# Popular Myths About 3D



## Lee Stewart

So many myths about 3D. Are they true? Or are they false? Or maybe a combination of both?


Here is an informative look at some of the most popular myths that are associated with 3D and the products we will need to watch 3D in our homes.


So the next time you are with friends, family and co-workers, be a "mythbuster" and set the record straight.



*Myth #1 = The 3D movies of the 1950's were Anaglyph 3D*


FALSE - all the movies made in "the golden years" of 3D were dual strip 35mm using the polarized 3D method (twin cameras/twin projectors). Anaglyph 3D (Red/Cyan) was used in many of the comic books during that time period.


*Myth #2 = 3D Movies from the 1950's were "cheesy" exploitation films with lower string talent*


FALSE - Here's a partial list of some big stars that appeared in front of the 3-D camera: John Wayne, Rita Hayworth, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Bob Fosse, Robert Mitchum, Linda Darnell, Jack Palance, Edward G. Robinson, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Jane Russell, Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Victor Mature, Robert Stack, Jose Ferrer, Vincent Price, Joan Fontaine, Phil Silvers, Randolph Scott, Charles Bronson, Karl Malden, Ernest Borgnine, Rhonda Fleming, Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, Virginia Mayo, Lee J. Cobb, Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Rock Hudson.


*Myth #3 = S3D from an optical disc with shutter glasses is brand new*


FALSE - In 1985 Victor, Japan introduced 3D VHD. If you are not familiar with this, here is a LINK :


*Myth #4 = Todays 3D glasses are wired/corded*


FALSE - that's the anti-theft device.










ALL of the 3D shutter glasses are wireless. Some use a disposable "coin" lithium battery while others are rechargable.


*Myth #5 = 3D means things popping out of the screen*


TRUE & FALSE - it used to be that way when it was used solely as a gimmick, but todays use of 3D is more of an immersive method of getting the audience/viewer closer/into the story unfolding before them.


Interesting quote I found about this:



> Quote:
> _He liked how James Cameron showed the world that it was "not about poking you in the eye but instead it was pulling you in."_



*Myth #6 = All BD players with HDMI 1.3 & BD Live can be upgraded to 3D BD players*


FALSE - only the PS3 can be upgraded to play 3D BD's. The PS3 is a software based BD player. It uses the very powerful Cell BE instead of a SoC (System On a Chip) like all other BD players do which are hardware based players. It uses programming that can be updated and upgraded via firmware. Regular BD players can't do this.


*Myth #7 = 3DTV won't cost much more than a comparible HDTV*


TRUE - about 25% more. Here is a comparison of Panasonic products - assumes you purchase a BD player with your TV. MSRP prices are off Panasonic's website and articles concerning their 3DTV products. "Street"/retail prices may of course differ.


TC-P50V10 50" HDTV = $2100

DMP-BD85K BD player = $250

Total = $2350


TC-P50VT20 50" 3DTV = $2500 (One pair of 3D glasses included)

DMP-BDT300 3D BD player = $400

Total = $2900


Each pair of additional 3D shutter glasses are $150. Depending on the number of persons in your family, it can get much more expensive, in relationship to the cost of 2D HDTV. Of course you don't get 3D.










And Panasonic does sell their top of the line 54" PDP, TC-P54Z1 for $5500. That makes their 3DTV bundle look like a bargin. INCLUDING another 4 pair of 3D glasses!










*Myth #8 = You need glasses to see 3D in your home*


TRUE - either active shutter glasses or passive polarized glasses. And the red/cyan cardboard "glasses" used for the old Anaglyph 3D method. That is for today and the foreseeable future. But in the not too distant future (some say 7 to 10 years), we may be watching 3D in our homes without glasses. There are companies all over the world that are developing for the commerical market, glasses free 3D. They are called *Autostereoscopic 3D* displays.


Here is a LINK that explains briefly how they work.


*Myth #9 = You can upgrade your HDTV to a 3DTV*


TRUE & FALSE - 120Hz DLP RPTV's by Mitsubishi that were made as 3D ready, their owners will have the opportunity to purchase later this year, the Mitsubishi 3DC-1000 converter box. This is a 3D format converter that will convert 3D BD, SAT and CBL's 3D formats into the 3D format that these DLP HDTV's use, which is Checkerboard LINK , a 3D format that offers half HD resolution per eye instead of full HD resolution per eye, like the brand new FPD's do just being released. The frame /refresh rate will be 60 per eye, 120 total.


