Originally Posted by GatorJZ
Find any other entity that did an actual, verifiable and repeatable test other than Displymate.
What "actual", "verifiable", and "repeatable" tests are you talking about regarding 3D full HD information? See below.
Originally Posted by GatorJZ
Simply doing the resolution "math" ignores how the brain interprets the data the eyes are seeing.
Then you didn't read what I wrote either. I wasn't simply doing "resolution math". And I'm talking ENTIRELY about how the brain interprets information.
I don't find those tests as verifiable. Even conducting the at-home test fails. Further when you dig into the details of the claims, he makes this claim about the 1080 lines of FPR information resulting from fusion:
"The theory and fundamental principle behind full FPR vertical resolution and sharpness is that 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."
That so far is correct (but needs clarification on "vertical information"). But in any case, he goes off the charts wrong here with his very next sentence:
"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."
That's just incorrect, and I don't know anyone else attempting that very claim, not even LG. For as long as I've been following this, LG made multiple claims, almost certainly marketing driven. Remember the "Passive allows you to watch 3D lying down" ????? The current state of what comes out of them is that the delivery of 540+540=1080 was along the time axis, not some magical Left 540 + Right 540 fills in the gaps to 1080 3D. It does not. I remember a brief claim that the Left 540 and the Right 540 contained slightly different vertical information (only because the left view might have vertical extents of objects that are obscured from the right eye and thus it added together with more information than 540). But that wasn't even displaymate's premise above: "the vertical information for the left and right eyes are in fact identical"<---that by itself establishes that you're getting 540.
Where the confusion comes in is this: Think in terms of strictly interlacing 2D. If employed with line doubling, you're getting every a half frame as 540 double-high lines. You then get a following half frame with the following 540.
But keep the 3D 1080i60 you get from your STB out of the equation for the moment, because it will be employing it's own time axis.
Now, go to the section where he discusses comparing the sharpness of FPR by turning on and off 3D. He claims that it passes the test that there is no clarity loss. I believe that he's getting two arguments confused: the sharpness of the 3D, vs. how much clarity you can see at standard viewing distances. That last argument goes off the charts in these parts (in 2D).
Here's how you should do the test. Put in Avatar, let it fire up. Your TV should show it as 1080p24 (which it is). Now look carefully at the intitial BD menu (play, scene select, etc). Look at the "play". Turn off the 3D. It's now 2D but >poof<....it still sort of looks like it's equally clear. BUT TAKE OFF YOUR GLASSES and you'll see the 2D "play" is phenomenally clear by comparison. This is tested by me at precisely 12 feet eye to TV. Now do the process again and look at the movement behind the menu in 3D. Cool. Now switch it to 2D (and take OFF the glasses!). You'll see the 2D motion looking pretty damn clear but with not as striking an increase as it was when you tested the "play". This is because of the inherent edge detection in your eye and the increase in effective resolution you get with movement.
Finally, he makes an assertion of 3D (either type) being "almost holographic". Here's that particular quote:
Almost Holographic 3D
One of the most fascinating visual effects of 3D TV is how the 3D image changes as you change your viewing position. If you are looking at a still image in 2D and change your viewing angle by walking left to right in front of the TV, the image of the TV picture produced by the brain stays the same as you move. But when you do that in 3D the picture appears almost holographic because the brain continuously reworks the perspective geometry of the image as you change your viewing position. As a result, people sitting at different locations will see somewhat different perspective geometries of the same 3D image. The effect can grow to be quite large for images with significant depth. It sometimes seems as if you might be able to see additional things that are currently obscured by shifting your viewing position even more, but of course that never happens, you only see an increasingly shifted perspective view. It’s one more interesting facet of 3D TV viewing…
He's totally overplaying this. This is absolutely not "almost holographic". It's not "almost" anything. You're still being fed strictly stereoscopic information from cameras with lenses either converging or parallel. This does not change. He knows this. He qualifies this above with "but of course that never happens"---but he still regards it as an increasingly shifted perspective view. It is not. The "perspective" mis-information is because the display plane (the TV rectangle) itself is undergoing a perspective shift (as you look at it on angle the far side shrinks in height). Your eye struggles to make sense of this, and cannot. So as you move left to right in your living room you get your brain trying to figure out what's going on, but it's not the case that you're getting anything at all "almost holographic".