or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Passive 3D or Active 3D - "True 1080p" aside
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Passive 3D or Active 3D - "True 1080p" aside - Page 2

post #31 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishdoom View Post

I almost feel like the glasses issue alone is enough for me to go with passive. As long as the 3D effect isn't massively inferior to active 3D.

I have a 63" Samsung PN63C8000 TV using active 3D. Had it for last three years. Love it, but the glasses are uncomfortable and there is a bit of crosstalk (my BIG pet peeve). I just purchased a Vizio M series with Passive 3D. I can tell you without a doubt that I strongly prefer the passive 3D. Zero, and I mean ZERO crosstalk. The picture is bright and absolutely gorgeous. The glasses are light and super comfortable. I totally get the full HD 3D argument, but I really don't notice it. I tried every 3D game over again just to see (Batman, Motorstorm, Crysis 3). Every one looked better to me on the Vizio, hands down. Crysis was notorious for crosstalk on my Samsung. It's amazing the difference playing a game with none. Just my humble opinion.
post #32 of 102
The active 3D with my Sony VPLVW95ES projector absolutely destroys any passive 3D experience I've seen in a real movie theater. Avatar, Prometheus, The Hobbit being examples since I've watched both in both formats. This has nothing to do with any scientific evidence or statistics of any kind, it just looks better... TO ME. Now I also use the Monster Vision 3D glasses, which are much nicer looking than the default Sony glasses I got with my projector. I don't like active glasses in general. Most are uncomfortable, but the monster glasses at least feel like normal glasses and not like some quirky VR Headset like the sony glasses. I wanted to do a "True Passive" setup when I was first designing my theater, using twin projectors, but when it came down to it, it just wasn't worth the cost considering how many titles I actually watch in 3D.

Something also, I suffer from Migraine headaches, and I don't tend to get them using Active tech at home, but have had several after watching 3D in theaters... based on how they work, I'd expect the opposite result, but it is what it is. Maybe it is something to do with the 3D "Sweet Spot" you get in theaters where you can't move your head or the polarization screws up the image.

That being said, I've never seen a 3D Blu Ray on a passive system (in someone's personal home theater), and I'd really like to, because I'd like to know how it looks in comparison to what I've seen in mine. Also to note, I wouldn't ever consider gaming using 3D personally, so my perspective is only toward blu ray movies. I can definitely see though how Active tech could make gaming painful.
Edited by damelon - 8/5/13 at 10:47am
post #33 of 102
Thread Starter 
One of the real benefits I've seen in my new Passive set over my Sony active set is the fact that I can get good 3D from just about any angle. And I don't totally lose the effect when I move my head. With my Sony I could see a marked change in the effect by tilting my head just a tiny bit. Perhaps it's just because that Sony is an HX800 and had early 3D tech, I don't know.

I do know that I'm still all-in when it comes to passive.
post #34 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

I can definitely see though how Active tech could make gaming painful.

I don't know why you would think so. The majority of 3D PC gamers have active monitors or active projectors, and we play for long hours with no problems.
post #35 of 102
^+1 on active 3D for gaming.

I also watch 3D lying down, with no tilt issues. I think these problems are more display specific than format specific.
post #36 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I don't know why you would think so. The majority of 3D PC gamers have active monitors or active projectors, and we play for long hours with no problems.

I would only think so because of refresh rate issues. Since I haven't done it, it was only opinion of how it would work. It is definitely my preference for movies though! Good to know!
post #37 of 102
Nobody ever mentions how you can see each frame flipping out of sync, especially during fast motion, in sequential 3D setups (active shutter and some single projector passive displays). Passive TV's and dual projector passive setups display both eyes at the exact same time.

As I said, it's weird I don't read/hear more complaints about it considering I couldn't stand it the very first moment I saw it watching the Alice in Wonderland trailer in front of Avatar at the theater. It ruins the look of film for me, and anything that moves horizontally creates a false 3D effect.
Edited by cakefoo - 8/6/13 at 12:36pm
post #38 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Nobody ever mentions how you can see each frame flipping out of sync, especially during fast motion, in sequential 3D setups (active shutter and some single projector passive displays). Passive TV's and dual projector passive setups display both eyes at the exact same time.

