Types of 3D, Shutter vs...

freeview_user · 05-06-2011, 22:01

... the one with the cyan and red glasses. Which one is better and why? I could just use my non-3d TV to show 3D. Freeview could also do this.

Chris Frost · 05-06-2011, 22:17

go for a demo. You'll see the difference.

fastest finger · 05-06-2011, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeview_user

... the one with the cyan and red glasses. Which one is better and why? I could just use my non-3d TV to show 3D. Freeview could also do this.

The problem with the old (anaglyph) system is that the colours are horribly distorted.

The new active shutter / passive systems allow for true colour reproduction.

ironjade · 05-06-2011, 23:56

I've never seen a passive 3D tv for sale anywhere; do they actually exist?
I've also noticed that the technicians shown in the behind-the-scenes clips on Sky aren't using overpriced shutter specs, just ordinary passive Polaroids. do they know something we don't?

pocatello · 06-06-2011, 00:12

Lol the only current home solution that is readily available is shutter glasses.

Red/green is fake 3d, comic book 3d, junk 3d.

Any broadcast 3d is half resolution.

Only bluray 3d with 3d tv can be full resolution.

Passive 3d requires 4k panel + always permanent filter on the screen which cuts light output for all usage, never mind 3d.

fastest finger · 06-06-2011, 01:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

I've never seen a passive 3D tv for sale anywhere; do they actually exist?

I've seen them on sale from LG and also Hitachi.

Quote:

I've also noticed that the technicians shown in the behind-the-scenes clips on Sky aren't using overpriced shutter specs, just ordinary passive Polaroids. do they know something we don't?

I think it's simply practicality in a working environment - passive glasses are cheaper, don't run out of battery power and can work with many different screens.

On the whole though, active gives you a better picture.

ironjade · 06-06-2011, 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

Lol the only current home solution that is readily available is shutter glasses.

Red/green is fake 3d, comic book 3d, junk 3d.

Any broadcast 3d is half resolution.

Only bluray 3d with 3d tv can be full resolution.

Passive 3d requires 4k panel + always permanent filter on the screen which cuts light output for all usage, never mind 3d.

All 3D is fake. In the cinema red/green anaglyph is fine but horrible on TV.

grahamlthompson · 06-06-2011, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

All 3D is fake. In the cinema red/green anaglyph is fine but horrible on TV.

Where has all this guff about red/green anaglyph come from.

Red/Green can only ever give a monochrome 3D image.

Passive 3D TV's and the Cinema use polarised filters not red/green. It's pretty obvious you have neve been to a cinema to see a recent 3D movie.

ironjade · 06-06-2011, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Where has all this guff about red/green anaglyph come from.

Red/Green can only ever give a monochrome 3D image.

Passive 3D TV's and the Cinema use polarised filters not red/green. It's pretty obvious you have neve been to a cinema to see a recent 3D movie.

Red/green is fine for b&w at the cinema is what I meant, not thinking that anyone would ever think it acceptable for colour tv.
I haven't seen any recent 3D movies but it's nothing to do with the technology. It's because most of them sound like crap and cinemas are pricey and full of morons who don't how how to behave in public.

Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv.

grahamlthompson · 06-06-2011, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv.

It works the same as the cinema, each alternate line is opposite polarised so the odd lines go to one eye and the even to the other. This reduces the vertical resolution to 540 lines for each of the images. Active displays show a full 1920 x 1080 frame to each eye with blutooth connected glasses with a lcd shutter shutting off the appropriate eye.

To my eyes active TV's produce much better pictures than passive ones.

In any case posting on the basis of an ancient and now totally unused system without any experience of actual colour 3D is totally pointless.

late8 · 06-06-2011, 11:51

what gets me is the colour and brightness is diminished with all glasses - so essentially its not pure.

ironjade · 06-06-2011, 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

It works the same as the cinema, each alternate line is opposite polarised so the odd lines go to one eye and the even to the other. This reduces the vertical resolution to 540 lines for each of the images. Active displays show a full 1920 x 1080 frame to each eye with blutooth connected glasses with a lcd shutter shutting off the appropriate eye.

To my eyes active TV's produce much better pictures than passive ones.

In any case posting on the basis of an ancient and now totally unused system without any experience of actual colour 3D is totally pointless.

I seen the active shutter system demo in the local Curry's and it was ok but not worth the price they were asking (not to mention the cost of the specs).

I admit that getting polarised light to come out of a tv set is news to me, which is what I wanted to know. Does this mean I haven't been hoarding old cardboard Polaroid 3D specs in vain?