Again, active shutter glasses will be needed along with an external transmitter/emitter to sync the glasses to the TV that plugs into the back of the set in a special 3 pin VESA connection. You can use the DLP-Link 3D glasses like the XpanD X102 series.


So what about all the other HDTV's? The ones with 120Hz and 240Hz refresh rates? No - they will not be able to be upgraded to 3DTV's for a number of technical reasons.


*Myth #10 = 3D glasses are interchangeable between 3DTV brands*


FALSE - today, the CEMs are using proprietary 3D active shutter glasses for their 3DTVs. A set of Samsung 3D glasses will not work with a Panasonic 3DTV and visa vera. But help is on the way from a company called XpanD Cinema, a seller of both active shutter glasses and 3D cinema equipment for theaters. They will be releasing their X103 LINK Universal IR (Infra Red) 3D active shutter glasses later this year, that will be interchangeable with the major CEM's like Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic and even Nvidia (3D from a PC). The cost will be about the same as the ones being sold by the CEMs


Later in the year they will release; "the holy grail" of 3D active shutter glasses, the X104 series, which will include Bluetooth (Vizio) and DLP-Link along with IR. They will be made out of titanium and will be extremely light. Guesstimate on the cost per pair is $250.


Both the X103s and X104s will be battery powered. They claim a battery life of about 250 hours.


*Myth #11 = Ghosting/Crosstalk is a 3D artifact associated with LCD Display Technology*


TRUE & FALSE - Ghosting/Crosstalk is when we see more than we are supposed to. In the proper execution of active shutter glasses, the 3D glasses being used almost exclusively with 3DTVs, the mechanics are very simple. The display shows alternating L eye and R eye images in a rapid sequence that is synced to the ASGs which block one eye's vision, while leaving the other eye's vision open. If the block is not complete - meaning light (image) is getting through to the desired blocked eye, we see this as a partial image. This is Ghosting/Crosstalk. It can happen on any of the display techs (PDP, LCD, DLP, etc.). It is an issue with the glasses themselves and their ability to throughly block incoming light. Not all ASG's are created equal. Some perform better than others. And they are "LC" active shutter glasses (as in black level issues).


Another cause of Ghosting/Crosstalk may be response time - how quickly can an image be captured, held, then released to get the next image in line. LCD display's boast response times of 2ms. How does that compare with PDP? PDP's response time is on the order of .001ms. That's 2000X faster than LCD's response time.


So PDP tech looks great doesn't it? Well, they too have a chance to exhibit Ghosting/Crosstalk. Another cause of this is the decay time of the phosphors used in PDP's. Panasonic has prided themselves in using new fast decay time phosphors in their new VT 3DTV's. So what about the other PDP 3DTV CEM's?


To be revisited at another time.


*Myth #12 - All 3D movies today are shot in Stereoscopic 3D (S3D)*


FALSE - it used to be that way. But not lately. A true stereoscopic movie is shot using 2 views - Left & Right. For live action, a special camera rig has two cameras with their lenses spaced approx. 65 mm apart, the same distance our eyes are. A scene is recorded (they used to use film cameras, now they use digital cameras), then when played back in either a theater or at home, we don our glasses and see the two seperate images which tell our brain, we are seeing depth. 100% CGI movies don't use cameras. They use computers to create (called rendering) the 2 seperate views.


There is another way to create a 3D movie. Start with a 2D movie, then convert it to a 3D movie either in post production, or after the movie has been made. AFAIK, the first movie converted to 3D was The Nightmare Before Xmas, Tim Burton's stop motion movie. It was created for and shown in IMAX 3D theaters for Halloween. Just recently, Alice in Wonderland and Clash Of The Titans have been converted to 3D during post. There is talk that other older films may be converted from 2D to 3D for re-releasing in 3D theaters. Such titles as Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings, and just recently, 300 have been discussed and test footage has been created. James Cameron has said he will be re-releasing Titanic in 3D in 2012 for the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the famous ocean liner.


