|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Quality of 3D on DVD
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-17-2008 05:22 PM
quote: Joe Tommassello
I don't see how they will display two hi-def images on one plasma or lcd screen without it being field sequential. Otherwise wouldn't they have to cut the resolution in half?
You can follow the links on top to find out. Indeed, most of the monitors (those that are virtually the same price as 2D equivalent, only about $10 more cost for the microretarder) use half the resolution for each eye. The odd lines present one image and the even lines the other.
This can be overcome in two ways.
If you look at the $399 22" iz3d monitor on sale everywhere, it uses *TWO* 1680x1050 LCD panels sandwiched together. Hence it starts with twice the number of pixels and it offers the same resolution in both 2D and 3D content.
The others offer the full resolution for 2D content when watched w/o glasses and half the resolution per eye when you wear your passive glasses (each eye only sees one line of the display and the other the line underneath).
Also, you could manufacture a monitor with 1920x2160 resolution on a correct 1.78 aspect ratio. When you show 2D content, just duplicate every horizontal line. When you show 3D, use each horizontal line alternatively for each eye. There, you have two full HD images at the same time in the same monitor.
I don't know why you guys have a hard time believing that line-alternating polarization (both linear and circular) flat panel monitors exist, and even some similar to 50's vectograph techonology where it's not even alternating polarization but actually overlapped, using two panels, one as a dynamic polarizer to steer the amount of light (intensity) reaching each eye individually for each subpixel and the other to actually determine the intensity of the subpixel -- therefore its color.
Heck, there have even been in the past flat panel monitors for sale with checkerboard micro-polarization patterns, where one pixel was polarized for one eye, the one to its right and the one underneath for the other eye, etc, like a chess board.
Even if the only way to present two full resolution images on the same display was to alternate them in time (flip, like field-sequential), it would still not imply that active glasses were a necessity. Just overlaying a Z-screen on top and the images, coming from the same monitor, changes polarization directions (or rotation) with each presented frame. If you want proof that with just one screen (or one projector) you can watch full resolution 3D w/o active glasses ... go to your local Real-3D or Dolby theater.
They use only one projector (which could be an LCD panel, altough in this case is a 3-DLP engine) and the show is watched with passive glasses.
And Z-screens are neither expensive or hard to manufacture in large sizes. Almost to the contrary.
And remember the vectograph from the 50's? A photograph you can watch in 3D with polarizing glasses. Both images superimposed in the same picture and with different polarization densities that turned into two different pictures when watched through linear glasses.
Heck, even Disney made a vectographic short film ... a 35mm film that, when projected on a regular, totally unmodified projector, threw a picture on the screen with two simulaneous images already polarized!!!! You just needed a silver screen and passive glasses and that (special) 35mm film did the whole job ... no need for special lenses/adapter in the projector (like in over/under) or different speeds or shutters (no "z-screens", no 144fps). Just any movie projector and a silver screen. And a vectographic 35mm film.
You held the 35mm film in your hands, put it against a light, wear your 3D glasses, and you could see each frame in 3D right there, just by looking at the piece of film. Both images integrated in the same "celluloid" and already polarized for each eye. And this was in the 50's, IIRC.
But hey, if you want active glasses, don't worry, they are also there ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler
Posts: 266
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 12-17-2008 05:34 PM
I have Spy Kids 3D and Sharkboy & Lavagirl on DVD, and have found the anaglyph 3D system is not that good. Aside from giving you a headache, the 3D effect is entirely dependent on the way your TV reproduces colors. If I watch it on the large flat-panel LCD downstairs, the 3D is minimal and the effects look a bit 'flat'. Watching on a CRT though, the 3D is much better. Perhaps CRTs reproduce colors more accurately?
I guess it depends on whether you want 3D as a bolt-on addition to existing TV systems, or if you want to create a whole new 3D system for the home. For existing TVs, the best option would be shutter glasses - but you'd need a way of synchronising the glasses to the TV. Besides, some TVs have a lower update rate that would completely ruin the 3D effect.
