AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
3D is all about fusing two different images. This is supposed to be easy to do, comfortable to do.

But if you read about anaglyph 3D glasses, they have crosstalk.

If you read the Nvidia forums they have crosstalk discussed a lot.


DLP has problems too, even though one of them isn't crosstalk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun
I find it rather amazing that consumers are unable to figure out the DLP cut a cost corner many years ago to reduce the micro-mirror count. It called wobulation, a technique which slightly offsets the same mirror within the same frame, to draw two lines.


So there is no time or mirrors left for Blu-ray 3D, where each stream has a native resolution of 1920*1080. So what does DLP sacrifice?


Image quality! as half the data is tossed.


Then add in the mandatory overscan (just try to display a computer desktop on it
).


Then there is the high gain screen which varies drastically with viewing angle.


Then the poor black levels...


Finally there is cheap optics, which make the picture blurry.


Did I forget the always breaking down color wheel and expensive bulb?


Does the big plastic box boom with the bass?


Now go post these tidbits over in the rear projector forum (and run for your life)
!
link


What do I want to buy? A 2010/2011 LED 3D TV with No Crosstalk.

That DLP sure is nice but I think I'll pass,


Plasma is next but it has burn in issues when gaming. Sure you say it's not bad but some here say otherwise.

So I want a 3D LED LCD, not Plasma or DLP.


And you know what? All LED 3D TV's have crosstalk, making fusing the image difficult or headache inducing or making your eyes sore.


My point is this. The glasses and TV should have zero crosstalk. Regardless if you use crt, led lcd, or dlp. Crosstalk should be the First thing that works when they decided to sell 3D TV's but now they are looking at it and maybe fix it in the 2011 models.

It is unacceptable that crosstalk is a problem in plasma TV's let alone LED LCD TV's.


It should be the First thing that is on the checklist as a Minimum standard that must work. It is what 3D TV is all about, not the second or third thing.

Next is the brightness of the image, a crosstalk free but dark picture is also unacceptable.


Edit,


According to Mr.Orman the glasses are fast enough, and it's just the way they show the picture on the TV is what causes a lot of crosstalk.


That means it's possible the manufacturers could have crosstalk free glasses, but they show crosstalk when compared to the ones made by Mr.Orman that he uses with his Samsung TV.


Yet these wrongly designed glasses were allowed to be sold, even though they could have been made to reduce crosstalk a lot.

It's just bad 3D, and I'm not judging the sellers of these TV's but I am complaining that 3D is suffering when it should be nice.



Edit,


3D video depends on parallax being fused as you sit at a 40 degree angle distance from the TV. And how can you fuse this if the TV has crosstalk? You can't, and this makes the whole purpose of 3D pointless.


/end rant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
I can safely say that the guy who posted about the negatives of DLP TVs has never actually seen one play 3d content or is just trying to justify his purchase.


1. Half the resolution is cut but is displayed for the other eye on the next frame - it doesn't look like half resolution, more like 1080i.


2. Viewing angle is fine. Yes if you're directly to the side of the TV, the brightness will vary however with 3d you want to be sitting near the middle of the screen - making this a moot point.


3. Black levels are great (don't confuse DLP TVs with old rear projectin units). Also, DLPs don't suffer from black fade like Plasmas.


4. Picture is sharp.


5. As for the breaking down colour wheel/expensive bulb - this was more so an issue with older DLP TVs. My 2007 has an LED color engine which will far outlast 1080p technology. I think even the Mits bulb TVs last at least 20000 hours... which is easily comparable to plasma displays. And replacing a bulb is a few hundred dollars... since you save thousands buying a DLP in the first place, I don't think replacing one bulb throughout the life of the set should factor into your purchase decision.


My friends from out of town visit every now and again and the last time my buddy was here, he told me he had forgotten how nice the picture on my TV is. Buy whatever you want. I promise you though that an 82 inch DLP monster in your living room would blow you and your friends away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin-Dawson /forum/post/19625769


I can safely say that the guy who posted about the negatives of DLP TVs has never actually seen one play 3d content or is just trying to justify his purchase.


1. Half the resolution is cut but is displayed for the other eye on the next frame - it doesn't look like half resolution, more like 1080i.


2. Viewing angle is fine. Yes if you're directly to the side of the TV, the brightness will vary however with 3d you want to be sitting near the middle of the screen - making this a moot point.


