Originally Posted by rdlohr
Thanks. The comparison I am making is really to 1080P movies which I think are 1920x1080. When I watch a 4K movie, the image is far less grainy than the 1080P movies. With the 3D movies, that is far less noticeable and I would have guessed they were a higher resolution. I guess the perceived resolution is higher from the difference data you mentioned. The 3D effect is incredible and I'm very happy with my overall picture. The other thing I notice is that the darks are darker since there is some loss with the lens and that seems to be a good thing. The dark contrast is outstanding. I'm assuming the projector is putting out more light to compensate since I hear it raise the fan speed higher than it typically runs. Is there a good write up you know of that I can read up on 3D theory? I would like to understand what is really happening with polarized lenses versus the active lenses I am using.
I can't really comment on the film grain aspects (or lack thereof) on 4K, in some cases it's up to the mastering of the disc how much or little film grain (or even artificial film grain) is retained/introduced, or how much noise from recording is left in the final output if they've done some noise reduction (ie they were recording a dark sequence with less than stellar cameras or lighting). You'd also need to check settings on the projector to see how it's processing the 4K image (as it would be configured differently in HDR vs SDR FHD). You'd probably want to compare the Ultra HD vs the Blu-Ray disc (in 2D) to get a good comparison going (then the 2D vs the 3D disc if interested).
It sounds like you're watching on an Active 3D Projector - yes you'd get better contrast (but less brightness) as the Active Shutter glasses are blocking potentially 1/2 of the projector light output (or more?) however most 3D discs & devices will boost the brightness/gamma to compensate to a degree.
A quick read into Active vs Passive technology can be read here
from rtings however the oft repeated "Passive is half resolution FHD" is misunderstood from a perceptual approach (vs a technical approach). A rather long comparison done by DisplayMate (about 2011, when Active vs Passive was under strong debate) is here
- since then the last generation Passive TV's by LG in 4K (2014?-2016) are able to display both 3D frames simultaneously instead of only half each with a FHD display. Even with Passive FHD they were able to show it's possible to perceive a FHD image. You probably wouldn't get as much quality improvement over 2D with a Passive FHD vs a Passive 4K or Active display (since it's not showing as much visual data, unless there's some really good post-processing to maximise the difference data shown).