If 3D in the home seems feasible, the best way would be to completely redesign the TV and DVD system so that it can cope with 3D footage.
I've already seen a new kind of flat-panel screen that allows you to view stuff in 3D without glasses; it's a sort of lenticular system (like those 3D/moving postcards you can get). However, there are only certain places you can be relative to the screen to get the proper 3D effect. If you are in between those places, you'll see the images separating and the 3D will be ruined.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-17-2008 06:50 PM
quote: Ron Funderburg
I realize that the film companies are totally in to 3d but it isn't that big of deal to me.
I'm sure there is a huge number of people who feel the same way.
Sure, it seems like more people will choose to see the digital 3D version of a movie if it is available at a movie theater they're visiting. But I believe it is a big stretch to think that somehow translates into the general public wanting to buy an entirely different generation of HDTV hardware just to be able to display 3D. They're going to balk at that. Even I won't do it. My 52" TV isn't even a year old yet.
Just to provide an analogy, how many people have a D-Box motion simulator chair in a home theater system or gaming setup? I'm going to guess: not very many. It's a high priced item with very limited content support -at least in terms of Blu-ray movies with D-Box motion code. Full color home theater 3D could fall into the same kind of very limited niche.
The most optimistic outlook I can see for full color 3D in home theater is that manufacturers of HDTV sets and Blu-ray players will quietly incorporate the hardware infrastructure to do some sort of 3D as a bonus feature that just happens to come with the TV or player. Just buy the glasses and movie and you're set. This process could take several years to gain any traction with the public.
Using most existing HDTV sets, I don't see any way around using a field sequential approach -at least not if one intends to attract more than a mere handful of people with dual projector setups. The vast majority of the general public is not going to throw away their flat panel TVs just to do 3D. They'll tell the 3D folks to take a hike.
quote: Julio Roberto
Indeed, most of the monitors (those that are virtually the same price as 2D equivalent, only about $10 more cost for the microretarder) use half the resolution for each eye. The odd lines present one image and the even lines the other.
This reminds me of those Mitsubishi RPTVs with a 960 X 1080 resolution DLP chip that rapidly "wobbulated" a 1080p image. Most or likely all 1080p flat panel plasma and LCD televisions have a truly native 1920 X 1080 pixel display, -no artificial tricks to create the image.
Depending on whatever approach ends up being used, I worry the same kind of artificial tricks will be used on Blu-ray movies with 3D capability. Worse, I'm concerned it will just be stuck on the general BD release rather than some separate 3D retail item (kind of like what some studios did with DTS DVDs).
The first concern needs to be presenting as high a level of image quality possible in 2D 1080p/24. I really think any 3D version of a movie on Blu-ray needs to be on a separate disc or in a separate retail package from the less compressed version in 2D 1080p/24. The recent release of Dark City was marred in a number of ways. Some contend the dynamic noise reduction "knob" was turned up to 11. I also think having two separate cuts of the movie on one BD-50 (which drastically increased compression requirements) also was a factor. Who knows? To get good results with home theater 3D we may need those 4 layer BD-100 discs to become a reality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-18-2008 12:21 AM
Well, manufacturers, studios and broadcasters have been talking together on how to do this already. They created some "3D consortium" that is looking into the matter. A cable broadcaster in Japan has already been shooting out around 2 hours a day of stereo 3D content (Anime cartoons made in 3D ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) for about 6 months now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369568,00.html
It seems that they haven't agreed on what blu-ray should do.
But it looks fairly good what they have thought up so far.
Basically, display devices would have two HDMI inputs, one for each eye. They would each need to be compatible with full 1080p content. HDMI today is very cheap and ubiquous.
Then, the display internal circuits are "free" to convert these two images to whatever they need to for their system (i.e. throw away the odd lines on one image and the even on the other, or calculate the amount of light per each color subpixel that needs to go to each eye for stacked panels, or intermix it up in a checkerboard pattern, or calculate the polarization density and predominant direction needed for each subpixel, etc).
