or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Is this all true about 3D? :(
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is this all true about 3D? :(

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I just read this in an old thread and it's making me question my decision to buy a new 3d blu ray player and glasses. frown.gif

"Suggest you do some comparisons. 3D costs you resolution, contrast, color and brightness on any given title. It's the nature of 3D and the way our vision and the technology works. This title is no exception."

Is that last line all true? I had thought that when watching a 3d movie over it's 2d counterpart, that it's all the same, it's just that the only thing different would be that it's in 3d instead of in 2d! eek.gif
post #2 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadfgp View Post

I just read this in an old thread and it's making me question my decision to buy a new 3d blu ray player and glasses. frown.gif
"Suggest you do some comparisons. 3D costs you resolution, contrast, color and brightness on any given title. It's the nature of 3D and the way our vision and the technology works. This title is no exception."
Is that last line all true? I had thought that when watching a 3d movie over it's 2d counterpart, that it's all the same, it's just that the only thing different would be that it's in 3d instead of in 2d! eek.gif

Resolution - no - not if you are using active shutter glasses. Each eye sees 1920x1080 (from a 3D BD)

Contrast - yes - the blacks are blacker but the whites are less white (intensity) due to the light transmission loss through the glasses - active or passive.

Brightness - see above - same thing - less of a loss with passive 3D glasses

Color - yes - the glasses, active or passive, have a slight tint to them so the color values will be slightly different then with 2D.
post #3 of 27
There's a handful of movies out there that actually compensate for the glasses by slightly altering the color and brightness of the 3D version so that it looks "correct" when viewed through the glasses. I don't know if there's a definitive list of those titles, though.

The resolution is an interesting one. I'm a passive user myself, so this was of interest to me during my research before buying a passive monitor for my PC. There's a big difference between a loss of resolution on paper and what your eyes actually see when you're watching it. Technically speaking, on paper, my display only shows each eye 540 lines. But, it's seeing both eyes simultaneously, and the brain does a (not-)surprisingly good job of blending those into a single 1080p image when you're watching it. The naysayers would have you believe that your 3D Blu-ray will look like a DVD because of the resolution drop, but what I'm seeing when I watch 1080p content is most definitely NOT half resolution. Believe it or not, your brain's actually pretty good at combining what your two eyes see into a single cohesive image, and the benefit of passive is that you're seeing both eyes simultaneously instead of switching back and forth between them on active shutter glasses. At most, you might end up with some slight aliasing across high-contrast edges, but otherwise it looks just as crisp as the raw 1080p image, and the 3D depth more than makes up for any other shortcomings.

I'm not trying to start a debate, but it is important to hear from both sides of the fence when it comes to something that active and passive users disagree on. smile.gif
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

There's a handful of movies out there that actually compensate for the glasses by slightly altering the color and brightness of the 3D version so that it looks "correct" when viewed through the glasses. I don't know if there's a definitive list of those titles, though.
The resolution is an interesting one. I'm a passive user myself, so this was of interest to me during my research before buying a passive monitor for my PC. There's a big difference between a loss of resolution on paper and what your eyes actually see when you're watching it. Technically speaking, on paper, my display only shows each eye 540 lines. But, it's seeing both eyes simultaneously, and the brain does a (not-)surprisingly good job of blending those into a single 1080p image when you're watching it. The naysayers would have you believe that your 3D Blu-ray will look like a DVD because of the resolution drop, but what I'm seeing when I watch 1080p content is most definitely NOT half resolution. Believe it or not, your brain's actually pretty good at combining what your two eyes see into a single cohesive image, and the benefit of passive is that you're seeing both eyes simultaneously instead of switching back and forth between them on active shutter glasses. At most, you might end up with some slight aliasing across high-contrast edges, but otherwise it looks just as crisp as the raw 1080p image, and the 3D depth more than makes up for any other shortcomings.
I'm not trying to start a debate, but it is important to hear from both sides of the fence when it comes to something that active and passive users disagree on. smile.gif

LOL - when you can convince me that 1080x60i is the same as 1080x60P - then I will agree there is no loss in resolution

Because it is recommended to sit closer to a 3DTV than an HDTV, once you get near 6 feet away from the passive display, the scan lines start to become apparent. I don't see them sitting 6 feet away from my 58" Panasonic 3DTV
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

...you might end up with some slight aliasing across high-contrast edges,,,

That's your proof that it's not 1080. No debate necessary. (BTW, resolution is measured with test patterns, not the naked eye.)