As I said, it's weird I don't read/hear more complaints about it...

I can't speak for others, but I've never said anything because I've never seen it.
post #39 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Nobody ever mentions how you can see each frame flipping out of sync, especially during fast motion, in sequential 3D setups (active shutter and some single projector passive displays).

I mention it. I agree it's quite noticeable, especially in 24fps movies. It doesn't ruin movies for me by any means, but it's definitely there. I find it to be less noticeable in 60fps games (though again, it's still there). I think this is why some people who don't usually like frame interpolation find it adds a lot when viewing active 3D. Interpolate a 24fps movie up to 60fps and motion tearing is harder to notice.

Some newer projectors such as the Benq W1070 can show 24fps at 144hz, and that should help as well. But nonetheless I think passive wins for motion handling. When I asked some passive owners if there were any problems with motion, some mentioned that there was sometimes some aliasing because of the lines. This sounds less noticeable though, and again something that 4k passive displays will help alleviate.
post #40 of 102
I was never impressed with the passive 3d in the theaters and it always gives me a headache. Last weekend i experienced active 3d on my friends Panasonic Vt60 and was absolutely blown away. The 3d looked so much crisper with much more depth and immersion and didn't give me a headache. I cannot comment on passive 3d for home setups but assume its similar to the theaters.
post #41 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmaga123 View Post

I cannot comment on passive 3d for home setups but assume its similar to the theaters.

I think you'll find that a passive 3D TV looks far, far better than RealD in theaters. No comparison.

I've given up going to see 3D in RealD theaters. All the showings I've seen have been dreadful: out of focus, dim, dirty screens, etc. Maybe it can look better when the operators give a damn, I dunno.

Note I've not yet seen 3D in an IMAX theater; the nearest one is over 2 hours away from me.
post #42 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmaga123 View Post

I was never impressed with the passive 3d in the theaters and it always gives me a headache. Last weekend i experienced active 3d on my friends Panasonic Vt60 and was absolutely blown away. The 3d looked so much crisper with much more depth and immersion and didn't give me a headache. I cannot comment on passive 3d for home setups but assume its similar to the theaters.

Both active and passive 3D at home via BluRay are vastly superior to RealD at the movie theater. I've seen numerous movies on all three formats (I own both an active and a passive set) and the home presentation is ALWAYS sharper, more colorful and depth/pop just look so much better.
post #43 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmaga123 View Post

I was never impressed with the passive 3d in the theaters and it always gives me a headache. Last weekend i experienced active 3d on my friends Panasonic Vt60 and was absolutely blown away. The 3d looked so much crisper with much more depth and immersion and didn't give me a headache. I cannot comment on passive 3d for home setups but assume its similar to the theaters.
Theater projectors have higher resolution. Theaters can have stronger sense of depth due to larger screen sizes. Headaches can be determined by the comfort of the glasses, alignment of the projectors, and other factors. I've never experienced a dull projection in an AMC theater, but I have sat through a mucky dark showing of Avengers at Harkins.
post #44 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

^+1 on active 3D for gaming.

I also watch 3D lying down, with no tilt issues. I think these problems are more display specific than format specific.

 

You watch 3D lying down....with your head horizontal?  Active or Passive, the TV is feeding you stereoscopic left/right images....it won't make sense on your side.

post #45 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

^+1 on active 3D for gaming.


I also watch 3D lying down, with no tilt issues. I think these problems are more display specific than format specific.

You watch 3D lying down....with your head horizontal?  Active or Passive, the TV is feeding you stereoscopic left/right images....it won't make sense on your side.

Do you seriously believe what your saying?

In actuality, with active each eye gets its own image whether tilted or not. I have no trouble at all. With passive, polarization of the screen has to line up with the polarization of the glasses, and you lose image extinction when tilted.
Edited by Augerhandle - 9/22/13 at 7:26pm
post #46 of 102
I think what he's saying is, you can't tilt your head left or right with any 3D TV because the stereoscopic images don't tilt along with you. If you tilt your head 90 degrees to the left or right, your eyes now see vertical disparity on the screen (relative to the orientation of your eyes), but obviously our eyes/brains aren't set up to process that. The display doesn't tilt with you.