That way, the display is free to use as much resolution as nativetly can support or resize (i.e. upscale 720p sources) images to the correct native resolution while preserving the "3D effect".
This hints that all the other devices, such as TV setop boxes (i.e. satellite decoders) and blu-ray players would need to be fitted with two HDMI outputs.
So yeah. If you want full-resolution-per-eye 3D, you need two HDMI inputs/outputs as, basically, one single HDMI standard input can not handle 1920x1080 times two.
Otherwise, the compromise that you guys talk about (i.e. half 1080p resolution) is needed for blu-ray players and other equipment that is not capable of "1920x2160" (two images of 1920x1080 each, which you could also call 1080p-48fps if you want).
But with current equipment, a "field-sequential" approach is possible. But not at full frame rates, as most current equipment is not >60p compatible.
And about using your current TV as a 3D device w/o using active glasses .... as I said, someone could just start selling large "z-screens" to hang in front of them. For both, already polarized LCD monitors which thus won't lose hardly any light ouput and would continue being 500nits or whatever they are now and for plasma displays, where unfortunately the z-screen would add a polarizing filter that would reduce the brightness of your plasma by 66%.
But you wouldn't need active glasses.
Please note that active glasses also have a very hard time fitting current TV's. They would suck also 66% (or more) light out of plasma TV's as LCS shutters are nothing more than two polarizing filters stuck in the middle of a type of z-screen. Then, each eye would only receive whatever light goes through this (30%) half the time (the other 50% of the time the eye would only see black), so the brightness is effectively reduced to half, like with a two-blade shutter.
And using active glasses with LCD's is tricky to. The LCD light is already polarized. So the shutters either can not be based on polarized LCS shutters (like this one http://www.liquidcrystaltechnologies.com/Tech_Support/OAS_Cell.htm) or the light would have to be depolarized prior to reaching the shutter or different glasses would need to be manufactured for different models of LCD TV's to take in account each manufacturer's orientation.
That's not mentioning that most current TV devices are hardly capable of even true (lag free, full contrast) 60fps rates, and that half of that per eye would mean a quite "flickering" 30hz shuttering artifact and temporal disparities.
So 3D in (most of) today's people's TV's means, at best, a compromised (i.e. dimm) picture of 30hz frame rate to be watched with glasses that would be somewhat "heavy" and require batteries. Welcome to field-sequential 3D of the 80's and 90's, upgraded to work with flat panels
But I fully agree that your average Joe is not interested on a 3D TV. He has his eye set on upgrading to that awesome 65" 10trillion-to-one contrast ratio he has seen for $6k. When it reaches $4k, he is jumping the gun 3D-or-not.
[ 12-18-2008, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-21-2008 01:33 AM
The COST of a line-alternating 3D polarized monitor compared to the same 2D one model is, literally, $10 (a cheap piece of plastic retarder put in front).
Now, what the manufacturer may want to charge, or what patent holders may want to rip, that's another question.
At this very-very-very early point we can see they are asking for about 30% more than the 2D product. But that's because of the novelty and lack of competition.
At some point in the FAR future all the LCD flat panel TV's will be 3D. They only lose like under 7% of the light output and cost $10 more to manufacture (at basically any size). Without glasses, they look like ordinary 2D panels w/o further problems. So why not?
But first manufacturers will milk early adopters, of course.
Plus, as you said, average Joe is not interested in 3D (much less in paying for it) unless its kind of thrown in there for free or offers some spectaular SuperBowl-3D on a 65" flat panel Wondercontrast TV.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkxI3qVOZ0p1en_zbURW7h5RpgYgD94SCOT00
But if you want to buy today and are hoping for a LCS shutter 3D solution in the future (or the present), I suggest you shoot for one of the newer models. This "240hz" tv could be a start ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ... unless the 240hz can not be disabled ...
http://www.engadgethd.com/photos/hands-on-with-sonys-240hz-kdl-52xbr7-9-9mm-klv-40zx1m-hdtvs/1018982/
I know we don't like DLP front or rear projection, but their 3D home system for active glasses is probably the best at the moment if you favor shutter glasses.
http://www.dlp.com/downloads/DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Technology.pdf
3-D for the home is here, and will stay. Not because of Hollywood, but because gamers like it and it's cheap and convinient.