Again, you are happy with it, as are many others. Also many are happy with half-res cable and satellite 3D. It's good enough, and that is perfectly legitimate opinion.

My sportscar is not a Ferrari, and I am happy with it as well. It's good enough. However, I don't go around saying it's not a Ferrari "on paper", but my brain makes me think it's a Ferrari.
Edited by Augerhandle - 7/10/12 at 9:34pm
post #6 of 27
Unless you have better eyes than the rest of us you can't tell 1080i from 1080p:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/813080/1080i-vs-1080p-any-visible-difference
Links in that thread:
http://gizmodo.com/160103/tuning-fork?tag=gadgetshomeentertainment
http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/1080ppitfall.htm

I don't think you'd even notice most of the shortcomings of 3D without actively trying to see the problems, depending on your set and glasses that it is.
post #7 of 27
I don't think some of these people who think passive is 1080p has really seen too many active 3d displays especially DLP. Passive produces a softer image and the closer you get the worse it gets real fast and I'm not saying it's 540, but imho it doesn't look 1080 to me and I've seen the LG,Vizio, Panasonic and Toshiba passives.
post #8 of 27
I've also read plenty of posts from people who think upconverted DVD is just as good as Bluray. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but it's just that, their opinion.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

I've also read plenty of posts from people who think upconverted DVD is just as good as Bluray. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but it's just that, their opinion.

Yes, but the opinion you mentioned is what would technically be termed a stupid opinion.
post #10 of 27
Well, there you have it folks. Any defense of passive as "not 540" gets laughed out of town. Sorry I opened my "stupid" mouth.
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by yadfgp View Post

I just read this in an old thread and it's making me question my decision to buy a new 3d blu ray player and glasses. frown.gif
"Suggest you do some comparisons. 3D costs you resolution, contrast, color and brightness on any given title. It's the nature of 3D and the way our vision and the technology works. This title is no exception."
Is that last line all true? I had thought that when watching a 3d movie over it's 2d counterpart, that it's all the same, it's just that the only thing different would be that it's in 3d instead of in 2d! eek.gif

First of all if you are enjoying your new 3D experience then don't worry about what some narrow minded naysayer is trying to say. But I agree with him that anyone looking into upgrading their home theater experience do the comparisons. Just be careful if you see a display technology that looks bad to you that you do not over generalize and use that as an extrapolation that the entire domain of 3D is that bad. The truth is that there are pros and cons to each of the emerging technologies and you have to decide which is more important to you. Today there is no one technology is best in all categories. For example- If you are one that is mostly concerned with resolution specifications, then you need to stick with active shutter glasses as these will preserve the entire full HD resolution to both eyes. But the active glasses are usually darker and many people suffer eye fatigue more than they do with passive glasses. But if viewing comfort is your biggest concern and you want a brighter more contrasting image and plan to sit a reasonable distance from the panel then passive may be your most pleasing image. The reason why resolution is less on a passive is because the Film used to coat the panel that gets you the 3D effect already screens the image with a filter of lines that up close are visible and sitting far enough away blend together, just as do the individual pixels so that the blend of the lines makes them disappear to your vision but then sitting that far away also reduces the perceived visual resolution of both the vertical and horizontal.
Now here's something to consider-- If you have to have your cake and eat it too, you need to wait on passive 4K. The reason is that today we have the cut in half resolution problem but when the new 4K panels come out that cut in half issue will be starting with a native screen resolution ( That Film I mentioned earlier) of 4K so that using this 4K technology will allow you to end up with the full HD resolution. So when will 4k be here? LG is expected to hit the retail market this Fall.