So how do these 2D to 3D conversions compare to movie shot in S3D? Not as good is the popular opinion.


But . . . not all 2D to 3D conversions are created equal. Just recently, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 were re-released briefly in theaters in 3D. What they do for a 100% CGI movie is re-render the movie to add a second view to make them truly stereoscopic 3D.


*Myth #13 = Hollywood and the Blu-ray Disc Association announce 3D Blu-ray*


TRUE - it is a myth. The BDA did finalize the specifications for 3D BD in mid December 2009 and yes some of the Hollywood studios did announce some 3D BD titles at CES 2010 but there is a catch. Of the 7 titles announced, 6 are exclusives to be used as giveaways for people who buy a 3DTV and 3D BD player from Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. The 7th title is a Disney 3D title for Q4. Details for these (7) 3D BD titles can be found in this Forum under the thread title "3D BD . . . What's Going On?"


Who ever heard of a new product launch - 3D BD players - with no content? None of the 6 titles are available for purchase to the general public even though they are encoded using the AVC-MVC codec which allows them to be played in all BD legacy players, in 2D only of course.


A BIG . . . .










*Myth #14 = All people can see 3D*


FALSE - between 2% and 12% of all people are considered Stereo Blind which means they lack depth perception. This can be caused by:


•Medical disorders that prevent the eyes focusing and/or aligning correctly (e.g. amblyopia, strabismus, optic nerve hypoplasia).

•Loss of vision in one eye.


If you are able to see the 3D effect but it causes you discomfort, you may have a mild binocular disorder.


A person who is able to see in full 3D is called stereo-acute.



*Myth #15 = The 3D in Theaters is different than the 3D we will see at Home*


FALSE - both venues will offer the same 3D - Stereoscopic 3D. Two views consisting of seperate Left and Right images, offset by the distance our eyes are apart = 65mm.


Both require 3D glasses to be worn. The difference is how the 2 views will be presented to us. In the theaters, the majority method is 3D through polarized light which uses inexpensive glasses where there are two different filters in the glasses - one for the left eye and one for the right eye. Each filter blocks one wavelength of light while letting the other through. This can be done with a single projector (RealD) or with dual projectors (IMAX Digital & IMAX 15/70) depending on the 3D presentation format. All require a silver screen to maintain the polarization back to the viewer and to increase the brightness of the two images. Dolby 3D, also a passive 3D presentation system uses a special color filtering system that changes the values of colored light between our eyes allowing two images to be projected on a normal white screen and still allow true S3D via the special filters in the glasses.


For the home, Active Shutter Glasses is the almost exclusive method of delivering S3D. The two views are flashed on the display in alternating L & R images and the display is synced to the powered (active) glasses so one eye is blocked via the liquid crystals going black, while the other eye is open (liquid crystals going clear). This is happening at 60 FPS per eye, alternating L & R eyes - one eye open and one eye blocked. This is called the Frame Sequential (aka Page Flip) 3D format, the 3D format of 3D BD. XpanD Cinema also uses this presentation in their 3D Cinema system though they have few installations in the USA.


For the home, there will be two other 3D presentation formats to accomodate 3D from CBL and SAT; Side-by-Side and Over/Under (aka Top/Bottom). Both will use active shutter glasses.



*Myth #16 = All 3DTVs requires 3D content to show 3D*


FALSE - some of the CEMs have added a feature that allows 2D to 3D conversion on the fly. This means that you can use any video source (HD will probably look the best) and watch your favorite programming in "pseudo" 3D with the ASGs. The results are mixed - from poor to great according to those that have used it/seen it.



*Myth #17 = You will need new a HDMI cable for 3D*


FALSE. Both HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 have the same speed/bandwidth rating which is 10.2 Gbps. All that is needed is an HDMI 1.3 Category 2 High Speed cable.


NOTE: If the CEMs decide to incorporate the new 1.4 feature called Ethernet Over HDMI, which allows a singlle cable to be used instead of both an HDMI cable and an Ethernet cable, then yes, a new cable will be required. As of this writing, this feature has not been incorporated in any 1.4 rated equipment


*Myth #18 = 3D is a fad.*


FALSE. How can you call something that has been with us as a commerical presentation product since 1952 a fad? Isn't a fad something that develops overnight, and as quickly as it is popular, it disappears shortly afterward. Like the Hula Hoop or the Pet Rock or wearing Day Glow colored clothing.


