or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV - Page 7

post #181 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The equivalent us to not sit 3 feet away, but to follow the manufacturers recommendation of over 8 feet. No lines then.
I have the right to subscribe to a different calculation for determining viewing distance, and point out the fact that I can sit closer with no lines or aliasing with 2D 1080p, or active shutter 1080p 3D.
post #182 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The equivalent us to not sit 3 feet away, but to follow the manufacturers recommendation of over 8 feet. No lines then.

At best difficult to notice lines... at best active = no resolution detail loss at any distance with a potential incompatability with flourecent light sources while passive is no chance of flicker from flourecent lighting but a reduced resolution no matter what.
Wrong. The lines aren't "difficult to notice" they are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you get too close. Just like the shutters if an active display are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you use them wrong.

You can sit at whatever distance with an active display abs it's not an issue. I can use whatever lighting I want with a passive display and it's not an issue. Both work fine when used as intended.
post #183 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The equivalent us to not sit 3 feet away, but to follow the manufacturers recommendation of over 8 feet. No lines then.
I have the right to subscribe to a different calculation for determining viewing distance, and point out the fact that I can sit closer with no lines or aliasing with 2D 1080p, or active shutter 1080p 3D.
Sure you do. Just like you have the right to use whatever lighting you want in your house and not have any issues with passive.

We're going in circles here.
post #184 of 408
You say you sit 8 feet from your 52 inch TV?

You're violating LG's recommended viewing distance...

http://www.lg.com/in/tvs/compare-tvs



By all means, let's listen to the TV manufacturers. They CLEARLY know what's best...

in case you can't tell, hw, that's sarcasm.
post #185 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Sure you do. Just like you have the right to use whatever lighting you want in your house and not have any issues with passive.
We're going in circles here.
There's no way to get better image quality from a passive set without compromising viewing distance and immersion, or waiting for 4K panels.
post #186 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Wrong. The lines aren't "difficult to notice" they are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you get too close. Just like the shutters if an active display are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you use them wrong.
You can sit at whatever distance with an active display abs it's not an issue. I can use whatever lighting I want with a passive display and it's not an issue. Both work fine when used as intended.

Impossible to detect is an awful strong claim to make... kind of like the claim you can't tell more than 72 fps of motion (which is tossed around in the gaming world all the time).

I can DEFINITELY detec the missing lines 9 feet out on my 55 lg... can I resolve each individual one? Like could I could the or tell you if you took one away? Probably not... but I can definitely detect it...

It's put it this way, the wires in a screen door are much thinner than the lines of missing image on my TV, but I can still tell the screen door is there from all the way across the room... if I can tell that I can tell there aer scanlines on the TV from at least as far.

And I have tested this out to 9 feet (I say that because the area it's in is only 10 feet wide so I can' test further back) and taking the glasses of fand putting them back on while looking at a flat red screen I can definiteyl tell you can I detect them at least to 9 feet.

Toss some high contrast text on screen? Definitely further... I honestyl have no idea how far back I would have to go for something like the Titanic logo to exibit no detectable scanlines...

Say not resolveable, or not bothersome or masked by normal images under normal use conditions or something, but don't laim not detectable... because they absolutely are. Maybe not for you, just like rainbows aren't detectable by some on DLP projectors, but I can tell you for sure I can detect them.

If you could double blind test somehwo I woud bet the farm on something like the Titanic logo I could call it well past the 10 foot mark.

As for active shutters, I can definitely detct them... I also can't resolve each shutter bt I can definitely detect them.

And remember it's nice to say "I never ahve to experience flicker with passive glasses" it's apples and oranges... you aer trading resolution for possible flicker. I honestly can't imagine many situations in which all else being equal someone would say "bah! I just can't swap out my bulbs, I will take a hit in resolution instead".

That being said all else is NOT equal but as far as considering the tradeoff between ALWAYS lower resolution and SOMETIMES flicker I find it a hard comparison to weight equally...
post #187 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Distance doesn't make the black screen noticeable on an active display, but lighting DOES make it noticeable.
Lighting doesn't make the black lines noticeable on the passive.
So you're basically bringing up 1 particular scenario, for which the passive tv was not even designed to be used, and saying that proves the display is inferior.
Put some fluorescent lights in your home theater and watch that black screen on your active display become pretty damn noticeable.