Tilting your head up or down is fine in theory of course, although as you say passive has problems with that in practice. So you can lay down on your back and watch 3D TV, but you can't lay on your side and watch, no matter the technology (unless it's a HMD strapped to your head).
post #47 of 102
You'd have to be pretty freakish to be able to align your eyes in such a way to combat head-tilt:

post #48 of 102
I guess I'm a freak then. (I can also read upside down or in a mirror). In practice, I don't usually tilt all the way however, so I tested it out again before my last post. I can still watch in 3D when I tilt all the way to 90°.
Edited by Augerhandle - 9/23/13 at 3:37am
post #49 of 102
I can watch 3D tilted 90 degrees too...the left and right (up and down?) images just don't fuse, that's all!

I dunno, in my experience a little bit of tilt can be tolerated. I have a 3D camera, and often I find if I'm not very careful, the camera isn't perfectly level when I take a picture. When I view them on a level 3D display with my head level, the images don't perfectly match up, but nonetheless my brain can manage to put them together to make a stereoscopic image. It's a bit straining though. Meanwhile, many members of the PC 3D gaming community set depth to exceed their interocular distance, meaning their eyes have to diverge to look at objects off in the distance. Our eyes never do this otherwise, but they claim the 3D is that much better! On the other hand, they also deny that their eyes would have to diverge. Perhaps everyone eye's are a little different and our eyes and brains are a little more flexible than we would think. Or perhaps...something otherwise. Or perhaps a bit of both!
post #50 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

^+1 on active 3D for gaming.


I also watch 3D lying down, with no tilt issues. I think these problems are more display specific than format specific.

You watch 3D lying down....with your head horizontal?  Active or Passive, the TV is feeding you stereoscopic left/right images....it won't make sense on your side.

Do you seriously believe what your saying?

 

I do, and simmer down.  The others have done a good job of explaining the phenomenon.

 

Quote:
In actuality, with active each eye gets its own image whether tilted or not.

It has to do stereoscopic information and something called convergence, and no you cannot shift axes at will (to y) when the information is coming in aligned along x.

 

If you have a hard time visualizing what I'm (we're) saying, imagine a 3D scene with a target object in it (anything...a box, bike, rock, person).  Draw in your mind a line from each eye to the target.  Consider all the information that comes along with each viewpoint.  That's captured in a left/right fashion to the camera.  Tip your head so you're now at 90° from sitting.  If instead of looking at a picture of the scene you were instead looking through a window at the same scene, the top and bottom information of the scene would be traveling to your eyes (along new lines).  But because it's a TV, you're getting the original L/R information of a camera.  The information didn't tilt with you.

 

By the way, this is a common misunderstanding and often comes from an understandable initial reaction that when you see a 3D movie through glasses that you're seeing 3D objects as you do IRL.

post #51 of 102
Whatever.
post #52 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I can watch 3D tilted 90 degrees too...the left and right (up and down?) images just don't fuse, that's all!

I dunno, in my experience a little bit of tilt can be tolerated. I have a 3D camera, and often I find if I'm not very careful, the camera isn't perfectly level when I take a picture. When I view them on a level 3D display with my head level, the images don't perfectly match up, but nonetheless my brain can manage to put them together to make a stereoscopic image. It's a bit straining though. Meanwhile, many members of the PC 3D gaming community set depth to exceed their interocular distance, meaning their eyes have to diverge to look at objects off in the distance. Our eyes never do this otherwise, but they claim the 3D is that much better! On the other hand, they also deny that their eyes would have to diverge. Perhaps everyone eye's are a little different and our eyes and brains are a little more flexible than we would think. Or perhaps...something otherwise. Or perhaps a bit of both!

Even though the glasses are rotated, tilting your head does not change the pixels in the TV. While the images may be above and below each other relative to the lenses when tilted, the two images are still side by side relative to each other. There's a little thing called an inner ear that let's one know their head is tilted not the picture.

Rotating polarized glasses reverses the images each eye sees, that's why they don't fuse.