58 years seems like an awfully long fad to me.


*Myth #19 = 3D is THE cutting edge of movie technology*


FALSE. It is exceeded by 4D . . . presenting in 3D plus using in-theater physical effects such as wind, rain, motion seats and odors/smells. The very first 4D film was Michael Jackson's Captain EO (1986) which played at Disney theme parks. It is one of 10 films done in 4D.


But 4D itself proceeds Captain EO by 24 years with a failed invention called a Sensorama Machine built back in 1962 LINK 


*Myth #20 = The IR (infrared) radation from an emitter (for Active Shutter Glasses) can cause the wearer cancer.*


FALSE. This was recently claimed by a third world doctor but in reality, it really is nothing more then a myth because . . .



> Quote:
> An important distinction that affects the health risks from radiation is whether the energy is ionizing or non-ionizing.
> 
> 
> Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.
> 
> 
> Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA. Low-energy UV rays, visible light, *infrared rays*, microwaves, and radio waves are all forms of non-ionizing radiation. Aside from UV rays, these types of radiation are not known to increase cancer risk. LINK


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

You know. I log in each day, just to read your posts on 3D. It's made the site quite fun again for me.











Keep up the good work!!!



PS: I did finally find some DLP-LINK glasses that are available and shipping.


Real D Crystal Eyes 5



$450 each though.







I think I will hang in the for the Xpands.


The media situation is really putting a bummer on things. The 3D sports presentaions may be the saving grace even with the reduced resolutions.


----------



## Steve P.

Another myth is that all the 50's 3-D movies were bad sci-fi.


In fact, many of them were A pictures with major stars of the time, and they consisted of many genres (action, westerns, musicals, costume dramas, noir dramas) as well as sci-fi and horror. Most of them were very well shot too, much better than the stuff being made today.


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

Some of the best were defiently cheesey B-ish Sci Fi though in my opinion.










I am getting more game everyday. I am old 50's movie buff big time, I would jump at the chance to rescreen many of the movies from this era in 3D in my own theater.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve P.* /forum/post/18340808
> 
> 
> Another myth is that all the 50's 3-D movies were bad sci-fi.
> 
> 
> In fact, many of them were A pictures with major stars of the time, and they consisted of many genres (action, westerns, musicals, costume dramas, noir dramas) as well as sci-fi and horror. Most of them were very well shot too, much better than the stuff being made today.



True - as we know, Alfred Hitchcock shot Dial M For Murder in 3D. Would like to see that one released on 3D BD along with Creature From The Black Lagoon


----------



## JamesN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18340851
> 
> 
> True - as we know, Alfred Hitchcock shot Dial M For Murder in 3D. Would like to see that one released on 3D BD along with Creature From The Black Lagoon



Dial M for Murder is rumored for Blu-ray release some time this year.

link 


Whether or not it receives a 3D release is anybody's guess (and a possible indication of Warner's commitment to 3D in general.)


----------



## walford

Lee,

This thread would make a good sticky if your are willing to keep Link #1 above current when additional Myths that need to be confirmed or rebuked.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18342205
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> This thread would make a good sticky if your are willing to keep Link #1 above current when additional Myths that need to be confirmed or rebuked.



Well - I will do that, and if not a sticky - I will just give it a bump when I add a new one.


----------



## walford

Good news.

Please try and make it a sticky so that it is always there for anyone viewing the forum just as Ron Jones excellent FAQ sticky is in the 3D Display Sub Forum.


----------



## taz291819

I've heard this "myth" or misinformation quite a bit.


For 3D, all you need is a 120Hz display.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18343189
> 
> 
> Good news.
> 
> Please try and make it a sticky so that it is always there for anyone viewing the forum just as Ron Jones excellent FAQ sticky is in the 3D Display Sub Forum.