Is viewing 3D early adopter? I would say that yes it still is. For viewing in the home it is fairly young technology and still emerging. But we're about to turn the corner with flat panel 4K TV's that preserve the resolution and get you the long viewing comfort, super bright high contrast images too. But what about bigger? Here we have to resort to projection systems. These are generally less bright and less contrast in exchange for size. Some projectors allow you to use a super bright mode, much too bright to watch 2D comfortably, so that when switching to 3D from 2D the brightness remains the same as you put on the glasses. But this still doesn't resolve the contrast disadvantage compared to modern panels. Projection at affordable prices has a way to go to be competitive with panels for contrast, especially the newest passive glasses projectors. But if you want size, then projectors are the only solution.

Disclosure- I own a Sony VPL VW90ES projector with a 110" diagonal roll down screen. I also own a 32" Vizio that I sit 5 ft from when I edit my 3D productions. I've seen the 4K 3D LG panels and will add one of these to my home theater next year.
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

I've also read plenty of posts from people who think upconverted DVD is just as good as Bluray. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but it's just that, their opinion.

Yes, but the opinion you mentioned is what would technically be termed a stupid opinion.

No opinion is a stupid opinion. They are all based on the information available at the time, and the preferences (bias) of the person giving the opinion. Some people don't care as much about resolution. Look to all the people who watch movies on their computers and cell phones for an example.

I just disagree that an enthusiast should say things like "the brain makes it look 1080". Instead they should say "well, even if it's 540, it still looks good to me". One also must remember that "1080 per eye" is the main marketing edge Bluray can claim, while ALL other formats use fewer pixels to present the picture to each eye. That doesn't make the other formats useless, just as one shouldn't throw out all their DVDs just because they now have a Bluray player.
Edited by Augerhandle - 7/12/12 at 2:00pm
post #13 of 27
There are many types of Resolution:

Pixel resolution

Spatial resolution

Spectral resolution

Temporal resolution

Radiometric resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
post #14 of 27
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Congressional resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(law)
New Year's resolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_resolution

Hey! Thankls for the links! Unfortunately they don't seem to have anything to do with image resolution. biggrin.gif
Edited by Lee Stewart - 7/13/12 at 5:54am
post #16 of 27
lewis3845, there is this one obvious difference between the 3D pictures seen in an active and passive, the brightness. Active 3D glasses use LCD which weakens the light penetration and since once lens is closed at any given time the 3D picture is even darker. Passive produces brighter pictures because it uses glasses that never shutter.

We all know that active used by Samsung/Sony and passive introduced by LG to their own sets and Vizio TVs are different. To say which is better is a matter of taste. Active as we know flickers and uses clunky headgears while Passive uses comfortable glasses and arguably have 1080 res just like active. I have seen the passives as well and it's easier on the eyes.
post #17 of 27
I understand how they both work and we all know passive is brighter than active without any adjustments, but that's why there's setting as soon as I put my Optoma projector in 3d mode the brightness is adjusted up from 40 to 55 not a big deal and just as bright as the 2d picture. As for the "flicker" most people don't see it if they did they would all be blind from the eyestrain of tv's and computer monitors over all the years. Active glasses were clunky now they are smaller and lighter than ever some barely heavier than passive's
post #18 of 27
lewis3845- Nice to hear that Optoma also has a setup that will adjust the brightness up for 3D. You mention the one setting, brightness, but this really should not be the only change as adjusting only brightness may wash out the image. In my Sony, you can set it up so the entire image profile is adjusted for the switch to 3D, including the bulb wattage. There is one caveat to what the Sony does and that is if you set your 2D profile for maximum image brightness bulb wattage and other settings for some reason, then there is no "up" to go. (Obviously) Anyway, I was just curious about how the Optoma works.

I agree the flicker is not noticeable, but my projector has the 240 Hz so it shouldn't be, however, as an owner I have to admit that everyone I have had watch with active glasses does suffer eye fatigue after 2 hours with no break. A few 3D movies now are exceeding 2 hours and in my opinion this gets to too long for comfort.

