3D Technology

PostmanPot said:
Plasma is a niche market? So it's been hanging on tatters for about 5 years now since Sony and others dropped it? I see more and more models coming out each year, more people buying. MyBroadband article also noted the opposite of what you claim? I would have to trust an internet review site, over your opinion !
Click to expand...

Are you saying that more plasma's are sold than LCD/LED? Live with it, LCD/LED tech are becoming better and cheaper every year. Soon there will be no reason for the mass consumer market to even consider a plasma, unless a major breakthrough in plasma technology happens to nullify the hundreds/thousands of advantages of LED TV's above the plasma. All that is left is a small percentage in blacks and even that is now surpassed by the high end LG LED TV's
 
wily me said:
Please educate me. Where are the facts and information that states that the pixels are incorrectly positioned?
Click to expand...
Its simple physics, the FPR polarization system is not dynamic, therefore the odd panel lines are permanently & perpetually blocked from the left eye, as are the even panel lines from the right eye.

Therefore the 1080 lines source lines for a particular eye can only be shown on the same 540 physical panel lines. This in my view this is less than 1080i, where the even & odd lines also arrive separately, but are displayed on the actual panel line they were intended for, unlike FPR where half are shifted 1 line higher or lower.
 
Roman4604 said:
Its simple physics, the FPR polarization system is not dynamic, therefore the odd panel lines are permanently & perpetually blocked from the left eye, as are the even panel lines from the right eye.

Therefore the 1080 lines source lines for a particular eye can only be shown on the same 540 physical panel lines. This in my view this is less than 1080i, where the even & odd lines also arrive separately, but are displayed on the actual panel line they were intended for, unlike FPR where half are shifted 1 line higher or lower.
Click to expand...

What's your physics qualification again? Again more "views" ie beliefs stated here.
 
Roman4604 said:
No point in continuing if you don't have the capacity to understand/visualize simple physical concepts.
Click to expand...

Ok, No points in many directions, so the mathematical limit is pointlessness. I agree at last. This debate is meaningless.
 
Roman4604 said:
Its simple physics, the FPR polarization system is not dynamic, therefore the odd panel lines are permanently & perpetually blocked from the left eye, as are the even panel lines from the right eye.

Therefore the 1080 lines source lines for a particular eye can only be shown on the same 540 physical panel lines. This in my view this is less than 1080i, where the even & odd lines also arrive separately, but are displayed on the actual panel line they were intended for, unlike FPR where half are shifted 1 line higher or lower.
Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand the LG concept. Did you know the old CRT are a single line (electron beam) scanning at high speed across the TV tube, yet your eyes could never perceive the reality? You need a high speed camera to capture the fact. ;)
 
wily me said:
Obviously you do not understand the LG concept.
Click to expand...
I do perfectly, fact of the matter is (for a particular eye) 1080 sources lines displayed exactly on the corresponding 1080 panel lines is a more accurate depiction of the source image than the same 1080 source lines only shown on 540 panel lines.

Whether this difference is perceivable to viewer is up to the individual, personally I could on the many occasions I've had to compare them.
 
Roman4604 said:
I do perfectly, fact of the matter is (for a particular eye) 1080 sources lines displayed exactly on the corresponding 1080 panel lines is a more accurate depiction of the source image than the same 1080 source lines only shown on 540 panel lines.

Whether this difference is perceivable to viewer is up to the individual, personally I could on the many occasions I've had to compare them.
Click to expand...

How many of the latest LG firmware tv's did you compare?
 
wily me said:
How many of the latest LG firmware tv's did you compare?
Click to expand...
Cant really tell, will have to check fw versions next time.

From reviews it does seem then newer algorithm improves passive 3D's picture fidelity, but I still doubt it can absolutely match active's. The same physical constrains remain, each eye can only see half the lines.

BTW all my explanations above assume the newer algorithm, that being both odd and even source lines are displayed on the same fixed odd or even panel line (50/50 time wise).
 
Roman4604 said:
Cant really tell, will have to check fw versions next time.

From reviews it does seem then newer algorithm improves passive 3D's picture fidelity, but I still doubt it can absolutely match active's. The same physical constrains remain, each eye can only see half the lines.