I just added another myth. Let's see how it goes before requesting sticky status. Not sure it will be approproiate as some I consider ignorance on some peoples part and I am sorta poking fun at them. Consider it a part fun and part educational thread.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve P.* /forum/post/18340808
> 
> 
> Another myth is that all the 50's 3-D movies were bad sci-fi.
> 
> 
> In fact, many of them were A pictures with major stars of the time, and they consisted of many genres (action, westerns, musicals, costume dramas, noir dramas) as well as sci-fi and horror. Most of them were very well shot too, much better than the stuff being made today.



At least the old movies are true 3D, not the 3D from 2D crap we're sometimes getting today. I actually hope DirecTV has a channel running old 3D movies. Even if it's not Blu-ray quality, it will still be fun to watch.


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18343428
> 
> 
> I just added another myth. Let's see how it goes before requesting sticky status. Not sure it will be approproiate as some I consider ignorance on some peoples part and I am sorta poking fun at them. Consider it a part fun and part educational thread.



IMHO any well writen and technically correct sticky that will reduce the questions and/or mis information posted on these forums will benefit the entire 3D effort. You may need to somehow point out in the sticky that one of the sticky's clear objectives is to help educate readers so that information or advice that they are receive at the office or from friends or neighbors should not be followed because it is based on a myth.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18343951
> 
> 
> IMHO any well writen and technically correct sticky that will reduce the questions and/or mis information posted on these forums will benefit the entire 3D effort. You may need to somehow point out in the sticky that one of the sticky's clear objectives is to help educate readers so that information or advice that they are receive at the office or from friends or neighbors should not be followed because it is based on a myth.



I will definitely consider what you have said. If it does teach and educate people about what is fact and what is fiction, then it is of importance just like the FAQ thread in the 3D display forum.


Added more myths BTW - 1 I squeezed in - had to re-number.










EDIT: submitted and accepted. Thanks Walford for the words of encouragement










Will revisit the intro of the thread - see if I can polish it up using your suggestion


EDIT: Done - Great idea!


----------



## NorthTV

Thanks Lee for a great thread and kudos to those who have encouraged it becoming a sticky.


Here is my attempt to add another myth:


MYTH # __ If you just wait a year or two you will be able to get an affordable 3D TV that will allow use of less expensive polarized glasses or no glasses at all.


Reality: While such TVs are technologically possible already, it will be a lot longer than a year or two before such a TV would at a market competitive price point provide the same quality of non 3D viewing that one can get from the current generation of 3D TVs. Once there is sufficient 3D content available to justify a dedicated 3D only TVs (optimistically at least 4 years away) the dual 3D - 2D TV with its shutter glasses for 3D viewing will dominate the market.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NorthTV* /forum/post/18345947
> 
> 
> Thanks Lee for a great thread and kudos to those who have encouraged it becoming a sticky.
> 
> 
> Here is my attempt to add another myth:
> 
> 
> MYTH # __ If you just wait a year or two you will be able to get an affordable 3D TV that will allow use of less expensive polarized glasses or no glasses at all.
> 
> 
> Reality: While such TVs are technologically possible already, it will be a lot longer than a year or two before such a TV would at a market competitive price point provide the same quality of non 3D viewing that one can get from the current generation of 3D TVs using shutter glasses. Once there is sufficient 3D content available to justify a dedicated 3D only TV (optimistically at least 4 years away) the dual 3D - 2D TV with its shutter glasses for 3D viewing will dominate the market.



Thanks!










And thank you for the suggestion - I have been thiking about how to work in a myth about active versus passive glasses. Problem is, we have no passive 3DTV's here in the USA yet. Let me noodle that one a bit.


Please keep the suggestions coming.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Would someone in the know please review Myth # 11 to see if I got it right - the 2nd paragraph - about response time issues










Thanks.


----------



## William

Myth #12: Is it true the 3D nomenclature is being changed to LeeD?


----------



## walford

Lee,

Myth #8. With my senior eyes I use black on white in all AVS forums and can not read the purple text.

Also It appears that for the technique to provide 1080p content to each eye the native resolution would have to be 3840x1080.


Myth #11. I do not beleive pixel response time is a cause of cross talk ghosting for two reason it would cause blur for all moving objects if it were, not just foreground objects. Secondly AFAIK the LCD 3D HDTVs have 240Hz frame rates and acutally use 5:5 pulldown with a blank frame between frame with content and this should eliminate any cross talk or motion blur between frames.