No the lighting flickers not the screen, because the frequency of the lighting reacts with the glasses. You can turn off fluorescent lights.
post #188 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

You say you sit 8 feet from your 52 inch TV?
You're violating LG's recommended viewing distance...
http://www.lg.com/in/tvs/compare-tvs

By all means, let's listen to the TV manufacturers. They CLEARLY know what's best...
in case you can't tell, hw, that's sarcasm.


Good lord... from 14 feet away that TV is gonna be tiny...

I really wonder how they come up with these numbers... did they take standard fov coverage from back when the average TV was 12 inches and then just strive to maintain it as TVs get bigger?

Do they do this so anytime someone coplains about an image problem they can just say 'you are too close"?

What coudl the possible rational be for sitting that far from a 50 inch TV? I mean at that distance it would be pretty hard to tell 1080p from 720p... heck I wonder if I woudln't get confused with a good 480p dvd at that range...
post #189 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Good lord... from 14 feet away that TV is gonna be tiny...
I really wonder how they come up with these numbers... did they take standard fov coverage from back when the average TV was 12 inches and then just strive to maintain it as TVs get bigger?
Do they do this so anytime someone coplains about an image problem they can just say 'you are too close"?
What coudl the possible rational be for sitting that far from a 50 inch TV? I mean at that distance it would be pretty hard to tell 1080p from 720p... heck I wonder if I woudln't get confused with a good 480p dvd at that range...
But Devedander, you're misusing the TV if you sit any closer than they recommend...
post #190 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Wrong. The lines aren't "difficult to notice" they are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you get too close. Just like the shutters if an active display are impossible for a human eye to detect unless you use them wrong.
You can sit at whatever distance with an active display abs it's not an issue. I can use whatever lighting I want with a passive display and it's not an issue. Both work fine when used as intended.

Impossible to detect is an awful strong claim to make... kind of like the claim you can't tell more than 72 fps of motion (which is tossed around in the gaming world all the time).

I can DEFINITELY detec the missing lines 9 feet out on my 55 lg... can I resolve each individual one? Like could I could the or tell you if you took one away? Probably not... but I can definitely detect it...

It's put it this way, the wires in a screen door are much thinner than the lines of missing image on my TV, but I can still tell the screen door is there from all the way across the room... if I can tell that I can tell there aer scanlines on the TV from at least as far.

And I have tested this out to 9 feet (I say that because the area it's in is only 10 feet wide so I can' test further back) and taking the glasses of fand putting them back on while looking at a flat red screen I can definiteyl tell you can I detect them at least to 9 feet.

Toss some high contrast text on screen? Definitely further... I honestyl have no idea how far back I would have to go for something like the Titanic logo to exibit no detectable scanlines...

Say not resolveable, or not bothersome or masked by normal images under normal use conditions or something, but don't laim not detectable... because they absolutely are. Maybe not for you, just like rainbows aren't detectable by some on DLP projectors, but I can tell you for sure I can detect them.

If you could double blind test somehwo I woud bet the farm on something like the Titanic logo I could call it well past the 10 foot mark.

As for active shutters, I can definitely detct them... I also can't resolve each shutter bt I can definitely detect them.

And remember it's nice to say "I never ahve to experience flicker with passive glasses" it's apples and oranges... you aer trading resolution for possible flicker. I honestly can't imagine many situations in which all else being equal someone would say "bah! I just can't swap out my bulbs, I will take a hit in resolution instead".

That being said all else is NOT equal but as far as considering the tradeoff between ALWAYS lower resolution and SOMETIMES flicker I find it a hard comparison to weight equally...
The resolution is not lower. I thought we were past that? Both screens show 1080 pixels, the resolution is the same.
post #191 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robut View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Distance doesn't make the black screen noticeable on an active display, but lighting DOES make it noticeable.
Lighting doesn't make the black lines noticeable on the passive.
So you're basically bringing up 1 particular scenario, for which the passive tv was not even designed to be used, and saying that proves the display is inferior.
Put some fluorescent lights in your home theater and watch that black screen on your active display become pretty damn noticeable.