In general, having watched for over a year, 3D on both a passive and active (projector), if screen size was not an issue, I would only have a passive. Therefore to have a passive in my home theater, I have decided I will wait for the 4K 65" LED or OLED panel when they get affordable for my home theater. 65" is the largest that will fit behind my roll down screen and the smallest I will tolerate for the home theater. Maybe 2013?
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing3DTVFan View Post

lewis3845, there is this one obvious difference between the 3D pictures seen in an active and passive, the brightness.

Not necessarily. I pair my DLP projector, in eco mode, with a high gain screen and enjoy bright active 3D. 20 foot lamberts in a dark room assuming a 70% light loss from the glasses, which is brighter than the industry standard for 2D cinema.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing3DTVFan View Post

Passive uses comfortable glasses and arguably have 1080 res just like active.

You certainly have to argue to make the case. It's true from a certain perspective, 540 left plus 540 right equals 1080 total, the same number as 1080p 2D. However, if we're talking 3D Blu-ray, it's 1080 left plus 1080 right, which you can see with a 1080p active display. Passive is perhaps "1080" resolution, but in a much different way (half the pixels) than active. It's not the same as 540p 3D/2D, and it's not the same as 1080i, but it's also not the same as 1080p, nor is 1080p 2D the same as 1080p 3D. The numbers may be the same, but what you're seeing is very different. The passive 1080 claim is kind of like saying 10 socks is the same as 10 pairs of socks. 10 of one is half the socks of 10 of the other.

But then, maybe you have no use for that many socks. Honestly, I think passive owns the future with flat panels and is arguably better now in general (but if you're buying a display, please don't generalize), but the enthusiasm for "passive is 1080 like active" claims will evaporate once 4k passive displays are available.
post #20 of 27
Don I understand what you are saying on the brightness and you are correct that too much would wash out the image, but a bit of increase as on mine doesn't wash out the picture at all. My projector is on eco mode if needed it could be changed to standard for additional brightness. I can setup different image profiles also on the Optoma, but I don't know if the adjustable lamp setting can be changed to auto as I've never had to use it.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing3DTVFan View Post

lewis3845, there is this one obvious difference between the 3D pictures seen in an active and passive, the brightness. Active 3D glasses use LCD which weakens the light penetration and since once lens is closed at any given time the 3D picture is even darker. Passive produces brighter pictures because it uses glasses that never shutter.
Except that half of the lines are blocked by passive filters. Half the lines equals half the light to each eye. It appears brighter because there are already filters the light has to go through even in 2D, so the brightness is set higher from the outset.
Quote:
We all know that active used by Samsung/Sony and passive introduced by LG to their own sets and Vizio TVs are different. To say which is better is a matter of taste. Active as we know flickers and uses clunky headgears while Passive uses comfortable glasses and arguably have 1080 res just like active. I have seen the passives as well and it's easier on the eyes.

You can argue anything, it doesn't make you right. 540 per eye is 540 per eye. If one claims that they combine to become 1080, one must claim the active combines to become 2160, still making passive half the resolution of active. But who gives a rat's behind? If one likes passive, then watch it. No need to make up specs or argue which is "better". Be glad you have a choice.

As for flicker, I have never seen flicker while watching active 3D, and I wouldn't call the "headgear" chunky either. rolleyes.gif

450
Edited by Augerhandle - 7/13/12 at 12:19pm
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

lewis3845- ...if you set your 2D profile for maximum image brightness bulb wattage and other settings for some reason, then there is no "up" to go...

One should never have to set up their display for maximum brightness (except in a showroom to catch the eye of unsuspecting customers), there are standard settings that are intended to be used. Typically recommended output is between 30 and 40 ftL (foot Lamberts, as measured with calibration equipment). I recently calibrated a friend's TV for both 2D and 3D, and his contrast setting was 33 and 38 respectively. that's plenty of room (goes up to 63) to go brighter. If one has to max out their TV controls, either the TV is defective, or one does not understand what they are doing (or lives in a showroom).
Edited by Augerhandle - 7/13/12 at 9:23pm
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

No opinion is a stupid opinion.