Great job so for Lee, the salesman in you produces much better text then a retired computer engineer like me can.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18347791
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> Myth #8. With my senior eyes I use black on white in all AVS forums and can not read the blue/purple text.













Only color I used is for Autostereoscopic 3D - put it in CYAN. I use the black background with white letters - have you tried that?



> Quote:
> Also It appears that for the technique to provide 1080p content to each eye the native resolution would have to be 3840x1080.



I didn't want to get into the technology of Auto 3D. There are a lot of issues unresolved and the main one is how many views? We have seen numbers of 8, 9, 32 and even 64. A true quagmire. The link shows how it differs from 3D 2 view glasses based, that is in use today.



> Quote:
> Myth #11. I do not beleive pixel response time is a cause of cross talk ghosting for two reason it would cause blur for all moving objects if it were, not just foreground objects. Secondly AFAIK the LCD 3D HDTVs have 240Hz frame rates and acutally use 5:5 pulldown with a blank frame between frame with content and this should eliminate any cross talk or motion blur between frames.



AFAIK, frame and refresh rates are different than the response time of the crystals themselves. Hence the Hz versus ms difference.



> Quote:
> Great job so for Lee, the salesman in you produces much better text then a retired computer engineer like me can.



LOL! It's those years of writing 5 and 10 page proposals. I was in the computer leasing and sale of used equipment business - mainframes - IBM products.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JamesN* /forum/post/18340907
> 
> 
> Dial M for Murder is rumored for Blu-ray release some time this year.
> 
> link
> 
> 
> Whether or not it receives a 3D release is anybody's guess (and a possible indication of Warner's commitment to 3D in general.)





> Quote:
> The 1954 film was shot with M.L. Gunzberg's Natural Vision 3-D camera rig. This rig was notable for being the same rig that started the 3-D craze of 1953 with Bwana Devil and House of Wax. Intended originally to be shown in dual strip, polaroid 3-D, the film played most theaters flat due to the loss of interest in the 3-D process in conjunction with the time of its release. In February 1980, the dual-strip system was used for the revival of the film in 3-D at the York Theater in San Francisco. This revival did so well that Warner Brothers re-released the film in the single-strip system 3-D version in February 1982.



From WIKI 


If this is ever released on 3D BD, I would sincerely home that WB went back to the original stereo film elements and did not attempt a transfer from the single strip 3D film elements


----------



## walford




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18347820
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only color I used is for Autostereoscopic 3D - put it in CYAN. I use the black background with white letters - have you tried that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want to get into the technology of Auto 3D. There are a lot of issues unresolved and the main one is how many views? We have seen numbers of 8, 9, 32 and even 64. A true quagmire. The link shows how it differs from 3D 2 view glasses based, that is in use today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, frame and refresh rates are different than the response time of the crystals themselves. Hence the Hz versus ms difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! It's those years of writing 5 and 10 page proposals. I was in the computer leasing and sale of used equipment business - mainframes - IBM products.



I use Black on White background for consistency with all my other Web sites and documents and can not read the Cyan easily if at all.


Yes frame and refresh rates are different from pixel response time and since the frame and refresh rates are longer in time they contribute more to motion blur then response time. I used to have a link that showed that the comnpleting the response of LCD piixels to a color chage is not a linear process and that the change is almost complete in less then 1/2 of the measured resonse time. Regretfully I can no longer find the link but it certainlly makes technical sense.


A 60Hz frame rate will start displaying new colors every (1000/60) or 16.7ms so if the pixels complete their color chage in 4-6 ms then the "Show and Hold" characteristic of an LCD panel has much effect on motion blur then response time itself.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walford* /forum/post/18351101
> 
> 
> I use Black on White background for consistency with all my other Web sites and documents and can not read the Cyan easily if at all.



OK - just changed to to BOLD - no color



> Quote:
> Yes frame and refresh rates are different from pixel response time and since the frame and refresh rates are longer in time they contribute more to motion blur then response time. I used to have a link that showed that the comnpleting the response of LCD piixels to a color chage is not a linear process and that the change is almost complete in less then 1/2 of the measured resonse time. Regretfully I can no longer find the link but it certainlly makes technical sense.