No the lighting flickers not the screen, because the frequency of the lighting reacts with the glasses. You can turn off fluorescent lights.
Yes, you can turn off fluorescent lights. And you can sit farther back from a passive set.
post #192 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

You say you sit 8 feet from your 52 inch TV?

You're violating LG's recommended viewing distance...

http://www.lg.com/in/tvs/compare-tvs



By all means, let's listen to the TV manufacturers. They CLEARLY know what's best...

in case you can't tell, hw, that's sarcasm.
I'm pretty sure the manual didn't say to sit that far back, lol.
post #193 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

I'm pretty sure the manual didn't say to sit that far back, lol.
Needless to say, what are you gonna trust, a paper manual or a website, or common sense? I rather put my trust in common sense, which has told me for the past 6 years of exposure to 1080p content, that it's ok to sit 1 to 1.5 screen widths away from my movies. FPR makes that impossible.
post #194 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The resolution is not lower. I thought we were past that? Both screens show 1080 pixels, the resolution is the same.
In marketing speak, YES! You would be correct. Unfortunately for your argument, this is not a debate that can be solved by quoting advertisements.
post #195 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The resolution is not lower. I thought we were past that? Both screens show 1080 pixels, the resolution is the same.

So is a 120hz tv twice the resolution of a 60hz? 240hz 4x resolution?

Is 720p 60 more than the resolution of 1080p30?

Is 1 giant pixel that flashes 140millinn times a second higher res than 1080p?

Pretty sure the answer to those is no...

Higher pixel data yes.
Pixel data is not the same as resolution.

You keep pushing the idea that as long as all pixels get shown its all the same... But its not..

Is 10 cars that can each go 60mph the same as 1 that can go 600mph?
Why notv still total 600car maphs?

Is a team of 10 lawyers each with 5 years experience the same as a single lawyer with 50 years?

Total 50 years experience either way right?

Its not the same thing... As I said before 1080 is not necessarily the same as 1080... Just like 720p 60 is not higher res than 1080p30... Neither is 720p 120 or even 480p 960

Temporal resolution isn't the same as spacial. You can't just go mixing the two. Just like you can't toss color depth in and say a monitor at 720p60 32 bit is higher res than a 1080p60 16 bit.

You can't just count the number of pixels shown and call it a day.
Edited by Devedander - 12/11/12 at 6:27pm
post #196 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

I'm pretty sure the manual didn't say to sit that far back, lol.
Needless to say, what are you gonna trust, a paper manual or a website, or common sense? I rather put my trust in common sense, which has told me for the past 6 years of exposure to 1080p content, that it's ok to sit 1 to 1.5 screen widths away from my movies. FPR makes that impossible.
I think that website just general info, not specific to any particular tv. The manual was made for that specific tv.

But common sense would tell me, if you're sitting way closer than the manufacturer says to sit, and you're complaining about the lines, the first thing you should do is move back to the recommended distance.
post #197 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The resolution is not lower. I thought we were past that? Both screens show 1080 pixels, the resolution is the same.
In marketing speak, YES! You would be correct. Unfortunately for your argument, this is not a debate that can be solved by quoting advertisements.
Right. It can only be solved by viewing. And I have never noticed a sub par picture on my tv. Neither has my sister, or my best friend, both of which have active units.
post #198 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

The resolution is not lower. I thought we were past that? Both screens show 1080 pixels, the resolution is the same.

So is a 120hz tv twice the resolution of a 60hz? 240hz 4x resolution?

Is 720p 60 more than twice the resolution of 1080p30?

Is 1 giant pixel that flashes 3million times a second higher res than 1080p?

Pretty sure the answer to those is no...

Pixel data is not the same as resolution.
Of course the answer is no. Too bad fur your argument none of those are related to this.

Both of these displays we're discussing show 1080 pixels at one time. The resolution is the same.

Yes, the passive shows twice as many images. But don't confuse that with it having less pixels life a 720p or something.
post #199 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

I think that website just general info, not specific to any particular tv. The manual was made for that specific tv.
But common sense would tell me, if you're sitting way closer than the manufacturer says to sit, and you're complaining about the lines, the first thing you should do is move back to the recommended distance.
I could simply sit farther back, but that would decrease the size of the screen and therefore make it more difficult to appreciate detail and decrease the immersive qualities of 3D.