I disagree. I have heard many, MANY stupid opinions. They may be valid in that they are opinions, and everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't make those opinions any less stupid.
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

No opinion is a stupid opinion.

I disagree. I have heard many, MANY stupid opinions. They may be valid in that they are opinions, and everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't make those opinions any less stupid.

Ignorant maybe. As in ignorant of the truth, but not stupid. Stupid implies that the person with the opinion is mentally deficient, and that is just not allowed here.

You disagree however, and that's your opinion. tongue.gif
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

One should never have to set up their display for maximum brightness (except in a showroom to catch the eye of unsuspecting customers), there are standard settings that are intended to be used. Typically recommended output is between 30 and 40 ftL (foot Lamberts, as measured with calibration equipment). I recently calibrated a friend's TV for both 2D and 3D, and his contrast setting was 33 and 38 respectively. that's plenty of room (goes up to 63) to go brighter. If one has to max out their TV controls, either the TV is defective, or one does not understand what they are doing (or lives in a showroom).

Can't agree with that part! There is one condition I have that dictates the maximum brightness/contrast and wattage settings for my Home Theater. I rarely use it but do resort to it when this condition makes it necessary. That is when we need to have the lights on in the room for some reason, such as we're eating in front of a movie and want the lights up. Here, I have a third setting I use for 2D movies that uses the maximum settings, different than the high settings I use for 3D as those are also color corrected for the Sony glasses. This requirement dictates two settings for 3D / 2D that switch automatically when the projector senses a 3D signal and a third manual setting that I switch to when watching with the room lights up lights up. I have no way to watch 3D when the lights are up that yields satisfactory image quality. That's why I'm interested in a 4k passive panel to fill that viewing gap. Note that I also use a 1.0 gain screen as I like that natural look with no hotspot. I have not seen a high gain screen that I like. Some day I may go with a brighter screen, like 1.3 or even 1.5 but not ready to spend for that just yet. I'm really waiting to see what happens on the polarized projector front development first. Gets better every year.
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Note that I also use a 1.0 gain screen as I like that natural look with no hotspot. I have not seen a high gain screen that I like.

Have you seen recent high gain screens? My own screen is a 90", approximately $160 mico glass bead 2.6 gain screen from a local (Japan) manufacturer. From what I've read here, it's basically the same as the Dalite 2.4 High Power screens you can get in the US. That is, no hotspotting, no visible texture.
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

One should never have to set up their display for maximum brightness (except in a showroom to catch the eye of unsuspecting customers), there are standard settings that are intended to be used. Typically recommended output is between 30 and 40 ftL (foot Lamberts, as measured with calibration equipment). I recently calibrated a friend's TV for both 2D and 3D, and his contrast setting was 33 and 38 respectively. that's plenty of room (goes up to 63) to go brighter. If one has to max out their TV controls, either the TV is defective, or one does not understand what they are doing (or lives in a showroom).

Can't agree with that part! There is one condition I have that dictates the maximum brightness/contrast and wattage settings for my Home Theater. I rarely use it but do resort to it when this condition makes it necessary. That is when we need to have the lights on in the room for some reason, such as we're eating in front of a movie and want the lights up. Here, I have a third setting I use for 2D movies that uses the maximum settings, different than the high settings I use for 3D as those are also color corrected for the Sony glasses. This requirement dictates two settings for 3D / 2D that switch automatically when the projector senses a 3D signal and a third manual setting that I switch to when watching with the room lights up lights up. I have no way to watch 3D when the lights are up that yields satisfactory image quality. That's why I'm interested in a 4k passive panel to fill that viewing gap. Note that I also use a 1.0 gain screen as I like that natural look with no hotspot. I have not seen a high gain screen that I like. Some day I may go with a brighter screen, like 1.3 or even 1.5 but not ready to spend for that just yet. I'm really waiting to see what happens on the polarized projector front development first. Gets better every year.

I was referring to TVs, not projectors. Sorry I missed that you were talking projectors in my response. Home theater projectors are designed for even lower light conditions though and typically calibrated lower (to 12-16 ftL), so it's no wonder one would have to crank it with the lights on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Is this all true about 3D? :(