive, while others prefer active.

What exactly is the point here?

That it takes me three years to come to a conclusion?
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 250
5/23/12 at 6:41pm
I don't think 3D was intended to be watched for hours at a time. Sounds pretty excessive. What kind of content are you producing? Is this for personal use or are you creating commercial content?

There are different options for active glasses also. Some are more comfortable than others.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 250
5/23/12 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

So if I'm following this, some people (including Frank) prefer passive, while others prefer active.

What exactly is the point here?

540+ 540=540 1080+ 1080=fullhd1080p3d

and that frankly Frank doesn't want to be friends
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 250
5/24/12 at 5:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka702 View Post

540+ 540=540 1080+ 1080=1080

and that Frank doesn't want to be friends

I don't belve this is (completly) correct regarding the visible 3D image (only technical numbers).
Read Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses:

By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can't get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

But it's not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical - but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see.

In all cases the small text (6 to 10 pixels in height) was readable on the FPR Passive Glasses, which definitively establishes that there is excellent 3D Image Fusion and the Passive Glasses deliver full 1080p resolution in 3D. Again, if the Passive Glasses only delivered half the resolution, as some claim, then it would have been impossible to read the small text on the FPR TVs. So those half resolution claims are manifestly wrong - no, ands ifs or buts!
Furthermore, in all cases the small text was actually sharper and easier to read and fine details easier to resolve on the FPR Passive Glasses than on the Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce 3D image sharpness and 3D contrast in Active Glasses TVs. We also compared the small text 3D visual sharpness to the 2D sharpness by repeatedly turning the 3D mode on and off for each of the TVs and watching in 3D with glasses and then 2D without glasses. In all cases the images were sharper in 2D than in 3D, but the differences were much smaller with the FPR TVs than with the TVs with Active Shutter Glasses. In fact, the small text 3D visual sharpness on the FPR TVs were only slightly less than in 2D, reinforcing our conclusion that the Passive Glasses deliver 3D Image Fusion with full 3D 1080p resolution and are visually sharper in 3D than Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues mentioned above.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 250
5/24/12 at 5:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrat View Post

I don't belve this is (completly) correct regarding the visible 3D image (only technical numbers).
Read Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses:

By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can't get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

But it's not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical - but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see.

In all cases the small text (6 to 10 pixels in height) was readable on the FPR Passive Glasses, which definitively establishes that there is excellent 3D Image Fusion and the Passive Glasses deliver full 1080p resolution in 3D. Again, if the Passive Glasses only delivered half the resolution, as some claim, then it would have been impossible to read the small text on the FPR TVs. So those half resolution claims are manifestly wrong - no, ands ifs or buts!
Furthermore, in all cases the small text was actually sharper and easier to read and fine details easier to resolve on the FPR Passive Glasses than on the Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce 3D image sharpness and 3D contrast in Active Glasses TVs. We also compared the small text 3D visual sharpness to the 2D sharpness by repeatedly turning the 3D mode on and off for each of the TVs and watching in 3D with glasses and then 2D without glasses. In all cases the images were sharper in 2D than in 3D, but the differences were much smaller with the FPR TVs than with the TVs with Active Shutter Glasses. In fact, the small text 3D visual sharpness on the FPR TVs were only slightly less than in 2D, reinforcing our conclusion that the Passive Glasses deliver 3D Image Fusion with full 3D 1080p resolution and are visually sharper in 3D than Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues mentioned above.

Quote:


in all cases the small text was actually sharper and easier to read and fine details easier to resolve on the FPR Passive Glasses than on the Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce 3D image sharpness and 3D contrast in Active Glasses TVs

Response Time issues? Not with PDP or MMD RPTV. They are both thousands of times faster than LCD which is what is used for FPR.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 250
5/24/12 at 5:29am
DLP is ~ 2000x faster than LCD
I prefer an active 120Hz projector. I can't stand the Slideshow of 24Hz HDTV.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 250
5/24/12 at 6:17am
Thread Starter 
I probably should mention that most of my 3D viewing over the years has been from a lot closer then most people would find acceptable.
I typically sit only 2 feet from my 40 inch 3DTV screen.
Keep in mind however that most of my 3D viewing is not full screen.
Varying the stereoscopic 3D windows allows me to visualize how my 3D videos will look in various situations.
I have no issues with the interlace lines of the passive monitor even from this close distance.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 250
5/24/12 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

I don't think 3D was intended to be watched for hours at a time. Sounds pretty excessive. What kind of content are you producing? Is this for personal use or are you creating commercial content?

There are different options for active glasses also. Some are more comfortable than others.