Sony has said they would update the Playstation 3 firmware in 2009 to allow for stereoscopic gaming and blu-ray. The PS3 is quite a powerfull "multimedia" engine and can convert and process images faster than you can say 2D
This will probably drive the sale of 3D monitors/TV's a bit.
And some peeps in Hollywood are interested in seen this 3D-at-home happen. But they are always the same few (Dreamworks+Cameron ... lol).
[ 12-21-2008, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-21-2008 12:20 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
The COST of a line-alternating 3D polarized monitor compared to the same 2D one model is, literally, $10 (a cheap piece of plastic retarder put in front).
Are you talking about installing some big sheet of plastic across the front of the TV set itself? If so, that's going to cost more than $10. My business buys a lot of different kinds of plastics either in big rolls or in various sheet sizes. The stuff isn't cheap.
Then there's the other issue of goofing up the looks of a HDTV monitor by attaching some contraption to the front of it.
quote:
But if you want to buy today and are hoping for a LCS shutter 3D solution in the future (or the present), I suggest you shoot for one of the newer models. This "240hz" tv could be a start [Wink] ... unless the 240hz can not be disabled ...
Very few people will be buying into 3D today (especially since there is no standardized solution for full color 3D movies on Blu-ray yet). New HDTVs like Sony's 240Hz Bravia XBR7 will merely lay the long term ground work for methods like LCD shutter glasses and field sequential display to be practical.
quote: Julio Roberto
3-D for the home is here, and will stay. Not because of Hollywood, but because gamers like it and it's cheap and convinient.
I am skeptical of the claim that it is "cheap," much less even convenient. Where is some of this gear actually being sold and what are the list prices?
DLP-based TVs have all but disappeared from electronics stores. When I walk through Best Best, Ultimate Electronics, Sears, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, etc. pretty much all I see is LCD-based flat panel TVs with perhaps a few plasma-based units thrown in for good measure. The only area where DLP is hanging on is in video projectors. Few people are going to buy those things.
As for what gamers do, computer gaming is an entirely different thing from showing movies in 3D. Video games can change their output settings, including frame rates to adapt to things like 3D. Most Hollywood movies are originated in 24fps. Any system rushed together right now would at least force a 2:3 pull down to change the native film rate from 24fps to 30fps.
I'm skeptical of Sony enabling 3D in the PS3 because in order to do it right the game console will have to render two camera/eye views instead of just one like it is doing now. That may be a lot to ask from the computing hardware.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-21-2008 01:57 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I am skeptical of the claim that it is "cheap," much less even convenient. Where is some of this gear actually being sold and what are the list prices?
Skeptical is good
Iz3d 22" flat panel LCD passive linear polarized 1680x1050 (full resolution per eye) $350 including shipping in the USA:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=iz3d
Same monitor under $400 in you friendly local Staples store:
STAPLES
Now, let's go for the Zalman. Also 22", also 1680x1050, but only half resolution per eye in 3D mode. Circular polarized glasses. Around $650.
http://www.provantage.com/zalman-tech-trimonzm-m220w~7ZALM01Y.htm
http://www.buy.com/prod/zalman-zm-m220w-lcd-monitor-22-1680-x-1050-5ms-0-282mm-1000-1-black/q/loc/101/207919501.html
Dell sells it for much more ... don't know why, possibly the extended warranty: $780
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A1997135&cs=04&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27722&lid=628335
Now the Hyundais. They have two models, a 22", Pretty much the same as the Zalman above ($700 includes speakers) and a 24" full HD 1920x1080.