AFAIK, there are two ways to measure RT; black to black or gray to gray



> Quote:
> A 60Hz frame rate will start displaying new colors every (1000/60) or 16.7ms so if the pixels complete their color chage in 4-6 ms then the "Show and Hold" characteristic of an LCD panel has much effect on motion blur then response time itself.



Motion blur can be an artifact of slow response time. With 3D, everything is doubled because we are creating 2 images instead of just one.


----------



## samgreat

if not backward compatible, how did they air 3D commercials during the superbowl a few years back?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *samgreat* /forum/post/18356259
> 
> 
> if not backward compatible, how did they air 3D commercials during the superbowl a few years back?



They used the Color Code 3D format. See an example in this thread (post #7):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1232830


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth 12 added. Going to have to come up with something special for #13


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18356301
> 
> 
> They used the Color Code 3D format. See an example in this thread (post #7):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1232830



They also used that process for the episode of Chuck that aired the day after the Super Bowl. We spent an extraordinary amount of time talking about it in the Chuck thread. I went out of my way to get hold of the version of the Chuck second season Blu-ray discs that had that episode in 3D. It's not that the episode is great (or even good, by Chuck standards). And the 3D is miserably ineffective compared to "real" 3D. It's just that, historically, the fact that it was in 3D was a harbinger of things to come. I'm hoping they release that episode some day on 3D Blu-ray. They probably won't, but I'd wait in line to buy it. That's how much I love 3D, and Chuck.


----------



## Lee Stewart

On todays AVS Front Page:

*8 Myths About 3D*

By Stephen Hopkins

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1238478 


Only 8?











I sent him an Email with this threads URL


----------



## NorthTV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18340789
> 
> 
> You know. I log in each day, just to read your posts on 3D. It's made the site quite fun again for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work!!!



+ 3 (one plus for each of the 3D Central sites)


----------



## Chris_TC

Jaws 3 is freaking awesome, I love that movie. The shark is gigantic and looks super-mean. When it swims towards the underwater tunnel really slowly, barely moving but with that determined expression, wow, so cool. And the finale with the grenade.


The only disappointing aspect about it is how little screentime the shark gets. It's my favorite shark out of all the Jaws movies.


I cannot wait to see this on Blu-ray 3D.


----------



## jbug

I'm waiting on the day when "3D Is A Fad" is proved to be a myth for the current incarnation of it.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/18393287
> 
> 
> I'm waiting on the day when "3D Is A Fad" is proved to be a myth for the current incarnation of it.



LOL! Me too.


And also the myth that people won't buy into 3D because you have to wear glasses in your own home.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth #13 added.


I have reached my maximum limit for Hyperlinks.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth #14 added


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth #15 added


----------



## rmz76

Good thread with lots of useful information..... Going a bit OT: I hope Hollywood will show their customers some respect and tred carefully with 3D. So far they have not. It seems the huge (and well deserved) success of AVATAR 3D has prompted Hollywood to re-evaluate every upcoming picture to see if a post production 3D make over might bring more ticket sales.


I shelled out $$$ to experience Clash of the Titans in RealD just to have more fears validated. When the director puts as much work as Cameron did into making 3D a core part of the film 3D can be an amazing thing, it can also be a cheap gimmick.


It would seem Hollywood is (still) controlled by a bunch of greed driven executives who think the general public are idiots. The success or failure of consumer 3D is largely in their hands and will be determined by how much respect they pay to the directors vision.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rmz76* /forum/post/18448639
> 
> 
> Good thread with lots of useful information..... Going a bit OT: I hope Hollywood will show their customers some respect and tred carefully with 3D. So far they have not. It seems the huge (and well deserved) success of AVATAR 3D has prompted Hollywood to re-evaluate every upcoming picture to see if a post production 3D make over might bring more ticket sales.
> 
> 
> I shelled out $$$ to experience Clash of the Titans in RealD just to have more fears validated. When the director puts as much work as Cameron did into making 3D a core part of the film 3D can be an amazing thing, it can also be a cheap gimmick.
> 
> 
> It would seem Hollywood is (still) controlled by a bunch of greed driven executives who think the general public are idiots. The success or failure of consumer 3D is largely in their hands and will be determined by how much respect they pay to the directors vision.