3. Black levels are great (don't confuse DLP TVs with old rear projectin units). Also, DLPs don't suffer from black fade like Plasmas.


4. Picture is sharp.


5. As for the breaking down colour wheel/expensive bulb - this was more so an issue with older DLP TVs. My 2007 has an LED color engine which will far outlast 1080p technology. I think even the Mits bulb TVs last at least 20000 hours... which is easily comparable to plasma displays. And replacing a bulb is a few hundred dollars... since you save thousands buying a DLP in the first place, I don't think replacing one bulb throughout the life of the set should factor into your purchase decision.


My friends from out of town visit every now and again and the last time my buddy was here, he told me he had forgotten how nice the picture on my TV is. Buy whatever you want. I promise you though that an 82 inch DLP monster in your living room would blow you and your friends away.

Yes,

I agree the DLP technology is the top performer.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,971 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8:13 /forum/post/19624442


[snip]...DLP has problems too, even though one of them isn't crosstalk....[snip] link [snip .../end rant

Be careful where you get your information, 8:13. Some people like to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, based on false or outdated info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiFun /forum/post/19606687


I find it rather amazing that consumers are unable to figure out the DLP cut a cost corner many years ago to reduce the micro-mirror count. It called wobulation, a technique which slightly offsets the same mirror within the same frame, to draw two lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

It's actually called SmoothPicture and it does just that. It smooths the transition from pixel to pixel, which eliminates the "screen door effect" so prominant in LCD displays. ("Wobulation" is a term coined and trademarked by Hewlett Packard).
Quote:
So there is no time or mirrors left for Blu-ray 3D, where each stream has a native resolution of 1920*1080. So what does DLP sacrifice?


Image quality! as half the data is tossed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

As DLP owners continuously attest, not as big an issue as one might think, and still HD (more pixels than 720P). Also, cable and satellite 3D is broadcast in "half resolution", often half 720P resolution.
Quote:
Then add in the mandatory overscan (just try to display a computer desktop on it
).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

It's a TV
, not a computer monitor
. BTW, overscan has been around for decades, because of consumer demand. It is normal.
Quote:
Then there is the high gain screen which varies drastically with viewing angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

I notice nothing drastic about viewing angles on my set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drexl /forum/post/19611520


[snip] ...Off axis [viewing] is greatly improved from older rp screens. Really a non-issue now. Picture is great... [snip]
Quote:
Then the poor black levels...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

DLP's biggest benefit, next to price, is extremely deep black levels. http://www.obsessable.com/feature/lcd-vs-plasma-vs-dlp-whats-the-difference/
Quote:
Originally Posted by drexl /forum/post/19611520


[snip]... don't notice a big difference in black levels from my plasma.
Quote:
Finally there is cheap optics, which make the picture blurry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

You're joking, right?
Quote:
Did I forget the always breaking down color wheel and expensive bulb?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

We have owned five DLPs, and not one had an "always breaking down color wheel" (in fact, not even a "sometimes" breaking down color wheel) and my TV's replacement bulb cost $99 from the manufacturer
Quote:
Does the big plastic box boom with the bass? ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle /forum/post/19610715

Ummm, NO...[snip]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
551 Posts
Nearly 10 years ago I bought my first Mitsubishi 65" DLP for $14,700 (list$15,000) because of the amazing new technology (and I had extra money). Now I want the biggest and best at an affordable price. Currently my 73" is in the master bedroom and the 82" in living room. I use the 82" all the time for my PC,play games, watch TV and watch 3D movies. I have never replaced anything except one bulb in all those years. The current models are better then ever and the large size helps 3D viewing immensely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
I love my DLP's. I hope Mitsibishi continues to manufacturer them. I was sad to see Samsung discontinue. It is disappointing to see people here try to bash on DLP technology claiming it is inferior just because they are trying to justify their smaller screens at much higher prices.


To me, the only reason I would buy anything other than DLP is if I planned to hang it on a wall or where space is a premium or if you are very concerned about the environment and power saving.