http://antaresdigital.com/customer/product.php?productid=18246&cat=0&page=26
If you want the full resolution 24" 1080p (1920x540 per eye when using 3D), circular polarized 3D you are gonna have to shell out $1250, but it's a pretty good monitor:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4238168&SRCCODE=GOOGL EBASE&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf%20mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq
These are the specs: http://www.vrlogic.com/assets/downloads/3D_W220S_W240S_0825_web.pdf
If you want the 46" TV model, full HD 1920x1080, then you need to buy directly from Japan at a cost of aprox. $3700, as it's not for sale worldwide yet:
http://www.biccamera.com/bicbic/jsp/w/catalog/detail.jsp?JAN_CODE=0824314003331&sess=c9b04328e76f9c2da9f669fba2d01857
or import it through an intermediary. I've seen one shipping to the US, but the only one I can find now is out of stock and says "call" on the price.
All these monitors come with 2 or 3 pair of "good" plastic glasses or clip-on adapters.
About the COST of these monitors compared to a similar one in 2D ... yes, it's only $10 for a piece of plastic that the MANUFACTURER (not someone buying it) overlays on the monitor. If you have a hard time believing that $10 can buy any sheet of fairly large (say 50") plastic, take a look at this:
http://www.buy.com/prod/7-digital-photo-frame-by-gear-head-7dpf250-gear-head-7dpf250-digital/q/loc/111/208190174.html
For $38 you can have, delivered to your house, a 7" LCD screen, which includes in its manufacturing 2 sheets of polarizer, two sheets of aligned glass, the liquid crystal material, a color bayer filter, an transistor array layer, a fluorescent back light, a difusser filter, a power supply, electronics, memory, microprocessor, usb port, software, memory card reader, key-buttons & on/off switch, plastic surrounding frame, shipping box, printed manual, manufacturer-and-resaler-profit plus taxes and transportation to warehouse.
Now, how much do you think it COSTS to manufacture? And the microretarder filter I'm talking about is made of an extremely thin CELOPHANE film, which is manufatured by the yards for next to nothing to wrap candy for kids.
What I meant is that, for someone who already manufactures LCD monitors, to turn them 3D only COSTs them about $10 in materials. Size is almost irrelevant (within reason). Trust me. Intellectual property and other issues are a different matter.
quote: Bobby Henderson
DLP-based TVs have all but disappeared from electronics stores. When I walk through Best Best, Ultimate Electronics, Sears, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, etc. pretty much all I see is LCD-based flat panel TVs with perhaps a few plasma-based units thrown in for good measure.
Yeah, I agree with that. You can, of course, still find samsungs and mitshubishi's 3D-ready DLP's rear-projectors ... but it's not like someone would want them. This Samsung one is 56", full HD, pretty thin and only $1500 in your local bestbuy:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8749492&productCategoryId=abcat0101002&type=product&id=1202649425028
It doesn't say in Best Buy, but that and most other Samsung or Mitsubishi models are 3D ready:
http://pages.samsung.com/us/dlp3d/3ddlps.html
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm skeptical of Sony enabling 3D in the PS3 because in order to do it right the game console will have to render two camera/eye views instead of just one like it is doing now. That may be a lot to ask from the computing hardware.
Skeptical is good
The way it works, as it has always been with a long history of stereocopic gaming, is that you:
a) Calculate a scene at a HALF resolution to display "side-by-side"
b) The most common one: gaming can usually attain high frame rates, specially at low resolutions. So just like RealD/Dolby 3D, you run the game at say 48fps and alternate the views to 96hz, i.e..
In reality, the PS3 is fast enough to render games at 60fps. So on a 3D ready TV, just ouput one frame for one eye, and the next for the other. Let the display double that up to 120hz.
It's similar to current solution for 3D cinema. Servers can render 48fps with some restriction (higher compression/lower quality). Then, the "cables" (dual SDI) can only transfer 4:2:2 10 bits on one cable, and it needs to split the dual connection to two projectors, so there. Then the projectors turn this 48fps to "144fps". All the server needs to do is put out a (reduced resolution) 48fps and all is good.
