3D Technology

[Mr_Bee]

The only illusion here is your ability to grasp the detail of what is being discussed ... where is flicker mentioned?

Only if you're ignorant of the context in which it was said.

Are you smokin something or is your ability to read impaired? Flicker causing health issues is one of the main themes of this thread - but this is a pointless discussion as I keep agreeing with everyone thinking so too. I am really getting tired of the infitite "loop of illogical insignificant factless counter-arguments that carries little or no weight".

 

[bwana]

It would be a shame to have to start barring people from this section of the forum but if this squabbling continues I see no other option.

 

[D3x!]

Ok i just went to check out the the 2, they only had the 51" version on show of the Samsung plasma and the 47" version of the LG LCD on show but nevertheless checked them out even though i would only be going for the 43" in the samsung or the 42" in the LG

The Samsung is weird it like flickers, dont know if it is supposed to be like that or not as the salesman was trying to get 2 different kinds of glasses to work and had to charge the one that finally did work for like 2 minutes. If that is how it is supposed to be you honestly cannot watch like that.

The LG didnt have any flicker or anything but the 3d was quite bland to be honest.

Really thinking that the 3D is not worth it :/

was quite dissapointed in the samsung though as was leaning towards the plsama having come from it.

 

[Mouse]

the 3d was quite bland to be honest.

It may have just been a bad video - like if you see a movie in the cinema these days, it is quite bland compared to what I've been finding elsewhere.

 

[D3x!]

It may have just been a bad video - like if you see a movie in the cinema these days, it is quite bland compared to what I've been finding elsewhere.

granted it was just a series playing and still impressive for 2d to 3d to me it just didnt have the pop on the samsung, granted they are passive glasses and they dont flicker like crazy

 

[PostmanPot]

granted it was just a series playing and still impressive for 2d to 3d to me it just didnt have the pop on the samsung, granted they are passive glasses and they dont flicker like crazy

Which Samsung was this? PS51D490 HD Ready?

 

[D3x!]

Which Samsung was this? PS51D490 HD Ready?

think so

also looked at the neighbouring 550 version and same story. i want to have another look when they have working glasses. anyone can recommend a store to go look at?

ps this was at cats digital.

Also on east rand please

 

[Roman4604]

I am really getting tired of the infitite "loop of illogical insignificant factless counter-arguments that carries little or no weight".

I do not see on what basis you can make this statement.

I have stuck precisely to the topic at hand, that being your assertion; since LG's passsive 3D system is 1080p certified, it is thus able to match active 3D in picture quality. This is exclusively what I've debated based on the techncial merits of the two competing systems, nothing else.

Flicker on the other hand is a different undisputed matter.

 

[wily me]

granted it was just a series playing and still impressive for 2d to 3d to me it just didnt have the pop on the samsung, granted they are passive glasses and they dont flicker like crazy

I am , if it was a series, not in HD, it wont "pop out" on any brand 3D TV doing 2D-> 3D conversion. What are you comparing?

 

[D3x!]

I am , if it was a series, not in HD, it wont "pop out" on any brand 3D TV doing 2D-> 3D conversion. What are you comparing?

it was a series playing off a dvd player from the looks of things. maybe pop out is not the right word, perhaps depth is.

 

[wily me]

it was a series playing off a dvd player from the looks of things. maybe pop out is not the right word, perhaps depth is.

Even depth is not so great with the conversion but it is better than no 3D at all. Also you cannot judge a TV's 3D performance with media without proper designed 3D media, like Avatar etc.

 

[D3x!]

Even depth is not so great with the conversion but it is better than no 3D at all. Also you cannot judge a TV's 3D performance with media without proper designed 3D media, like Avatar etc.

i can judge it on that when the fact is that i was comparing the 2D to 3D conversion :/

 

[wily me]

i can judge it on that when the fact is that i was comparing the 2D to 3D conversion :/

The media playing at the time is still a major factor. You need good quality media input to get good quality media output.

Someone earlier in this thread already gave that advice based on his hands on experience.

 

[D3x!]

The media playing at the time is still a major factor. You need good quality media input to get good quality media output.

Someone earlier in this thread already gave that advice based on his hands on experience.

they were playing the same media, yes better media will give better but i was judging solely on the difference.

 

[wily me]

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.

Not true with the new LG firmware

Before the Cinema 3D technology worked like this: During a time period of 1/200 seconds the TV showed 2 frames; 540 lines for the left eye and 540 lines for the right eye.
The new algorithm shows 4 frames instead of 2 during the 1/200 second time frame. It shows 1080i for the left eye and 1080i for the right eye.

 

[Roman4604]

Not true with the new LG firmware

Software can't change it. You're confusing source content lines with physical panel lines.

Bottom line (pun), one eye can only see the same 540 physical screen panel lines, its a hardware limitation. As indicated previously, the system is not dynamic i.e. one eye's view can't be swapped to the other set of lines.

 

[marine1]

I suggest you try watch a true 3D show- I watched one on the space station and had to switch off as It was so real I kept thinking I was gonna fall off

 

[wily me]

they were playing the same media, yes better media will give better but i was judging solely on the difference.

OK I was more referring to your comment

Ok i just went to check out the the 2, they only had the 51" version on show of the Samsung plasma and the 47" version of the LG LCD on show but nevertheless checked them out even though i would only be going for the 43" in the samsung or the 42" in the LG

The Samsung is weird it like flickers, dont know if it is supposed to be like that or not as the salesman was trying to get 2 different kinds of glasses to work and had to charge the one that finally did work for like 2 minutes. If that is how it is supposed to be you honestly cannot watch like that.