Regardless of being called a liar and a freak, I stand by what I stated before, I have no problems watching the picture lying down. Sorry to hear you can't. Try swapping lenses in a pair, just for lying down.
Edited by Augerhandle - 9/23/13 at 3:16pm
post #53 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Even though the glasses are rotated, tilting your head does not change the pixels in the TV. The two images are still side by side of each other.
Ironically, what you said is what introduces a problem in the first place. 3DTVs work on the premise that you are sitting straight up with your eyes and TV parallel to the floor. The left and right images are horizontally shifted on a single vertical plane. Tilting your head puts your eyes on two different vertical planes, which means to join the 3DTV images together, one eye has to point up and the other down, as in the photo above. Googly eyes. If you can do that, CONGRATULATIONS, I DON'T CARE. The point remains, very few people can actually do that, so tilting their head is going to be equally ill-advised, regardless of screen/glasses tech.
post #54 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I can watch 3D tilted 90 degrees too...the left and right (up and down?) images just don't fuse, that's all!

I dunno, in my experience a little bit of tilt can be tolerated. I have a 3D camera, and often I find if I'm not very careful, the camera isn't perfectly level when I take a picture. When I view them on a level 3D display with my head level, the images don't perfectly match up, but nonetheless my brain can manage to put them together to make a stereoscopic image. It's a bit straining though. Meanwhile, many members of the PC 3D gaming community set depth to exceed their interocular distance, meaning their eyes have to diverge to look at objects off in the distance. Our eyes never do this otherwise, but they claim the 3D is that much better! On the other hand, they also deny that their eyes would have to diverge. Perhaps everyone eye's are a little different and our eyes and brains are a little more flexible than we would think. Or perhaps...something otherwise. Or perhaps a bit of both!

Even though the glasses are rotated, tilting your head does not change the pixels in the TV. While the images may be above and below each other relative to the lenses when tilted, the two images are still side by side relative to each other. There's a little thing called an inner ear that let's one know their head is tilted not the picture.

Rotating polarized glasses reverses the images each eye sees, that's why they don't fuse.

 

No they don't.  You're thinking of linearly polarized filters.  FPR used in passive 3D is circularly polarized.

post #55 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post


FPR used in passive 3D is circularly polarized.

I stand corrected. Thanks.
post #56 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

I would only think so because of refresh rate issues. Since I haven't done it, it was only opinion of how it would work. It is definitely my preference for movies though! Good to know!

I play games at 1080p at 60fps in each eye using active glasses. If your priority is detail active is the way to go, if your priority is low cost glasses that don't need to be recharged then passive is the way to go. Both are great reasons for one or the other, only the individual can decide which one is best for them.
post #57 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

You'd have to be pretty freakish to be able to align your eyes in such a way to combat head-tilt:


I watch 3D lying down sometimes and while it definitely feels "different" somehow it does not loose it's 3D nature as a result (as I had suspected it would).


For one your eyeballs rotate in your head to some degree (obviously not 90 degrees - but probably 15-30 degrees or so) so even when lying down you aren't getting a full 90 degree off view and secondly it would appear the human brain is not so finicky as to hold you to right/left depth queues but can in fact recognize entire shapes and determine what is occluded from the shape and get depth cues from that also.

To all who think you can't watch 3D while lying down, I advise you try it.

I do think it's far better sitting level, but it's far from impossible or ruined when lying down.
post #58 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

You'd have to be pretty freakish to be able to align your eyes in such a way to combat head-tilt:


I watch 3D lying down sometimes and while it definitely feels "different" somehow it does not loose it's 3D nature as a result (as I had suspected it would).


For one your eyeballs rotate in your head to some degree (obviously not 90 degrees - but probably 15-30 degrees or so) so even when lying down you aren't getting a full 90 degree off view and secondly it would appear the human brain is not so finicky as to hold you to right/left depth queues but can in fact recognize entire shapes and determine what is occluded from the shape and get depth cues from that also.

To all who think you can't watch 3D while lying down, I advise you try it.

I do think it's far better sitting level, but it's far from impossible or ruined when lying down.