All a PS3 has to do is run a game at (say) 60fps and alternate the views. Done. ATI, and specially Nvidia, have been doing this in their stereo drivers for Directx games for PC's (basically all the games in the PC market) for a long time. Long as in 20 years.
[ 12-21-2008, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-21-2008 05:20 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The monitors you referenced were computer monitors for 3D gaming.
Well, yes and no. The Hyundai 42" referenced is a full TV, not marketed or sold as a monitor, much less a gaming one. It's meant to be used, as you can see here, to watch TV broadcast TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdHS86kZ1mM
But, as you know, nothing prevents you from watching a movie in a monitor. Actually, the iz3d one includes software to playback field-sequential DVD's on it through a computer.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Gaming in 3D is a very different application than showing movies on home video in 3D. A PC or gaming console can be made to actively create the 3D content. That's not the case with pre-recorded movies with fixed frame rates.
Well, this sort-of used to be true but, as you know, basically all monitors for a long time have been able to multiscan and adjust to almost whatever frame rate you want. LCD's don't suffer from "minimun" or "maximun" necessary scan rates. They can go as slow or as fast as they can switch.
As a result, virtually all TV's and monitors sold today can support 23.97, 24, 25, 29.98, 30, 50 and 60hz. Certainly the ones above.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's also a major drawback to dump image resolution in half in order to do 3D
Well, sort-of wrong again. The iz3d monitor displays the same resolution in both, 3D and 2D mode.
But anyway, if you want compatibility with current delivery media, such as field sequential DVD's, then it's unavoidable. There weren't designed to put out 48fps of full resolution material. Neither is blu-ray ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
So if the source can only give half the resolution, then it doesn't matter that the display does the same.
quote: Bobby Henderson
not to mention screwing up the 24fps footage into some 3:2 pull down 30fps crap). I won't buy anything that does that. It's doubtful many others will be willing to go along with it either.
Then run and buy one, because none of those TV's and monitors will change the scan rate of the material you can get and will display it in the full native, no pull-downs, scan rate.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'll be surprised if we see full color 3D movies on Blu-ray anytime soon. I still think it's going to be at least another year or two bare minimum before any hardware and the even more important factor of 3D BD movies show up in stores.
Well, don't be.
http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Express-Presented-3-D-Blu-ray/dp/B001F12J3Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229901146&sr=8 -1
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Center-Earth-3D-Blu-ray/dp/B001FZ6R0Q/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229901146&sr=8-9
Journey To the Center of the Earth 3d was also a 3d blu-ray release, but current copies are 2D only.
Of course, they are doing crappy anaglyph and what not. Until they set on a standard, I DO expect to see a few 3D blu-ray titles but in similar amount and artistic quality as the DVD counterparts (i.e. a few Imax films or stuff like Spy Kids 3D).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 12-21-2008 05:30 PM
But check it out for yourself. Buy the iz3d for $350 (not my best recommendation since it uses linear polarizers and has the worse crosstalk of all of them, but it's the cheapest), then go to amazon.com and buy any movie in field-sequential NOT ANAGLYPH (i.e. Spykids 3D HQFS or the Imax movies), put it in your computer and watch it in full-color, correct scan rate, full polarized 3D with passive glasses.
http://www.amazon.com/Spy-Kids-Game-Over-HQFS/dp/B000AMEKEK/ref=pd_bbs_8?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229901146&sr=8-8
Tomorrow, if you order overnight delivery.
quote: Bobby Henderson
No movies on Blu-ray have ever been released in a true full color 3D version and it isn't going to happen for quite some time until the TV hardware can be made to do the job properly.
The display hardware can do it properly. It can do full color, any scan rate, simultaneous passive polarized 3D, with no temporal disparities or flicker. One of the technologies even has the same resolution in 2D and 3D. And all the DLP HD TV's available for under $2000 that I listed plus those from Mitsubishi can do full resolution-per-eye HD 3D today (but with shutter glasses).