The LG didnt have any flicker or anything but the 3d was quite bland to be honest.

Really thinking that the 3D is not worth it :/

was quite dissapointed in the samsung though as was leaning towards the plsama having come from it.

As for the Samsung flickers there can be many factors aggravating the flicker, like fluorescent ambient light, non proper sync with glasses, angle or position of view, not looking at the TV in mostly full view, sensitivity of the person doing the viewing to the frequency of flicker. etc..

I am sure there would be a difference between 2D to 3D engines re quality and depth but I would not use that as a main consideration for a 3D TV, I see it as an nice to have additional gimmick. Real 3D content without any factors effecting the enjoyment of the proper 3D content (like flicker) by all family members in the living room at a reasonable cost is a bigger consideration for me.

 

[wily me]

Software can't change it. You're confusing source content lines with physical panel lines.

Bottom line (pun), one eye can only see the same 540 physical screen panel lines, its a hardware limitation. As indicated previously, the system is not dynamic i.e. one eye's view can't be swapped to the other set of lines.

Hardware limitation? Firmware updating is just doing that ie. changing the hardware functions. Where LG used to scan only 2 frames in 1/200 seconds ie 540p lines per eye than now scan 4 frames at 1080i in 1/200sec per eye. That is double the frequency. Well for one it seems you and I see the LG technology differently, so lets leave it at that. I can only give you the factual information and you may choose to ignore it. Once again I refer you to the review update to see the difference the reviewer saw after the update and that coupled with the LG technology description I linked to and my own experience actually viewing 3D content paints a different picture that you want to believe.

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1313938337

In our original LW6500 review we talked about “lines” in the 3D pictures when viewing the 3D TV from up close. These lines are a lot less pronounced but instead crosstalk has increased. However, from a distance – around 1,5-2 meters - crosstalk disappears, and that is the important thing.

From a typical viewing distance I feel that 3D pictures appear more detailed than before the update. The “lines” in the 3D images (that are used to create the 3D effect) are no longer perceptible and 3D images feel more polished. 3D pictures look less jaggy and more natural. The polarized 3D glasses are also pleasant to wear and use, mostly because they induce less eyestrain compared to active shutter glasses. The level of detail in 3D images is definitely improved and it helps to raise the 3D experience close to that of active 3D TVs.

CONCLUSION

LG has definitely managed to squeeze out more juice from their Cinema 3D TVs with the new 3D software. 3D pictures appear more detailed and smoother, and are pretty much crosstalk-free. 3D depth is pretty good and we felt that the “grainy look” has been minimized to an insignificant level. The polarized 3D glasses are very comfortable and cause less eyestrain compared to active 3D glasses. You still need to sit a few meters – 1,5-2 metes - away from Cinema 3D TVs, or else you will experience some crosstalk

 

[wily me]

Here is a much better description of how LG is achieving their results.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/passive-3d-resolution-update

Passive 3D Resolution Update
As far as I have understood up to now, a passive-3D LCD flat panel displays 3D Blu-ray images in the following manner—the odd-numbered lines of left-eye information are displayed in the odd-numbered lines on the screen, and the even-numbered lines of right-eye information are displayed in the screen's even-numbered lines. As a result, the TV simply discards the undisplayed lines and each eye sees a resolution of only 1920x540 pixels. However, the image on such TVs that I've seen looks sharper than this would seem to indicate, though I do normally see thin, black horizontal lines, especially if I'm too close to the screen. The explanation I've heard most often is that the brain fuses the two images into one 1920x1080 3D image, but LG tells a somewhat different story.
Tom Norton is currently reviewing the LG 55LW5600, a 120Hz passive-3D LCD TV, for Home Theater. In his communication with the company, an LG engineer in Korea explained that each eye actually sees the full 1920x1080 resolution, but not all at the same time. In the following discussion, keep in mind the difference between the lines of information—on a 3D Blu-ray, the visual information for each eye includes 1080 lines—and the lines on the display itself. Also, the TV converts 24 frames per second on the disc to 60fps.

As depicted above, in the first 1/120th of a second, the odd-line information for the left eye (1920x540) is displayed in the odd-numbered lines on the screen, while the odd-line info for the right eye (also 1920x540) is displayed in the screen's even-numbered lines. Then, in the next 1/120th of a second, the even-line info for the left eye is displayed in the screen's odd-numbered lines, and the even-line info for the right eye is displayed in the screen's even-numbered lines.

Thus, in 1/60th of a second, the odd and even lines of the left-eye information are displayed sequentially in the odd-numbered lines on the screen, and the odd and even lines of the right-eye information are displayed sequentially in the screen's even-numbered lines. In other words, each eye sees 1920x1080, but this information is presented in two passes, much like an interlaced display. In this case, however, the two sets of information are displayed in the same set of lines—the odd-numbered lines on the screen for the left eye and the even-numbered lines for the right eye.

Like interlacing, this process is technically known as temporal compression, because it reduces the amount of information being displayed at any given instant, and it relies on persistence of vision to smooth out the overall image. However, also like interlacing, it can exhibit visible artifacts, such as jaggies, judder, and softness. And there are still those thin, black horizontal lines that are most visible in onscreen text and when sitting close to the screen, which you want to do for 3D.

I don't know if other manufacturers, such as Vizio and Toshiba, display the left and right images in this way. If so, it does seem to explain why the image on passive-3D LCD TVs looks somewhat sharper than I would expect if each eye was seeing only 1920x540.