 

I know the effect you're talking about: just about everyone here does.  I have tried it.  In fact it was among the first things I tried with my FPR Sony R550A.  It's not the 3D you think it is.

 

I have a theory about what the brain is doing.  Bear with me a little bit, I'll try to walk around this subject carefully, starting with the premise.  The theory is in two parts.

 

I. To Recap The Underlying Argument

When you have your eyes horizontal, 3D does its job by giving your left eye and right eye information spaced further or closer together.  Depending upon the eye they're feeding, this can move the object further away or closer.  Consider a person P, in front of a house H in 2D

 

          H
         H H
        H   H
       H     H
      H       H
      HHHHHHHHH
      H       H
      H       H
      H       H
      H   P   H

 

Now in 3D with the person in front of the house, say, 6 steps away from it toward the camera, the left and right eye information must have the person appear to the right more than normal and to the left more than normal.  Here is the information for each eye:

 

Left eye: Person appears to the Right more than normal

Right Eye: Person appears to the Left more than normal

 

          H              H
         H H            H H
        H   H          H   H
       H     H        H     H
      H       H      H       H
      HHHHHHHHH      HHHHHHHHH
      H       H      H       H
      H       H      H       H
      H       H      H       H
      H    P  H      H  P    H

 

And to show the person much closer to the camera, say 20 steps in front of the house:

 

          H              H
         H H            H H
        H   H          H   H
       H     H        H     H
      H       H      H       H
      HHHHHHHHH      HHHHHHHHH
      H       H      H       H
      H       H      H       H
      H       H      H       H
      H     P H      H P     H

 

Note that just as in real life, this information is presented as left and right offsets only, because our eyes are offset left and right.

 

When you are lying down on your side, those P's are now above and below each other.  Your brain has no way of making sense of that information: for instance, it cannot map above information to the left eye and below information to the right eye.  It needs images to the left and right of each other (respective to each eye) in order to see the P closer or further away.  In real life, this is how that functions as well, though clearly with several other factors involved.

 

What's likely happening when lying down is that the brain is jumping through hoops trying to make sense of dual information that "sort of" lines up.  The only time that the brain is fed information different for each eye is in an optically stereo situation...that's all it really understands.  That's why it feels stereo.

 

Here's the way I confound the brain in a similar way.

 

II. Screwing With The Brain In Other Ways

 

This works for FPR sets.  I don't know if I can get active to misbehave like this, because I don't know if I can engage the glasses in a 2D setting.

 

Put your passive glasses on when you're watching normal 2D.  Each eye will be fed information that is very similar (because each scanline is almost always very similar to the one above or below it), but not exact.  Particularly for slanted lines.

 

When I do this, my brain tries very very hard to turn what I'm seeing into 3D.  The right eye might see any given scanline extend slightly further to the right than what seems like the same line to the left eye.  I get an uncomfortable effect here that doesn't look 3D, but it almost feels like a dizzying 3D, because my brain has no other way of identifying the action of seeing two different things and trying to fuse them.

 

Skip ahead to seeing the 3D information lying down.  Every time the information scans up or down the physical screen(from scanline to scanline), there is one eye getting information that appears further to the right than the other eye.  Remember, each scanline is now vertical, and going up the screen is moving to the right optically if I'm lying down on my left ear.  I think the brain is maybe trying to fuse this information in a similar way to when I was watching 2D with glasses on.


Edited by tgm1024 - 10/1/13 at 8:32am
post #59 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post


II. Screwing With The Brain In Other Ways




This works for FPR sets.  I don't know if I can get active to misbehave like this, because I don't know if I can engage the glasses in a 2D setting.

Put your passive glasses on when you're watching normal 2D.  Each eye will be fed information that is very similar (because each scanline is almost always very similar to the one above or below it), but not exact.  Particularly for slanted lines.

When I do this, my brain tries very very hard to turn what I'm seeing into 3D.  The right eye might see any given scanline extend slightly further to the right than what seems like the same line to the left eye.  I get an uncomfortable effect here that doesn't look 3D, but it almost feels like a dizzying 3D, because my brain has no other way of identifying the action of seeing two different things and trying to fuse them.