You mean I'm not supposed to watch a 3D movie and then immediately follow it with another one?
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 250
5/24/12 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

"Active 3D troll" checking in. I don't believe Frank ever had a high quality active plasma 3D TV from Panasonic to compare over a long period of time. I personally understand the sentiment if all one has lived with has been Samsung, Vizio. LG, or even Sony non-plasma 3D actives TVs. Now don't get me started on the SD quality of the passive sets for what shoud be HD content or the visible shifting when you look up or down while wearing passive 3D glasses - at least on LG's original passive sets. Admittedly there may have been some major improvements, but I stopped comparing after I saw how disappointing the PQ was for passive when they first came out.

Personally, when I'm in my living room watching 2D material on an LG LCD passive 3D set, I don't really feel this burning desire to retire to the bedroom so I can get a superior experience viewing it on my 8G Pioneer Kuro. For most programming, it's good enough.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 250
5/24/12 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjktcvs View Post


You mean I'm not supposed to watch a 3D movie and then immediately follow it with another one?

I've done the same. It sounds like Frank's majority of viewing time is in 3D. Considering the amount of content actually available in 3D his viewing habits could be considered excessive.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 250
5/24/12 at 7:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

I've done the same. It sounds like Frank's majority of viewing time is in 3D. Considering the amount of content actually available in 3D his viewing habits could be considered excessive.

No shortage of 3D in my home.
Unfortunately the vast majority of it is unedited yet.
Much of it is fascinating to the people who have seen it.
I just don't have time to edit much it.
Because most of it is stored on my servers in dual stream formats, I have to use Stereoscopic Player to play it.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 250
5/24/12 at 9:52am
Frank,

I don't doubt that you enjoy your 3D hobby. Just remember you are far beyond the typical viewer of 3D content. I just want to see a movie the way it was shot and if it was shot native 3D that's the way I want to see it on my screen.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 250
5/24/12 at 12:46pm
Personally, I think 3D needs to be advanced to a level of autostereoscopic, glasses free, without the side effects (viewing angle limitations, ghosting, rainbow, etc...) before it can be popular. Granted that 3D technology has improved quite a bit since the anaglyph days, but we need to get rid of active and passive glasses. I like the 3D effect, but don't like fiddling with glasses. When Photorefractive Keratectomy/Lasik surgery was invented, I had it done so I don't have to wear glasses. Needless to say, going back to glasses for 3D does not excite me.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 250
5/24/12 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

I typically sit only 2 feet from my 40 inch 3DTV screen.

I have no issues with the interlace lines of the passive monitor even from this close distance.

Just curious, do you mean you can't see the interlace lines at that distance or do you mean you can see them but not enough to be a problem?

Also, why won't you just be nice and give wonka your 82" TV?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 250
5/24/12 at 4:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Just curious, do you mean you can't see the interlace lines at that distance or do you mean you can see them but not enough to be a problem?

Also, why won't you just be nice and give wonka your 82" TV?

I can see the lines just fine but only if I'm looking for them otherwise I don't notice them. I often forget that I have my passive glasses on and this was never an issue with the active.
The 82" Mits isn't going anywhere until I have it's replacement on the way.
Even though I don't use it for 3D, my wife still uses it occasionally.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 250
5/24/12 at 9:07pm
But passive only do 720p ? Also, I don't have that much of a problem with the flickering . Next , I'm the only one in the house that likes and watch 3d ( my daughter , same times . Wife hates 3d ) Friends don't ask to see anything in 3d and they think its silly , like everybody else in American . Why I bought a Samsung 3d plasma ? PQ !!!!! 3d was just a bonus .
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 250
5/25/12 at 7:21am
Thread Starter 
I'm starting to believe that long term viewing with active shutter glasses is not good for you whereas passive has no such problem.
After three years of 3D making and viewing I find it interesting that I can not tolerate the active glasses anymore while at the same time I'm enjoying 3D more then ever now that I've switched to passive.
I'm really looking forward to installing my new passive displays.
The fact that I can watch all my 3D including viewing live 3D windows from my remote 3D cameras without having to use the 3D mode of the TV is a big plus also.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 250
5/25/12 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrat View Post


I don't belve this is (completly) correct regarding the visible 3D image (only technical numbers).
Read Sharpness and Resolution with FPR Passive Glasses:

By far the most controversial and misunderstood issue in 3D TV currently has to do with the sharpness and resolution delivered with Passive Glasses. Because they split the odd and even lines between the right and left eyes it's easy to see why many people (and some reviewers) conclude that FPR technology delivers only half of the HD resolution. Although unsubstantiated it still seems to have evolved into some sort of myth based on hearsay instead of actual scientific visual evaluation. Many people seem to get stuck on this particular issue and can't get beyond it and think about what is really being seen in actual 3D vision.