You have it wrong. It's not the hardware to DISPLAY the movies that have any practical limitation. It can be made to have full HD resolution per eye. It's current Blu-ray players that can not output full HD at 48fps, nor would such a signal "fit" through the HDMI cable. Therefore, there is no need for the displays to support 2x1080p resolution (one per eye), when just about nothing supplies or demands such resolution.
But it could be made and the iz3d is already same-resolution-per-eye, although being a 22", it's only 1650x1050 (per eye). The 24" and 46" are 1920x540 per eye (1920x1080 total). A scope movie in many brand-new digital theaters can be, depending on the configuration ... 1998x850 ... pretty close
Only thing lacking, again, are new blu-ray players capable of ouputing full HD at 48fps. And the 3D movies on discs
The blu-ray consortium is not going to allow current players to become obsolete, so I guess they'll devise some standard where current players can output half-resolution-per-eye images and newer ones, with updated HDMI standards+faster decoders+faster bit rates, the full one. This, indeed, would take years.
Also, the amount of information that fits on a blu-disc at full resolution is limited. Fitting a full-resolution stereo 3D movie is basically the same as fitting two movies in one disc, one for each eye. It will pbbly have to be compressed much more to fit and use all available space for the movie (i.e. no extras, behind-the-scenes or wide choice of soundtracks).
You know the physics. Twice the information in the same space (in the same disc)=half the "quality". Or the same "quality" but half the resolution. Roughly.
But anyway. It all boils down to wanting or not to believe that 3D at home can be "cheap", "convenient", and "good" or not.
I believe it can, and that as soon as there is a market for it (i.e. Hollywood starts shooting out 3D movies on blu-ray discs), then the manufacturers will be ready to respond.
The showstopper right now seems to be making a blu-ray standard that is also good for the broadcasting industry to push two images through existing equipment (neccesarily at half-resolutions) while allowing newer equipment to use full (effectively double) resolution.
The moment the market demands a great and cheap 3D tv (flat, as you said) .... it will be there within "a week". If not already.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/10/02/philips-reveals-56-inch-quad-full-3d-hdtv-in-hollywood
If you believe that home 3D movies are years and years away and will require bulky active shutter glasses and will work with current equipment (or at least with current 1080x30p or 1080x60i blu-ray players and current 50GB blu-ray discs) w/o compromises to the quality, and that all is needed is some super-fast-switching flat panel display (like the 240hz models I pointed to), well, that's your prerogative.
But don't forget to do the math. 24x2 is 48, which is greater than 30p supported by blu-ray. And 60i means half the resolution per field. And 60 is not a multiple of 24 ... and we know you don't like pull-downs. So blu-ray/HDMI, as it is speced now, it's not suitable for full-res, double 1080-24p (48p) stereo images. The display is irrelevant. But Blu-ray can do half horizontal res 24p (48p when both halves are taken together) pretty well. And the displays to support that in 3D are plenty and cheap and are here TODAY. Other manufacturers, such as LG, have also announce 3D monitors for 2009, which starts in a couple of weeks
As you said, Hollywood (or the Canadians ... think Imax 3D) haven't marketed a (double or single) HD resolution, non-anaglyphic blu-ray disc out yet. So the manufacturers don't feel the rush to come out with 3D TV's yet. Hyundai has been the first with their 46", but because in Japan a broadcaster is puting out 2 hours of 3D programming a day and SKY TV has "commited" to London's Olympics being in 3D in 2012.
The rest of the industry centers on 3D Gamers, which is their big market now. They can also do 3D movies perfectly fine, but since there are not many of those in suitable format (about a dozen field-sequential movies on DVD commercially out there), that's the least of their worries. All monitors above support perfect, fullest resolution per eye (the term in the industry is Stereo resolution) 3D on existing titles. They would also support 3D blu-ray titles with current limitation of half-stereo resolution. Whenever that happens. Which may be sooner than you think since Dreamworks have said they want their movies on 3D on DVD ASAP and are pushing SMPTE for a standard. Panasonic is pushing the Blu-ray consortium too to adopt their blu-ray's 3D format.
It will all be there. If it's not there already.
[ 12-22-2008, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic