Why Do WE Need 3DTV's?

hybridtheory · 02-07-2011, 11:30

Hi

I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question.

If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes?

Thanks

Baz

Nigel Goodwin · 02-07-2011, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybridtheory

Hi

I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question.

If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes?

Because it uses a far better system now, with the better ones using active shutter glasses.

hybridtheory · 02-07-2011, 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Because it uses a far better system now, with the better ones using active shutter glasses.

Hi

I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better?

Thanks

Baz

ironjade · 02-07-2011, 11:47

Conventional colour anaglyph 3D on a CRT is diabolically bad. Colour anaglyph on LCD tvs isn't much better, as C4 showed last year with "Flesh for Frankenstein".
Sky 3D's offerings are good and occasionally quite stunning.
Last night even the the Rugby League commentator jumped when it appeared that Pat Richards (the Wigan winger) was going to land in his lap.

Nigel Goodwin · 02-07-2011, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybridtheory

Hi

I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better?

The modern passive glasses are polarised, so are still better than the older coloured type - the active ones are better still.

The passive ones (such as LG) are intended mainly for pubs etc. where the cost of the glasses has to be cheap, and a poorer system is acceptable.

ironjade · 02-07-2011, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

The modern passive glasses are polarised, so are still better than the older coloured type - the active ones are better still.

The passive ones (such as LG) are intended mainly for pubs etc. where the cost of the glasses has to be cheap, and a poorer system is acceptable.

That's the one I have and I see no difference between active and passive as far as Sky's broadcasts are concerned; can't comment on Blu-Ray as I don't plan on using it.
The cheap, battery-free glasses are what tipped the balance.

grahamlthompson · 02-07-2011, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybridtheory

Hi

I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better?

Thanks

Baz

The picture resolution on a passive 3D TV is only half that of an active display vertically. It's two 1920 x 540 pictures interlaced together. The bluray will give you two genuine Full HD frames on an active 3D TV.

RobAnt · 03-07-2011, 14:24

Looking at the BBC Wimbledon 3d coverage, which is in Side by Side mode, it occurs to me that this must be similar to the old stills system, that you might have got through Weetabix in the 1960's - which had a rotating set of double images and a pair of lenses - a bit like a pair of specs, but without arms.

If that's the case, then surely any one can view this, simply by putting on a pair of special specs and nothing needs to be changed on the TV. Why can't they show 3D like that now? What's the difference?

grahamlthompson · 03-07-2011, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

Looking at the BBC Wimbledon 3d coverage, which is in Side by Side mode, it occurs to me that this must be similar to the old stills system, that you might have got through Weetabix in the 1960's - which had a rotating set of double images and a pair of lenses - a bit like a pair of specs, but without arms.

If that's the case, then surely any one can view this, simply by putting on a pair of special specs and nothing needs to be changed on the TV. Why can't they show 3D like that now? What's the difference?

The two images are squashed horizontally by 50%. ie they are 8:9 aspect ratio. To view them a 3D TV has to correct each image to 16:9. If you have the capability to record the transmission and grab a frame or photograph it with a digital camera.

If you load the picture into a photo editor and resize it 200% horizontally only you get a pair of stereo photos.

I posted some earlier.

http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/stere...d-tv#post-1377

chrisbartley · 03-07-2011, 16:57

WE don't but apparently you did / do

RobAnt · 03-07-2011, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

The two images are squashed horizontally by 50%. ie they are 8:9 aspect ratio. To view them a 3D TV has to correct each image to 16:9. If you have the capability to record the transmission and grab a frame or photograph it with a digital camera.

If you load the picture into a photo editor and resize it 200% horizontally only you get a pair of stereo photos.

I posted some earlier.

http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/stere...d-tv#post-1377

I get that, but do we need a new TV to correct the horizontal distortion, can't that be done with some fancy electronics and video optics in the glasses without the need for buying an expensive new special 3D TV?

grahamlthompson · 03-07-2011, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

I get that, but do we need a new TV to correct the horizontal distortion, can't that be done with some fancy electronics and video optics in the glasses without the need for buying an expensive new special 3D TV?

The only way to stretch the two images to 16:9 is use anamorphic lenses in the glasses and seperate them by installing cross polarised filters over the screen. Anamorphic lens start at about £1000.00 each.

This also means that each picture will only have 960 x 1080 pixels not exactly HD TV.

spiney2 · 03-07-2011, 17:36

Yes indeed. Even at a big screen cinema, the anaglyph process with red/green filters is fairly naff.

Interestingly, current 3D tv transmissions seem to use effectively 2 different pictures, instead of the 3d "profile" of mpeg !

The polarised glasses system has been around since 1950s, of course!

mooghead · 03-07-2011, 20:01

Should your thread title read 'Why Do we NEED 3DTV's?'

3D tv is a fad, until someone creates 3d tv with a decent viewing angle and no need for glasses then it will remain a niche (ie expensive) market.

deadline · 04-07-2011, 11:05

3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out.

ironjade · 04-07-2011, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadline

3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out.

Good luck with that. I'm off to watch "World War 2 in 3D".

pocatello · 09-07-2011, 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybridtheory

Hi

I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question.

If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes?

Thanks

Baz

Because you weren't. You can always do comic book 3d. Red green/blue color code 3d is possible using any screen, even a piece of paper in a kids coloring book.

To get full 120hz 3d with separate full resolution full color frames you need a 3d tv capable of 120hz full 3d frame input with next to no lag, extra brightness to make up for the glasses tint, and a bluray player capable of playing back such framerate material. Dvd/vhs could only do SD 2d material, nothing more. Even if they tried to encode a 3d film into them you'd get half the frame rate, and awful colors.

spiney2 · 09-07-2011, 04:08

Somebody said porn wd be the "killer app". Seems porn is why VHS gained ascendency over Betamax ..........

Imagine what wd come out of the screen, towards you .........

Smerph · 15-07-2011, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironjade

Good luck with that. I'm off to watch "World War 2 in 3D".

My grandparents have seen that already. Not much fun, apparently.

Gormond · 15-07-2011, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiney2

Somebody said porn wd be the "killer app". Seems porn is why VHS gained ascendency over Betamax ..........

Imagine what wd come out of the screen, towards you .........

I would have to stick to lesbian porn if it was in 3D I think

ironjade · 15-07-2011, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smerph

My grandparents have seen that already. Not much fun, apparently.

And the main character dies at the end.

cnbcwatcher · 17-07-2011, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadline

3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out.

I wait with bated breath for the Sky holographic channel - £200 a month and available for all Sky World subscribers I bet

02-07-2011, 11:30	#1
hybridtheory Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland Posts: 744	Why Do WE Need 3DTV's? Hi I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question. If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes? Thanks Baz

02-07-2011, 11:34	#2
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by hybridtheory Hi I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question. If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes? Because it uses a far better system now, with the better ones using active shutter glasses.

02-07-2011, 11:44	#3
hybridtheory Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland Posts: 744	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin Because it uses a far better system now, with the better ones using active shutter glasses. Hi I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better? Thanks Baz

02-07-2011, 11:47	#4
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Conventional colour anaglyph 3D on a CRT is diabolically bad. Colour anaglyph on LCD tvs isn't much better, as C4 showed last year with "Flesh for Frankenstein". Sky 3D's offerings are good and occasionally quite stunning. Last night even the the Rugby League commentator jumped when it appeared that Pat Richards (the Wigan winger) was going to land in his lap.

02-07-2011, 11:50	#5
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by hybridtheory Hi I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better? The modern passive glasses are polarised, so are still better than the older coloured type - the active ones are better still. The passive ones (such as LG) are intended mainly for pubs etc. where the cost of the glasses has to be cheap, and a poorer system is acceptable.

02-07-2011, 12:02	#6
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin The modern passive glasses are polarised, so are still better than the older coloured type - the active ones are better still. The passive ones (such as LG) are intended mainly for pubs etc. where the cost of the glasses has to be cheap, and a poorer system is acceptable. That's the one I have and I see no difference between active and passive as far as Sky's broadcasts are concerned; can't comment on Blu-Ray as I don't plan on using it. The cheap, battery-free glasses are what tipped the balance.

02-07-2011, 12:04	#7
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by hybridtheory Hi I watched the new Transformers movie at the cinema lastnite using the passice 3D glasses. When it comes out on Blu Ray and I watch it on my 3DTV which uses active shutter glasses, will the 3D be any better? Thanks Baz The picture resolution on a passive 3D TV is only half that of an active display vertically. It's two 1920 x 540 pictures interlaced together. The bluray will give you two genuine Full HD frames on an active 3D TV.

03-07-2011, 14:24	#8
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Looking at the BBC Wimbledon 3d coverage, which is in Side by Side mode, it occurs to me that this must be similar to the old stills system, that you might have got through Weetabix in the 1960's - which had a rotating set of double images and a pair of lenses - a bit like a pair of specs, but without arms. If that's the case, then surely any one can view this, simply by putting on a pair of special specs and nothing needs to be changed on the TV. Why can't they show 3D like that now? What's the difference?

03-07-2011, 14:38	#9
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt Looking at the BBC Wimbledon 3d coverage, which is in Side by Side mode, it occurs to me that this must be similar to the old stills system, that you might have got through Weetabix in the 1960's - which had a rotating set of double images and a pair of lenses - a bit like a pair of specs, but without arms. If that's the case, then surely any one can view this, simply by putting on a pair of special specs and nothing needs to be changed on the TV. Why can't they show 3D like that now? What's the difference? The two images are squashed horizontally by 50%. ie they are 8:9 aspect ratio. To view them a 3D TV has to correct each image to 16:9. If you have the capability to record the transmission and grab a frame or photograph it with a digital camera. If you load the picture into a photo editor and resize it 200% horizontally only you get a pair of stereo photos. I posted some earlier. http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/stere...d-tv#post-1377

03-07-2011, 16:57	#10
chrisbartley Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: berks Posts: 1,643	WE don't but apparently you did / do

03-07-2011, 17:07	#11
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Quote: Originally Posted by grahamlthompson The two images are squashed horizontally by 50%. ie they are 8:9 aspect ratio. To view them a 3D TV has to correct each image to 16:9. If you have the capability to record the transmission and grab a frame or photograph it with a digital camera. If you load the picture into a photo editor and resize it 200% horizontally only you get a pair of stereo photos. I posted some earlier. http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/stere...d-tv#post-1377 I get that, but do we need a new TV to correct the horizontal distortion, can't that be done with some fancy electronics and video optics in the glasses without the need for buying an expensive new special 3D TV?

03-07-2011, 17:30	#12
grahamlthompson Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Redditch Worcs Posts: 17,293	Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt I get that, but do we need a new TV to correct the horizontal distortion, can't that be done with some fancy electronics and video optics in the glasses without the need for buying an expensive new special 3D TV? The only way to stretch the two images to 16:9 is use anamorphic lenses in the glasses and seperate them by installing cross polarised filters over the screen. Anamorphic lens start at about £1000.00 each. This also means that each picture will only have 960 x 1080 pixels not exactly HD TV.

03-07-2011, 17:36	#13
spiney2 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 24,123	Yes indeed. Even at a big screen cinema, the anaglyph process with red/green filters is fairly naff. Interestingly, current 3D tv transmissions seem to use effectively 2 different pictures, instead of the 3d "profile" of mpeg ! The polarised glasses system has been around since 1950s, of course!

03-07-2011, 20:01	#14
mooghead Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 572	Should your thread title read 'Why Do we NEED 3DTV's?' 3D tv is a fad, until someone creates 3d tv with a decent viewing angle and no need for glasses then it will remain a niche (ie expensive) market.

04-07-2011, 11:05	#15
deadline Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 571	3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out.

04-07-2011, 12:13	#16
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by deadline 3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out. Good luck with that. I'm off to watch "World War 2 in 3D".

09-07-2011, 03:35	#17
pocatello Inactive Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 8,622	Quote: Originally Posted by hybridtheory Hi I've got a Panasonic TX-P55VT30B on order and expecting to get delivery in the next few week. Totally excited as this is my first 3DTV. I have this burning question. If we were able to watch 3D years ago on a CRT and watch a 3D movie at the cinema on a normal screen, why do we need a 3DTV to watch 3D content in our homes? Thanks Baz Because you weren't. You can always do comic book 3d. Red green/blue color code 3d is possible using any screen, even a piece of paper in a kids coloring book. To get full 120hz 3d with separate full resolution full color frames you need a 3d tv capable of 120hz full 3d frame input with next to no lag, extra brightness to make up for the glasses tint, and a bluray player capable of playing back such framerate material. Dvd/vhs could only do SD 2d material, nothing more. Even if they tried to encode a 3d film into them you'd get half the frame rate, and awful colors.

09-07-2011, 04:08	#18
spiney2 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 24,123	Somebody said porn wd be the "killer app". Seems porn is why VHS gained ascendency over Betamax .......... Imagine what wd come out of the screen, towards you .........

15-07-2011, 13:11	#19
Smerph Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,849	Quote: Originally Posted by ironjade Good luck with that. I'm off to watch "World War 2 in 3D". My grandparents have seen that already. Not much fun, apparently.

15-07-2011, 17:06	#20
Gormond Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 15,714	Quote: Originally Posted by spiney2 Somebody said porn wd be the "killer app". Seems porn is why VHS gained ascendency over Betamax .......... Imagine what wd come out of the screen, towards you ......... I would have to stick to lesbian porn if it was in 3D I think

15-07-2011, 18:09	#21
ironjade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London Posts: 8,651	Quote: Originally Posted by Smerph My grandparents have seen that already. Not much fun, apparently. And the main character dies at the end.

DS Forums

Why Do WE Need 3DTV's?

17-07-2011, 15:21	#22
cnbcwatcher Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: At college, in L.A.'s office Posts: 54,221	Quote: Originally Posted by deadline 3d Tv is a gimmick, and looks awful, i'll wait for hologram tv to come out. I wait with bated breath for the Sky holographic channel - £200 a month and available for all Sky World subscribers I bet