can some one explain 3d tv to me?

T

tvdang7

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
4,301
i know back in the day they had 3d already. we just wear cheapo glasses and the movie is broadcasted in weird color format and the glasses make it pop and be 3d.
What does a 3d tv actually do? make anything that comes on tv 3d?
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You are thinking of the old anaglyph method for 3d images. There are several disadvantages to them compared to current methods in regards to image quality, specifically colors.

The current 3d push is based on an active shutter glass system, and to a lesser extent, a polarized system.

Current 3D TVs using a shutter system essentially display 2 different images alternating at high speed, while the glasses you wear alternate blocking each eye, so each eye sees a different image, giving a 3D effect.

Polarization works by displaying 2 images at the same time on the display. The polarized glasses you then wear separate these two images to each eye giving a 3D effect. However due to cost issues, you will not find many (if at all?) of these types of displays for home use. This the primary format used in movie theaters, as they benefit cost from wise from scale (cheaper glasses, higher screen cost) and how it is cheaper to achieve the effect using a projection system then a display system.
 
tvdang7 said:
i know back in the day they had 3d already. we just wear cheapo glasses and the movie is broadcasted in weird color format and the glasses make it pop and be 3d.
What does a 3d tv actually do? make anything that comes on tv 3d?
Click to expand...

No; it is still the same old gimmic with some slight improvements.

The idea is centered arround the fact that a human has two eyes that allows us to see in stereo. With two points of reference you can precieve depth much better. 3D TV attempts to acheave the same thing by interleaving two video streams in one signal. The glasses are a week attempt at supperating the two video streams and dilevering each of them individually to one eye or the other. The glasses use polarazation or shuttering as a filtering mechanism to do the supperation, but this only kinda works and messes up the video quaity in the process.

Rember TV manufactures are in the busniess of selling TVs, so they are always looking for a new reason to sell you the same thing over again.

It is important to consider how much 3D content is actually available. Avatar and what else?

It is a gimmic and nothen more

Dave
 
Last edited:
when watching porn you have to be careful when the guy turns not to get smacked.

unless you like it that way of course....
 
my friend purchased 4 samsung 3d classes kit for 700 dollars
I am like
what the f....................
from what I can tell you can force the tv to present the format to 3d but it doesn't look as good as channel that actually broadcast in 3d
oh wells
nintendo probably should license 3ds screen technology to companies
oh wait sony stole it already
haha
 
I only have 1 eye so this current 3d craze in the movies really sucks for me. I know Avatar at the movie theater had something weird going on because I couldn't use the glasses without having major problems seeing the screen: it was just really dark and hard to see. Yesterday my daughter and I went to watch the guardians of gahoot (wtf ever it was her pick not mine lol) and it was a much clearer image wearing the glasses than when watching Avatar.
 
daveswantek said:
No; it is still the same old gimmic with some slight improvements.

The idea is centered arround the fact that a human has two eyes that allows us to see in stereo. With two points of reference you can precieve depth much better. 3D TV attempts to acheave the same thing by interleaving two video streams in one signal. The weird colors are sort of a carrier for each stream. The glasses are a week attempt at supperating the two video streams and dilevering each of them individually to one eye or the other. The glasses use polarazation as the filtering mechanism to do the supperation, but this only kinda works and messes up the video quaity in the process.

Rember TV manufactures are in the busniess of selling TVs, so they are always looking for a new reason to sell you the same thing over again.

It is important to consider how much 3D content is actually available. Avatar and what else?

It is a gimmic and nothen more

Dave
Click to expand...

You are talking rubbish. No 3D TV's uses polarisation yet, they all use shutter glasses. Neither polarisation or shutter glasses mess up the video quality, or use "weird colors" other then making stuff darker (so TV needs higher brightness in 3D).

If you're gonna preach hate for something at least try to learn what you are talking about first, particularly in a thread where someone has asked for help to understand it.
 
Only 3D I can watch is on a Plasma or DLP

3D on an LCD is a joke

3D (polarized) at the theater gives me a headache. Haven't tried Dolby3D though.
 
sbuckler said:
You are talking rubbish. No 3D TV's uses polarisation yet, they all use shutter glasses. Neither polarisation or shutter glasses mess up the video quality, or use "weird colors" other then making stuff darker (so TV needs higher brightness in 3D).

If you're gonna preach hate for something at least try to learn what you are talking about first, particularly in a thread where someone has asked for help to understand it.
Click to expand...

The only experience I have had was at the theater and it was not good. The only way to get true 3D is to use goggles with a supperate video feed to each eye. Trying to interleave two signals together and then pull them apart again is just a bad idea. Shutter glasses have issues too.

It's a marketing gimmic plain and simple. I will wait for OLED, because contrast ration is much more important to me.