So you DO agree that FPR tech results in a loss in resolution that must be hidden by moving further away. This is the problem with current 1080p FPR sets in a nutshell, you just don't personally experience them because you're more satisfied with a small screen view whereas I desire a big field of view like in the theater. You're on an AV enthusiast website, so keep in mind there are more people like myself and fewer like yourself. Except I didn't invest a lot in my setup- I just have a humble 42 inch that I sit 4 feet away from.
post #200 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Both of these displays we're discussing show 1080 pixels at one time. The resolution is the same.

As I mentioned several times, your LG TV has to filter out some vertical detail in order to display 1080 per eye in the way it can. You might technically still call it 1080 per eye, but it's a reduced detail (blurred) 1080, reduced from the source.

Read this.
post #201 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Right. It can only be solved by viewing. And I have never noticed a sub par picture on my tv. Neither has my sister, or my best friend, both of which have active units.
I know. And that's because you sit farther away than I do. And now is when you say I'm sitting too close, breaking LG's rules, etc. I don't care about your TV manufacturer's stupid handbook. I don't take a 15 minute break to rest my eyes. I'm not a baby. I'm a grown man who for the past 6 years has sat as close as he pleased to his Blu-rays and didn't notice any unnatural pixellation until I got an FPR screen. I'd be sitting as close as 1 screen width away with my FPR set if resolution looked as good as a 2D Blu-ray. The fact is, it doesn't, and that disappoints me.
post #202 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

I think that website just general info, not specific to any particular tv. The manual was made for that specific tv.
But common sense would tell me, if you're sitting way closer than the manufacturer says to sit, and you're complaining about the lines, the first thing you should do is move back to the recommended distance.
I could simply sit farther back, but that would decrease the size of the screen and therefore make it more difficult to appreciate detail and decrease the immersive qualities of 3D.

So you DO agree that FPR tech results in a loss in resolution that must be hidden by moving further away. This is the problem with current 1080p FPR sets in a nutshell, you just don't personally experience them because you're more satisfied with a small screen view whereas I desire a big field of view like in the theater. You're on an AV enthusiast website, so keep in mind there are more people like myself and fewer like yourself. Except I didn't invest a lot in my setup- I just have a humble 42 inch that I sit 4 feet away from.
No, I don't agree. You're twisting words.

The resolution is 1080, period. If you sit too close, you'll probably lose picture quality. You're not losing resolution, you're losing picture quality.

And this is true of any tv, 2d or 3d. You press your face up against it, the quality will be pretty bad. So at some point, every tv has a "too close" point.

This tv might have that point further back than you'd like. But that doesn't mean the resolution is lower, and it doesn't mean an active set doesn't also have issues that affect the picture quality in some scenarios. Even if you don't care about those particular scenarios, just like I don't care about sitting 3 feet away from the tv.
post #203 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Of course the answer is no. Too bad fur your argument none of those are related to this.
Both of these displays we're discussing show 1080 pixels at one time. The resolution is the same.
Yes, the passive shows twice as many images. But don't confuse that with it having less pixels life a 720p or something.
You're wrong, but until you sit closer than 8 feet from your TV to observe the difference, you'll never admit it. Your ignorance is amusing.
post #204 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Both of these displays we're discussing show 1080 pixels at one time. The resolution is the same.

As I mentioned several times, your LG TV has to filter out some vertical detail in order to display 1080 per eye in the way it can. You might technically still call it 1080 per eye, but it's a reduced detail (blurred) 1080, reduced from the source.

Read this.
Your link says that was an issue on that particular tv which was running a beta firmware, but wasn't an issue on the other LG sets they tested with production firmware.
post #205 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Right. It can only be solved by viewing. And I have never noticed a sub par picture on my tv. Neither has my sister, or my best friend, both of which have active units.
I know. And that's because you sit farther away than I do. And now is when you say I'm sitting too close, breaking LG's rules, etc. I don't care about your TV manufacturer's stupid handbook. I don't take a 15 minute break to rest my eyes. I'm not a baby. I'm a grown man who for the past 6 years has sat as close as he pleased to his Blu-rays and didn't notice any unnatural pixellation until I got an FPR screen. I'd be sitting as close as 1 screen width away with my FPR set if resolution looked as good as a 2D Blu-ray. The fact is, it doesn't, and that disappoints me.
Too bad for you. But my tv works just fine, and I use it as intended.
post #206 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