BTW.... not one bit of crosstalk noticed in How to Train Your Dragon (which imo is the best 3D movie available) and once I addressed the black crush issues with the adapter, black levels are fairly good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
I'll also jump in. I own the 73738, and I hear all this "technically the 3D image is half, but for each eye" all over these forums. I can tell you that I percieve no difference in PQ watching the same movie in 2D then in 3D on Blu-Ray. This is sitting about 5ft in front of a 73" screen, and no, I'm not blind. Yes, I have closed one eye with the glasses on....again no percieved difference in PQ (and yes I was actively looking for a difference). The only thing that changed with one eye closed was the 3D effect as it relates to depth. My regular HD channels come in as 1080i through my cable box and it doesn't even come close to the PQ via Blu-Ray in 3D with one eye closed....so I'm not sure what to think about the statement that each eye perceives 1080i. If that was the case, I would definately notice. I realize that HD content can vary even though they are output as 1080i. I think Hawaii 5.0 can be considered good HD content.


Onto my 3D gaming observations: I own an Xbox, so I am limited in content as compared to PS3, but I can tell you playing Black Ops in 3D (local play) is just like watching a good 3D movie. I read about PQ issues with Black Ops in 3D on these forums, but it is from people with PS3's. Which leads me to two conclusions. 1) Playing online reduces the quality which I haven't done (ie. not local play), or 2) It is related to the PS3.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19626535


I'll also jump in. I own the 73738, and I hear all this "technically the 3D image is half, but for each eye" all over these forums. I can tell you that I percieve no difference in PQ watching the same movie in 2D then in 3D on Blu-Ray. This is sitting about 5ft in front of a 73" screen, and no, I'm not blind. Yes, I have closed one eye with the glasses on....again no percieved difference in PQ (and yes I was actively looking for a difference). The only thing that changed with one eye closed was the 3D effect as it relates to depth. My regular HD channels come in as 1080i through my cable box and it doesn't even come close to the PQ via Blu-Ray in 3D with one eye closed....so I'm not sure what to think about the statement that each eye perceives 1080i. If that was the case, I would definately notice. I realize that HD content can vary even though they are output as 1080i. I think Hawaii 5.0 can be considered good HD content.


Onto my 3D gaming observations: I own an Xbox, so I am limited in content as compared to PS3, but I can tell you playing Black Ops in 3D (local play) is just like watching a good 3D movie. I read about PQ issues with Black Ops in 3D on these forums, but it is from people with PS3's. Which leads me to two conclusions. 1) Playing online reduces the quality which I haven't done (ie. not local play), or 2) It is related to the PS3.

It does not matter since there is no full 3d HD content available due to bandwidth limitations.


So that half res checker board method is actual good enough for what is available now both for both TV and Blu-ray.


The real full HD broadcast will never arrive becasue of huge

loss of profits.

Bandwidth is money they have to pay for.

If left and right stream which takes two channels can only have one commercial advertising content then the two must be squeezed into one channel at cost of loosing quality.

And that is what they do.

Actually they do that to 2D content as well and it is called "smart blur" the result:

All faces look like they have heavy makeup putty applied.


So remember: any 3D broadcast equals four times less resolution than full HD 3D.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19626699


It does not matter since there is no full 3d HD content available due to bandwidth limitations.


So that half res checker board method is actual good enough for what is available now both for both TV and Blu-ray.


The real full HD broadcast will never arrive becasue of huge

loss of profits.

Bandwidth is money they have to pay for.

If left and right stream which takes two channels can only have one commercial advertising content then the two must be squeezed into one channel at cost of loosing quality.

And that is what they do.

Actually they do that to 2D content as well and it is called "smart blur" the result:

All faces look like they have heavy makeup putty applied.


So remember: any 3D broadcast equals four times less resolution than full HD 3D.


Mathew Orman

I should have pointed out that Hawaii 5.0 is not a 3D broadcast. It is 2D, and pretty good in terms of broadcast HD PQ. Yes, BR will always blow broadcast HD away. I never watch broadcast 3D content because it blows. I almost stuck a fork in my eye watching Seigfreid & Roy...


Anyway, the point I was trying to make was there was no perceived difference in PQ watching the same BR movie in 2D and 3D, even with one eye closed in 3D. The only thing that changed was the depth as it relates to the 3D effect. PQ remained constant.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19626784


I should have pointed out that Hawaii 5.0 is not a 3D broadcast. It is 2D, and pretty good in terms of broadcast HD PQ. Yes, BR will always blow broadcast HD away. I never watch broadcast 3D content because it blows. I almost stuck a fork in my eye watching Seigfreid & Roy...