Have fun

Dave
 
Heh, I like how this is being touted as "new" technology. I have a pair of shutter glasses that use a serial port from the early-mid 90s.....
 
eh, not a gimmick. they have done extensive studies on this. The numbers are what, 10 to 17% of the population cannot see 3D. it is all about fooling the brain to create depth perception. The eyes do it by sending two images to which the brain applies "depth". Flat interlaced 3D images don't really work as well. Result for the exceptions are headaches.
 
jiminator said:
eh, not a gimmick. they have done extensive studies on this. The numbers are what, 10 to 17% of the population cannot see 3D. it is all about fooling the brain to create depth perception. The eyes do it by sending two images to which the brain applies "depth". Flat interlaced 3D images don't really work as well. Result for the exceptions are headaches.
Click to expand...

True, but the preception is not the same as actually looking at something in the real world, and it varies from one person to the next. There is nothing wrong with interleaving two video streams as long as you can supperate them completely without adding side effects like flicker which is known to cause head aches. The problem is that current polarized or shutter glasses can not do that.

I think it is far to say that it sorta works, but not completely. So far VR goggles are the only way to get this right.

Dave
 
achalas said:
amazon'd 3d primer is somewhat decent.
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=2248313011
Click to expand...

That was actually entertaining & educational. Edutainment!

The consumer electronics and broadcast industries are the only ones convinced that 3DHDTV appliances *AND* programming and media will take off. Even bleeding edge videophiles are split on the technology. Hell, 3D in the multiplexes seems to piss off more people than entertain them- but ppl willing to pay 80% more at the box office for 3D is what has the CE industry salivating.

Almost every Best Buy in the county has a 3DHDTV demo of Monsters vs Aliens running.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
jiminator said:
eh, not a gimmick. they have done extensive studies on this. The numbers are what, 10 to 17% of the population cannot see 3D. it is all about fooling the brain to create depth perception. The eyes do it by sending two images to which the brain applies "depth". Flat interlaced 3D images don't really work as well. Result for the exceptions are headaches.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is nonsense. The selection method should present images to both eyes that are identical to what the person would have seen in the 3D environment. People who lack depth perception do not continually walk around getting headaches because of it. If they get a headache from using the device then it indicates a discrepancy between what the device presented to the eye and what the eye should be seeing.

In polarization based methods you have a significant amount of blending occurring between images, which can cause a visible ghosting effect, and it probably confuses the visual cortex's ability to do stereo correlation because the ghosted image creates a second possible interpretation of the 3d geometry (that it is not 3d at all).

The second problem is that the distance between focal points of the two virtual cameras is not the same as the distance between your eyes, and this effects the amount of disparity in the images, as does your distance from the screen. As a result your brain is going to be getting unrealistic visual queues about distance that conflict with your rational knowledge of size and scale, so that will probably force some automatic "rewiring" of the brain that creates an initial headache.
 
All the pressure for the 3D "revolution" is coming from content producers that have convinced themselves that 3D will save Hollywood (instead of better story writing). Accordingly, they've engaged in magical thinking by assuming that if they film it, the technologies to display it will magically perfect themselves in the market. As a result, they have driven full speed over the cliff of "nobody wants to wear goofy looking glasses that give them headaches".
 
Stuh505 said:
Sorry but this is nonsense. The selection method should present images to both eyes that are identical to what the person would have seen in the 3D environment. People who lack depth perception do not continually walk around getting headaches because of it. If they get a headache from using the device then it indicates a discrepancy between what the device presented to the eye and what the eye should be seeing.

In polarization based methods you have a significant amount of blending occurring between images, which can cause a visible ghosting effect, and it probably confuses the visual cortex's ability to do stereo correlation because the ghosted image creates a second possible interpretation of the 3d geometry (that it is not 3d at all).

The second problem is that the distance between focal points of the two virtual cameras is not the same as the distance between your eyes, and this effects the amount of disparity in the images, as does your distance from the screen. As a result your brain is going to be getting unrealistic visual queues about distance that conflict with your rational knowledge of size and scale, so that will probably force some automatic "rewiring" of the brain that creates an initial headache.
Click to expand...

Exactly; and 3D TV uses shutter glasses which are even worse, because they put 60 Hz flicker right in front of each eye and the strobing of the shutters is not synchronized properly with the image stream, so the end result is a mess that might look a little like 3D once and a while.
 
evilsofa said:
All the pressure for the 3D "revolution" is coming from content producers that have convinced themselves that 3D will save Hollywood (instead of better story writing). Accordingly, they've engaged in magical thinking by assuming that if they film it, the technologies to display it will magically perfect themselves in the market. As a result, they have driven full speed over the cliff of "nobody wants to wear goofy looking glasses that give them headaches".
Click to expand...

That and TV companies would like you to replace that big screen you just bought 2 years ago.
 
hell i just want that new sammy that costs 4'gs at bestbuy playing avitar shit looks 3d without glasses
 
On the consumer level, you have to wear 3D glasses and therefore the technology sucks. It's still gimmicky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top