Of course the answer is no. Too bad fur your argument none of those are related to this.
Both of these displays we're discussing show 1080 pixels at one time. The resolution is the same.
Yes, the passive shows twice as many images. But don't confuse that with it having less pixels life a 720p or something.
You're wrong, but until you sit closer than 8 feet from your TV to observe the difference, you'll never admit it. Your ignorance is amusing.
So you want me to go out if my way to use my tv in a way that I know it wasn't intended, and in a way that isn't comfortable to me, and in a way that doesn't properly line up with my surround speakers, just so I can experience a problem?

Lol, seriously man, I'll just keep enjoying my setup the way it is.
post #207 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

No, I don't agree. You're twisting words.
The resolution is 1080, period. If you sit too close, you'll probably lose picture quality. You're not losing resolution, you're losing picture quality.
And this is true of any tv, 2d or 3d. You press your face up against it, the quality will be pretty bad. So at some point, every tv has a "too close" point.
This tv might have that point further back than you'd like. But that doesn't mean the resolution is lower, and it doesn't mean an active set doesn't also have issues that affect the picture quality in some scenarios. Even if you don't care about those particular scenarios, just like I don't care about sitting 3 feet away from the tv.
The video signal may be transmitting all 2 million pixels but since the display is constantly displaying 1 million black pixels per eye, it results in aliasing, scan lines, etc.
post #208 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

No, I don't agree. You're twisting words.
The resolution is 1080, period. If you sit too close, you'll probably lose picture quality. You're not losing resolution, you're losing picture quality.
And this is true of any tv, 2d or 3d. You press your face up against it, the quality will be pretty bad. So at some point, every tv has a "too close" point.
This tv might have that point further back than you'd like. But that doesn't mean the resolution is lower, and it doesn't mean an active set doesn't also have issues that affect the picture quality in some scenarios. Even if you don't care about those particular scenarios, just like I don't care about sitting 3 feet away from the tv.
The video signal may be transmitting all 2 million pixels but since the display is constantly displaying 1 million black pixels per eye, it results in aliasing, scan lines, etc.
And the display of an active is constantly transmitting an entire black screen on one eye. We're going in circles here.
post #209 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

So you want me to go out if my way to use my tv in a way that I know it wasn't intended, and in a way that isn't comfortable to me, and in a way that doesn't properly line up with my surround speakers, just so I can experience a problem?
Lol, seriously man, I'll just keep enjoying my setup the way it is.
I didn't say I wanted you to change permanently. I just want you to observe for ONCE, the picture quality effects we see when we try to sit in our ideal seating distances with FPR. This way you can understand that nobody in our position would confuse an FPR displaying 2 million pixels worth of data per eye in 3D, with a 1080p 2D signal.

It's 2 million pixels vs 2 million pixels, but one of them looks far worse until you sit further away and compromise your detail and immersive field of view.
post #210 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlinWolf View Post

So you want me to go out if my way to use my tv in a way that I know it wasn't intended, and in a way that isn't comfortable to me, and in a way that doesn't properly line up with my surround speakers, just so I can experience a problem?
Lol, seriously man, I'll just keep enjoying my setup the way it is.
I didn't say I wanted you to change permanently. I just want you to observe for ONCE, the picture quality effects we see when we try to sit in our ideal seating distances with FPR. This way you can understand that nobody in our position would confuse an FPR displaying 2 million pixels worth of data per eye in 3D, with a 1080p 2D signal.

It's 2 million pixels vs 2 million pixels, but one of them looks far worse until you sit further away and compromise your detail and immersive field of view.
I'm not compromising my immersive field of view. My tv looks just fine from my seat.

You're compromising your surround sound, though, if you're only 3 or 4 feet back.

As I said, I understand there is a point where you can get too close. This is the case with any tv. That point may be further back on a passive set than an active, but it's still not an issue for me because I already sat back far enough from my previous tv (for surround sound purposes).

Another thing we haven't gotten around to discussing are viewing angles. The 3d looks just as good from the side as it does from the front on a passive set. Not the case with an active.

So should everyone with an active set move their seat to the side just so they can experience the negative side of things?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Keep 3D active or make switch to Passive 3D TV