Anyway, the point I was trying to make was there was no perceived difference in PQ watching the same BR movie in 2D and 3D, even with one eye closed in 3D. The only thing that changed was the depth as it relates to the 3D effect. PQ remained constant.

That is becasue you do not have the 2D BD version to compare with the 2D version from 3D BD.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19626839


That is becasue you do not have the 2D BD version to compare with the 2D version from 3D BD.


Mathew Orman

1. Why would they (2D) be different?


2. If the 3D PQ quality is halved (or whatever the technical reason may be) to each eye...and having both eyes open fools the brain into thinking the PQ is better than it actually is. Then why with one eye closed is there not a perceivable difference in PQ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19626893


1. Why would they (2D) be different?


2. If the 3D PQ quality is halved (or whatever the technical reason may be) to each eye...and having both eyes open fools the brain into thinking the PQ is better than it actually is. Then why with one eye closed is there not a perceivable difference in PQ?

Because simply the is a one bandwidth limit on Blu-ray regardless if the content is 1D, 2D, 3D or xilienD.


If you one stream at max resolution then two steams will have both half resolution.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19627097


Because simply the is a one bandwidth limit on Blu-ray regardless if the content is 1D, 2D, 3D or xilienD.


If you one stream at max resolution then two steams will have both half resolution.


Mathew Orman

Understood...unless I am totally missing the point, this implies I should be able to distinguish a drop in PQ with one eye closed in 3D....which I can't.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19627182


Understood...unless I am totally missing the point, this implies I should be able to distinguish a drop in PQ with one eye closed in 3D....which I can't.

Wrong.

You buy Blu-ray movie which is 2D and then you buy Blu-ray movie which is 3D version of the same movie.

Take the same image of the 2D BD and compare it with the same image either left or right from 3D BD.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19627314


Wrong.

You buy Blu-ray movie which is 2D and then you buy Blu-ray movie which is 3D version of the same movie.

Take the same image of the 2D BD and compare it with the same image either left or right from 3D BD.


Mathew Orman

I understand the 2D point you are making, and I will check that against 3D titles I own. Although, I will admit that I have not noticed any of my non-3D titles looking any better in comparison (understood that it's not the same movie).


My last statement was based on how Mitsubishi does checkerboard, and what resolution is sent to each eye:

Quote:
2. If the 3D PQ quality is halved (or whatever the technical reason may be) to each eye...and having both eyes open fools the brain into thinking the PQ is better than it actually is. Then why with one eye closed is there not a perceivable difference in PQ?

...or is that wrong as well?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19627393


I understand the 2D point you are making, and I will check that against 3D titles I own. Although, I will admit that I have not noticed any of my non-3D titles looking any better in comparison (understood that it's not the same movie).


My last statement was based on how Mitsubishi does checkerboard, and what resolution is sent to each eye:




...or is that wrong as well?

Yes it is,

the left and right eye resolution is the same.

They are both lower if compared to image taken from FULL HD 2D version of the same movie.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19627443


Yes it is,

the left and right eye resolution is the same.

They are both lower if compared to image taken from FULL HD 2D version of the same movie.


Mathew Orman

Comparing Z axis resolution with XY resolution

is just like the old saying about apples and pears.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19627443


Yes it is,

the left and right eye resolution is the same.

They are both lower if compared to image taken from FULL HD 2D version of the same movie.


Mathew Orman

We are talking past each other (I think).


Checkerboard: One eye sees a certain set of pixles, and the other sees the other set (yes they are the same resolution, but each eye is seeing a different set of pixles). When put together = brain forms a complete picture for a lack of a better term. This complete picture (after the brain puts it together) should be perceptually better than watching with one eye closed. Yes/No?


If my interpretation is incorrect, I apologize. Just trying to educate myself on this. Still love my Mitsu.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadocs /forum/post/19627558


We are talking past each other (I think).


Checkerboard: One eye sees a certain set of pixles, and the other sees the other set (yes they are the same resolution, but each eye is seeing a different set of pixles). When put together = brain forms a complete picture for a lack of a better term. This complete picture (after the brain puts it together) should be perceptually better than watching with one eye closed. Yes/No?


If my interpretation is incorrect, I apologize. Just trying to educate myself on this. Still love my Mitsu.

If we are not talking about resolution then yes,

the human Cyclopean vision is composed of left + right

and since left is different then right the total effect is more information and brain uses that extra to give as the depth

off all objects in a scene.


Mathew Orman
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top