Every 20 years or so 3D is trotted out as if it's some massive breakthrough: in the 50s it was to stop cinema audiences deserting to tv, now it's to sell tv sets and prevent copying from the movie screen.
I've seen lots of colour 3D but none of the recent offerings for reasons stated earlier.
The best 3D is often found in some of the worst movies, e.g. "The Bubble", "Flesh For Frankenstein" etc.
Nothing would make me sit through "Avatar" again after enduring even the 2D version.

grahamlthompson · 06-06-2011, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

what gets me is the colour and brightness is diminished with all glasses - so essentially its not pure.

Why would the colour be diminished with active glasses ?.

LCD TV's unlike Plasmas have a greater luminance output thanks to the active backlighting so the loss of easily compensated for.

pocatello · 06-06-2011, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

Red/green is fine for b&w at the cinema is what I meant, not thinking that anyone would ever think it acceptable for colour tv.
I haven't seen any recent 3D movies but it's nothing to do with the technology. It's because most of them sound like crap and cinemas are pricey and full of morons who don't how how to behave in public.

Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv.

Kind of ridiculous to refer to something as obscure as 3d black and white cinema, it is neither here nor there.

late8 · 06-06-2011, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Why would the colour be diminished with active glasses ?.

LCD TV's unlike Plasmas have a greater luminance output thanks to the active backlighting so the loss of easily compensated for.

the glasses still have a tint to them.

ironjade · 06-06-2011, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocatello

Kind of ridiculous to refer to something as obscure as 3d black and white cinema, it is neither here nor there.

Excuse me for a having a sense of history. If Sky had any sense they'd be screening some of the classic b&w 50s 3D movies (assuming the original elements still exist) alongside their newer offerings.

grahamlthompson · 06-06-2011, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

the glasses still have a tint to them.

They are a neutral grey so attenuate red green and blue identically. The same as a polarising or ND filter on a camera, Colour reproduction is not affected for a RGB source.

In fact on a camera a polarising filter can create more saturated colours by eliminating polarised reflection sources and make blue skys look much more vivid.

MAW · 06-06-2011, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

Excuse me for a having a sense of history. If Sky had any sense they'd be screening some of the classic b&w 50s 3D movies (assuming the original elements still exist) alongside their newer offerings.

The 3d is composed in a completely different way. They'd have to be remastered at least in order to work with new 3D setups.

05-06-2011, 22:01	#1
freeview_user Guest Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 478	Types of 3D, Shutter vs... ... the one with the cyan and red glasses. Which one is better and why? I could just use my non-3d TV to show 3D. Freeview could also do this.

05-06-2011, 22:17	#2
Chris Frost Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cheshire Posts: 6,462	go for a demo. You'll see the difference.

05-06-2011, 23:00	#3
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by freeview_user ... the one with the cyan and red glasses. Which one is better and why? I could just use my non-3d TV to show 3D. Freeview could also do this. The problem with the old (anaglyph) system is that the colours are horribly distorted. The new active shutter / passive systems allow for true colour reproduction.

05-06-2011, 23:56	#4
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	I've never seen a passive 3D tv for sale anywhere; do they actually exist? I've also noticed that the technicians shown in the behind-the-scenes clips on Sky aren't using overpriced shutter specs, just ordinary passive Polaroids. do they know something we don't?

06-06-2011, 00:12	#5
pocatello Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 8,622	Lol the only current home solution that is readily available is shutter glasses. Red/green is fake 3d, comic book 3d, junk 3d. Any broadcast 3d is half resolution. Only bluray 3d with 3d tv can be full resolution. Passive 3d requires 4k panel + always permanent filter on the screen which cuts light output for all usage, never mind 3d.

06-06-2011, 01:21	#6
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade I've never seen a passive 3D tv for sale anywhere; do they actually exist? I've seen them on sale from LG and also Hitachi. Quote: I've also noticed that the technicians shown in the behind-the-scenes clips on Sky aren't using overpriced shutter specs, just ordinary passive Polaroids. do they know something we don't? I think it's simply practicality in a working environment - passive glasses are cheaper, don't run out of battery power and can work with many different screens. On the whole though, active gives you a better picture.

06-06-2011, 08:33	#7
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by pocatello Lol the only current home solution that is readily available is shutter glasses. Red/green is fake 3d, comic book 3d, junk 3d. Any broadcast 3d is half resolution. Only bluray 3d with 3d tv can be full resolution. Passive 3d requires 4k panel + always permanent filter on the screen which cuts light output for all usage, never mind 3d. All 3D is fake. In the cinema red/green anaglyph is fine but horrible on TV.

06-06-2011, 09:46	#8
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade All 3D is fake. In the cinema red/green anaglyph is fine but horrible on TV. Where has all this guff about red/green anaglyph come from. Red/Green can only ever give a monochrome 3D image. Passive 3D TV's and the Cinema use polarised filters not red/green. It's pretty obvious you have neve been to a cinema to see a recent 3D movie.