Skip ahead to seeing the 3D information lying down.  Every time the information scans up or down the physical screen(from scanline to scanline), there is one eye getting information that appears further to the right than the other eye.  Remember, each scanline is now vertical, and going up the screen is moving to the right optically if I'm lying down on my left ear.  I think the brain is maybe trying to fuse this information in a similar way to when I was watching 2D with glasses on.

I think it's really more simple - as in we assume the technical limitations of stereoscopic viewing relate to left right separation specifically but as I noted your eyeballs rotate in your sockets significant amount as you tilt your head - so you are not always getting true left/right separation.

Believe it or not in that tilted head cartoon above your eyes really do something similar when you tilt your head... go in front a mirror and look at your eyeball. Try to pick something to look at (maybe a veign or spot) and tilt your head... your eyeball rotates to stay level for quite a few degress. This means you are eventually seeing with eyes not on the same plane... one higher than the other, but both even with the horizon.

If stereoscopic vision was that delicate this would mess stuff up, but we do this all day every day.

I think the brain is capable of deriving stereo information more logically and less systemically. It can recognize an offset in the same image even if the offset is not the plane it normally is.

Now as for the passive 2D while on the side I will have to try that but in this case I don't know it would make me certain the brain is being screwed with and thus could not perceive 3D from vertical offiset, rather that there are circumstances when it can be messed with separate from perceiving stereo... like when you look through a chain link fence and the eyes cross in a weird way that matches up the fence in the foreground while not losing focus on the distance.

In short yes I can see how the passive 2D image could mess with your head on it's side and your brain would try to make 3D data where there is none, but I don't think that means it can't resolve 3D data where there is some even if it's on an abnormal axis.
post #60 of 102
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

 

II. Screwing With The Brain In Other Ways




This works for FPR sets.  I don't know if I can get active to misbehave like this, because I don't know if I can engage the glasses in a 2D setting.

Put your passive glasses on when you're watching normal 2D.  Each eye will be fed information that is very similar (because each scanline is almost always very similar to the one above or below it), but not exact.  Particularly for slanted lines.

When I do this, my brain tries very very hard to turn what I'm seeing into 3D.  The right eye might see any given scanline extend slightly further to the right than what seems like the same line to the left eye.  I get an uncomfortable effect here that doesn't look 3D, but it almost feels like a dizzying 3D, because my brain has no other way of identifying the action of seeing two different things and trying to fuse them.

Skip ahead to seeing the 3D information lying down.  Every time the information scans up or down the physical screen(from scanline to scanline), there is one eye getting information that appears further to the right than the other eye.  Remember, each scanline is now vertical, and going up the screen is moving to the right optically if I'm lying down on my left ear.  I think the brain is maybe trying to fuse this information in a similar way to when I was watching 2D with glasses on.

I think it's really more simple - as in we assume the technical limitations of stereoscopic viewing relate to left right separation specifically but as I noted your eyeballs rotate in your sockets significant amount as you tilt your head - so you are not always getting true left/right separation.

Believe it or not in that tilted head cartoon above your eyes really do something similar when you tilt your head... go in front a mirror and look at your eyeball. Try to pick something to look at (maybe a veign or spot) and tilt your head... your eyeball rotates to stay level for quite a few degress. This means you are eventually seeing with eyes not on the same plane... one higher than the other, but both even with the horizon.

 

You lost me here.  Can you maybe rephrase?  Tilted head or not, your eyes are receiving L/R offset information perfectly.  Even through a mirror.
 

Quote:
Now as for the passive 2D while on the side I will have to try that but in this case I don't know it would make me certain the brain is being screwed with and thus could not perceive 3D from vertical offiset

 

It can't.  Period.  There's no way for your brain to line it up when it doesn't have L/R offset information.  If you were looking through a window lying down, you would see 3D, but that's because the top and bottom information are now being fed to your eyes properly (The left and right eyes are positioned to see top and bottom offsets.)  But when you have left and right offset information positioned on top of each other, there's nothing your eyes can do to fuse that information properly.


 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Displays › Passive 3D or Active 3D - "True 1080p" aside