But it's not that simple because we watch TV from a far enough distance that the lines are not resolved and we know that the brain combines the images from both eyes into a single 3D image (the one we actually see) in a process called Image Fusion. The 3D TV images have only horizontal parallax from the horizontally offset cameras, so the vertical image content for the right and left eyes are in fact identical - but with purely horizontal parallax offsets from their different right and left camera viewpoints. So there isn't any 3D imaging information that is missing because all of the necessary vertical resolution and parallax information is available when the brain combines the right and left images into the 3D image we actually see.

In all cases the small text (6 to 10 pixels in height) was readable on the FPR Passive Glasses, which definitively establishes that there is excellent 3D Image Fusion and the Passive Glasses deliver full 1080p resolution in 3D. Again, if the Passive Glasses only delivered half the resolution, as some claim, then it would have been impossible to read the small text on the FPR TVs. So those half resolution claims are manifestly wrong - no, ands ifs or buts!
Furthermore, in all cases the small text was actually sharper and easier to read and fine details easier to resolve on the FPR Passive Glasses than on the Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues that reduce 3D image sharpness and 3D contrast in Active Glasses TVs. We also compared the small text 3D visual sharpness to the 2D sharpness by repeatedly turning the 3D mode on and off for each of the TVs and watching in 3D with glasses and then 2D without glasses. In all cases the images were sharper in 2D than in 3D, but the differences were much smaller with the FPR TVs than with the TVs with Active Shutter Glasses. In fact, the small text 3D visual sharpness on the FPR TVs were only slightly less than in 2D, reinforcing our conclusion that the Passive Glasses deliver 3D Image Fusion with full 3D 1080p resolution and are visually sharper in 3D than Active Glasses because of the Crosstalk, ghosting and Response Time issues mentioned above.

So you get odd 1920x540 lines to your left eye and 1920x540 even lines to your right eye so that makes 1080p . Which must mean active is 2x 3d as you get 1920x1080 to each eye.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 250
5/25/12 at 4:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottthehat View Post

So you get odd 1920x540 lines to your left eye and 1920x540 even lines to your right eye so that makes 1080p . Which must mean active is 2x 3d as you get 1920x1080 to each eye.

This "full 1920 by 1080" resolution is nothing but marketing hype in my opinion. The only way you'll ever get close to that is with static images and in black and white only.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 250
5/25/12 at 4:43pm
Give me 3D without active or passive glasses. Till that time, stay away.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 250
5/25/12 at 5:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Give me 3D without active or passive glasses. Till that time, stay away.

I have that on my EVO 3D phone, Fuji 3D cameras, Sony 3D camcorders,JVC 3D camcorders and it's nice but the passive displays kill them all.
Interestingly, I went out to lunch and shopping with my wife and after I got home I realized I had my passive 3D glasses on the entire time and didn't even realize it.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 250
5/25/12 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

This "full 1920 by 1080" resolution is nothing but marketing hype in my opinion. The only way you'll ever get close to that is with static images and in black and white only.

I don't see why this would be. On a 3D Blu-ray there is in fact a full 1080p left image and a full 1080p right image, and you'd only be able to see half of each on a 1080p passive display. It's math, not marketing. Of course compression is an issue, but not every scene of a movie is fast action. Does this mean you will have no interest in 4k passive displays (allowing 1080p per eye)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank View Post

I have that on my EVO 3D phone, Fuji 3D cameras, Sony 3D camcorders,JVC 3D camcorders and it's nice but the passive displays kill them all.

I agree completely here, I have a Fuji 3D camera and Nintendo 3DS, and viewing them is a chore. Glasses free makes sense for them given what they're used for, especially the camera, but I'm left with no desire for a similar glasses free display in my home. If you want a simple, comfortable 3D viewing experience, passive is the answer. I think all these people waiting for glasses free displays are going to be very disappointed.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 250
5/25/12 at 6:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I don't see why this would be. On a 3D Blu-ray there is in fact a full 1080p left image and a full 1080p right image, and you'd only be able to see half of each on a 1080p passive display. It's math, not marketing. Of course compression is an issue, but not every scene of a movie is fast action. Does this mean you will have no interest in 4k passive displays (allowing 1080p per eye)?

The color resolution is only 1/4th of 1920 by 1080 at best. That's the standard.
I'm not interested in 4K at all.
I am afraid that it will eliminate a essential feature which I require which is displaying 3D while not being in the 3D mode itself.


Quote:


I agree completely here, I have a Fuji 3D camera and Nintendo 3DS, and viewing them is a chore. Glasses free makes sense for them given what they're used for, especially the camera, but I'm left with no desire for a similar glasses free display in my home. If you want a simple, comfortable 3D viewing experience, passive is the answer. I think all these people waiting for glasses free displays are going to be very disappointed.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › After three years of 3D my conclusion is