06-06-2011, 11:20	#9
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson Where has all this guff about red/green anaglyph come from. Red/Green can only ever give a monochrome 3D image. Passive 3D TV's and the Cinema use polarised filters not red/green. It's pretty obvious you have neve been to a cinema to see a recent 3D movie. Red/green is fine for b&w at the cinema is what I meant, not thinking that anyone would ever think it acceptable for colour tv. I haven't seen any recent 3D movies but it's nothing to do with the technology. It's because most of them sound like crap and cinemas are pricey and full of morons who don't how how to behave in public. Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv.

06-06-2011, 11:46	#10
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv. It works the same as the cinema, each alternate line is opposite polarised so the odd lines go to one eye and the even to the other. This reduces the vertical resolution to 540 lines for each of the images. Active displays show a full 1920 x 1080 frame to each eye with blutooth connected glasses with a lcd shutter shutting off the appropriate eye. To my eyes active TV's produce much better pictures than passive ones. In any case posting on the basis of an ancient and now totally unused system without any experience of actual colour 3D is totally pointless.

06-06-2011, 11:51	#11
late8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,052	what gets me is the colour and brightness is diminished with all glasses - so essentially its not pure.

06-06-2011, 12:24	#12
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson It works the same as the cinema, each alternate line is opposite polarised so the odd lines go to one eye and the even to the other. This reduces the vertical resolution to 540 lines for each of the images. Active displays show a full 1920 x 1080 frame to each eye with blutooth connected glasses with a lcd shutter shutting off the appropriate eye. To my eyes active TV's produce much better pictures than passive ones. In any case posting on the basis of an ancient and now totally unused system without any experience of actual colour 3D is totally pointless. I seen the active shutter system demo in the local Curry's and it was ok but not worth the price they were asking (not to mention the cost of the specs). I admit that getting polarised light to come out of a tv set is news to me, which is what I wanted to know. Does this mean I haven't been hoarding old cardboard Polaroid 3D specs in vain? Every 20 years or so 3D is trotted out as if it's some massive breakthrough: in the 50s it was to stop cinema audiences deserting to tv, now it's to sell tv sets and prevent copying from the movie screen. I've seen lots of colour 3D but none of the recent offerings for reasons stated earlier. The best 3D is often found in some of the worst movies, e.g. "The Bubble", "Flesh For Frankenstein" etc. Nothing would make me sit through "Avatar" again after enduring even the 2D version.

06-06-2011, 12:33	#13
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 what gets me is the colour and brightness is diminished with all glasses - so essentially its not pure. Why would the colour be diminished with active glasses ?. LCD TV's unlike Plasmas have a greater luminance output thanks to the active backlighting so the loss of easily compensated for.

06-06-2011, 13:28	#14
pocatello Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 8,622	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade Red/green is fine for b&w at the cinema is what I meant, not thinking that anyone would ever think it acceptable for colour tv. I haven't seen any recent 3D movies but it's nothing to do with the technology. It's because most of them sound like crap and cinemas are pricey and full of morons who don't how how to behave in public. Polaroid 3D is excellent but is that basis of passive 3D tv? No one seems able to explain how/if it works on tv. Kind of ridiculous to refer to something as obscure as 3d black and white cinema, it is neither here nor there.

06-06-2011, 13:48	#15
late8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,052	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson Why would the colour be diminished with active glasses ?. LCD TV's unlike Plasmas have a greater luminance output thanks to the active backlighting so the loss of easily compensated for. the glasses still have a tint to them.

06-06-2011, 14:04	#16
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by pocatello Kind of ridiculous to refer to something as obscure as 3d black and white cinema, it is neither here nor there. Excuse me for a having a sense of history. If Sky had any sense they'd be screening some of the classic b&w 50s 3D movies (assuming the original elements still exist) alongside their newer offerings.

06-06-2011, 14:08	#17
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 the glasses still have a tint to them. They are a neutral grey so attenuate red green and blue identically. The same as a polarising or ND filter on a camera, Colour reproduction is not affected for a RGB source. In fact on a camera a polarising filter can create more saturated colours by eliminating polarised reflection sources and make blue skys look much more vivid.

06-06-2011, 14:21	#18
MAW Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,577	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade Excuse me for a having a sense of history. If Sky had any sense they'd be screening some of the classic b&w 50s 3D movies (assuming the original elements still exist) alongside their newer offerings. The 3d is composed in a completely different way. They'd have to be remastered at least in order to work with new 3D setups.

DS Forums

Types of 3D, Shutter vs...