my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 3D at home? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 3D at home? Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 10-08-2008 12:46 AM                        WTF? 60Hz is fine for 3D with shutter goggles and the flicker isn't too bad. It's noticeable but it's the price you pay for a lame gimmick like 3D. This is coming from someone who notices the differences in framerates more than most people on the planet. 120Hz would be awesome, and the BluRay player would still only need a 48Hz 1080p stream (Blu-ray can easily do 1080p 60). Still though, 3D is a gimmick and I wouldn't want to wear 3D glasses each time I watched a damn movie. Once or twice might be fun. 24fps is perfectly fine for any 3D movie.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-08-2008 01:28 AM                     The problem is 24fps for each camera eye doesn't add up to 120Hz. It's just too bad Sony, Samsung, Sharp and others jumping on the 120Hz bandwagon ate some stupid pills instead of insisting on something running at 144Hz.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 10-08-2008 02:13 AM                        It doesn't need to. Sure, each eye will lose a "flash" every other frame, but good luck noticing that without hurting yourself. Hell, we watched SDTV for DECADES with 3:2 pulldown and it didn't seem to disturb too many. The difference in missing "frame time" would even be less than that.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 10-08-2008 07:58 AM                    You guys are already settling for field sequential presentations. Two separate streams going into the TV means it doesn't matter what the Hz is as long as they're the same.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-08-2008 10:57 AM                     quote: Mark J. Marshall You guys are already settling for field sequential presentations. Actually, we're just acknowledging the practical reality that very few people are going to fork out a bunch of money to install a pair of video projectors and get them lined up properly. Perhaps some rich dude with a cushy movie theater room within his mansion can rig up such a thing with no problem. A pair of video projectors isn't going to cut it in the typical living room situation where the vast majority of people watch movies at home. I'll consider any 3D system for home theater officially dead on arrival if it cannot work in a flat panel television form factor.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 10-08-2008 12:22 PM                    Apples and oranges. Imagine a flat panel display that would take two HDMI inputs and display them correctly in either a field sequential manner or (through some magical technology that hasn't been invented yet) as having both eyes in sync. Would you consider that flat panel display dead on arrival?  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 10-14-2008 06:57 PM                    I'm not sure why so much talk on using active glasses for home 3D viewing. Flat panels displays that do stereoscopic 3D with passive (simple, cheap) glasses have been available for a long time in the industry (i.e. Vrex VR-FPD30) and are nowadays easily available to the public inexpensively. The technologies to do this falls in two cathegories. Using a sandwich of LCD panels where one is used for the display of the combined 3D image while the other steers the amount of light on each subpixel that goes to each eye by rotating the light polarity more or less dinamically for each subpixel, such as with the LCD panels in the 22" iZ3D (available everywhere, price around $700). The viewer just needs regular linear polarizer 3D glasses. The display looks normal when used w/o glasses for 2D content. The viewer receives images for both eyes of each pixel, so they don't lose any resolution per eye compared to 2D mode. The other uses a single panel where the polarizer is made at 90º of each other (or of opposite circular rotation directions) for each alternative pixel or alternative row of pixels, such as with the 22" panel in this monitor: Zalman ZM-M220W (available everywhere, price around $700). The viewer just needs regular, linear (or circular, if made that way, like the Zalman) polarized 3D glasses. Because each eye only receives half of the pixels, half the resolution per eye is lost in 3D mode. With the glasses off, the display just looks like a normal 2D display for 2D content at full resolution. Those systems are only "ready" for 3D games or 3D video content playback on a computer, though, as no "suitable" standard is in place for video content storage and distribution (yet). They can be used, though, to watch field-sequential 3D films played back from a media player in a computer that converts them on-the-fly to the appropiate display format. Because both (left and right eye) images are displayed at the same time, there is no particular problem with refresh rate or motion artifacts on each eye. Also, the glasses can be nice, simple, goodlooking, inexpensive ones, instead of needing batteries, electronic sync receivers, etc, etc. Surely, if anything, a flat panel with passive glasses is the best solution for home 3D viewing for the time being. The only thing needed now is a blu-ray standard for stereoscopic content storage and a monitor using the technology with automatic convertion from the HDMI output of the blu-ray player. If they get their act together to approve a blu-ray standard, this could be on the stores next week. Surely studios want 3D in the cinemas as a way to obtain extra income from some films, those "spectacular ones" that truly benefit from the process (or the CGI animated ones, where it's easy and natural to do a 3D version). I don't see them making romantic comedies in 3D anytime soon. But the moment a 3D standard is in place for home delivery, expect to see plenty of large 3D panels hardly a few dollars more expensive than 2D ones popping up. The only thing needed, would be a blu-ray 3D movie and $1 polarized glasses to watch the 3D at home in all its glory w/o headaches and with less ghosting problems due to dirty silver-screens, off-axis angles, etc.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.