BTW all my explanations above assume the newer algorithm, that being both odd and even source lines are displayed on the same fixed odd or even panel line (50/50 time wise).
Click to expand...
For sure it cannot match 100% but from what I read it's doing damn good. Mass consumers are really the key factor and according to sources the passive LG 3D cinema is a top seller world wide. Mostly due to the overall value for money and the dang good 3D performance. We will have to wait and see what the LG 3D Cinema plasma will bring to the table. ;) Good times ahead.
 
Roman4604 said:
Cant really tell, will have to check fw versions next time.

From reviews it does seem then newer algorithm improves passive 3D's picture fidelity, but I still doubt it can absolutely match active's. The same physical constrains remain, each eye can only see half the lines.

BTW all my explanations above assume the newer algorithm, that being both odd and even source lines are displayed on the same fixed odd or even panel line (50/50 time wise).
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the same is true for all 3D (in one way or another) otherwise you won't be able to see 3D - its an illusion. Active shuts one eye at a time, hence the flicker. So between 2 eyes you still see only half of the picture, half of the time. Whereas with the new passive you actually see the complete picture all the time, hense no flicker.

I find your expression of another belief, aka "but I still doubt it can absolutely match active's" self revealing.
 
Last edited:
Interesting side by side Samsung 3D vs LG 3D in gaming

[video=youtube;v1wYwIp7Xg4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v1wYwIp7Xg4#![/video]
 
Mr_Bee said:
Certainly Active 3D glasses is not good for many things,ie it can cause headaches, nausea and epileptic fits. I have not seen any scientific research about eyes relevant to active 3D glasses - although Im sure that those other symptoms can easily lead you to think that its bad for your eyes as well. You may well be right that it indeed it is bad in a way. Maybe only time will tell. 3D had it worst reputation in the days of coloured anaglyph. I think that any research related to the use of Polarized glasses will be relevant on whether passive glasses are bad or not for your eyes.
Click to expand...

True

http://www.3dtvguide.org/3d-tvs.html

Yes, the glasses used in passive 3D TVs are cheaper and more comfortable to wear. But does this spell out the reason why you'd want to go passive rather than active? Surely quality is the overriding factor which needs the most consideration?

Well, that's not totally true. There is another difference emerging between the two technologies, and that's the potential of health issues. The way the active glasses work - by alternately showing images to left and right eyes at turn - does cause headaches and occasionally nausea for some people. The experts say this is unlikely to cause real long term damage, though it's early days still for 3D TV and we may not be absolutely certain about that for some time. The reduced flicker from passive models does mean that headaches and are strain are less likely to be experienced.

But now to the quality. Definitely the most important factor....and the reality is that there's not much in it. The most recently released active 3D TVs from the likes of Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic have all been subject to improvements which reduce flicker and crosstalk. They look good. The LG Cinema 3D TVs have got great reviews in general, but the most telling reviews indicate that when viewed side by side with high quality active models, the active sets still just win out. For any of us who want a great 3D experience, it's clear that both active and passive 3D televisions will give us what we're looking for.
Click to expand...
 
You are so right, add the following factors:

1. Cost of Glasses, most want many, especially if they have kids and visiting friends. Its not a drama if one breaks or a couple are lost.
2. Do you get any Glasses with the TV
3. If they Break, where do you get replacements in a year or two from now, even now.
4. Use of batteries
5. Excessive Electricity Use of Plasmas
6. Reflections should you move house or TV to another room and you own a Plasma
7. Content Availability, 2D->3D upscaling is a must
8. Required posture and angle when watching 3D.

This is just a few, but all are major issues not minor technicalities. Many of these issues Limits duration of viewing comfort and pleasure.
 
Last edited:
Mr_Bee said:
Interestingly, the same is true for all 3D (in one way or another) otherwise you won't be able to see 3D - its an illusion. Active shuts one eye at a time, hence the flicker. So between 2 eyes you still see only half of the picture, half of the time. Whereas with the new passive you actually see the complete picture all the time, hense no flicker.
Click to expand...
The only illusion here is your ability to grasp the detail of what is being discussed ... where is flicker mentioned?

Mr_Bee said:
I find your expression of another belief, aka "but I still doubt it can absolutely match active's" self revealing.
Click to expand...
Only if you're ignorant of the context in which it was said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X