Thanks - a labor of love.










I agree with you. And if you click on the other STICKY in this forum, you will see that the overwhelming method of 3D production for the rest of the year will be S3D and not 2D to 3D conversions.


----------



## --DANNY--

Here's what I can't wrap my head around...

Avatar in "Real3D" in a local theater w/ digital projectors looked freaking amazing and used cheap plastic polarized glasses that were kinda greyish in lens tint. The projector used in the theater is a single digital projector. The same projector that they've been using for the past couple years now...


So if we can get an amazing looking 3D experience with a single projector that isn't a new "_3D Technology, 25% more expensive than other non-3D projectors, super awesome amazing brand new technology projector_"........


Why can't I have a Bluray release of Avatar 3D that I can play on my standard LCD, DLP, Plasma, or Projector and simply wear some cheap comfortable polarized lens glasses?


Is this just because the movie industry knows they can make a crap ton of money by only releasing 3D movies in superior technology that costs more and requires upgrading your equipment?


I mean, six months ago I spent almost $2,000 on a new projector, and I won't be able to use it to watch something like Avatar in 3D on Bluray with some cheap glasses?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *--DANNY--* /forum/post/18462365
> 
> 
> Here's what I can't wrap my head around...
> 
> Avatar in "Real3D" in a local theater w/ digital projectors looked freaking amazing and used cheap plastic polarized glasses that were kinda greyish in lens tint. The projector used in the theater is a single digital projector. The same projector that they've been using for the past couple years now...
> 
> 
> So if we can get an amazing looking 3D experience with a single projector that isn't a new "_3D Technology, 25% more expensive than other non-3D projectors, super awesome amazing brand new technology projector_"........
> 
> 
> Why can't I have a Bluray release of Avatar 3D that I can play on my standard LCD, DLP, Plasma, or Projector and simply wear some cheap comfortable polarized lens glasses?
> 
> 
> Is this just because the movie industry knows they can make a crap ton of money by only releasing 3D movies in superior technology that costs more and requires upgrading your equipment?
> 
> 
> I mean, six months ago I spent almost $2,000 on a new projector, and I won't be able to use it to watch something like Avatar in 3D on Bluray with some cheap glasses?



Unfortunately, you won't be able to just don some cheap polarized glasses and watch Avatar in 3D. You projector is not configured properly (insides) to show 3D using the polarized light 3D format.


The theaters are using very expensive digital projectors that have a very expensive 3D add on like RealD or Dolby 3D. In the case of RealD, they use a silver screen to maintain polarization back to the viewer. They are showing 2 images each at 72 FPS flashed up on the screen in two different wavelengths of light - one for the left eye and one for the right eye where one lens blocks one eye, then the other based on the polarization method.


You projector can't do that nor do you have a silver screen - you need both.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth #16 has been added


----------



## BenPlace

I am doing a pseudo 3D on my Mitsubishi with Nvision and the 3D Stereo player and it looks incredible. I just load the player open my movie file, Alt Enter to full screen 3D mode, the shift right arrow twice, and shift up twice. I have a ton of blu ray movies converted to mkv and they look awesome.

Me and my son are having a 3D movie marathon tomorrow since its supposed to rain all day.


----------



## Joseph Clark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BenPlace* /forum/post/18493206
> 
> 
> I am doing a pseudo 3D on my Mitsubishi with Nvision and the 3D Stereo player and it looks incredible. I just load the player open my movie file, Alt Enter to full screen 3D mode, the shift right arrow twice, and shift up twice. I have a ton of blu ray movies converted to mkv and they look awesome.
> 
> Me and my son are having a 3D movie marathon tomorrow since its supposed to rain all day.



Is this just a 2D to 3D conversion feature of Stereo Player and MKVs, or will it work with other types of files, such as m2ts?


----------



## SPatterson

Thanks for all of the hard work on this thread! Very good information for the masses - I know I will be eagerly watching for updates...


----------



## MikeBiker

How about the don't watch 3D TV while drunk myth?


----------



## Lee Stewart

Thanks for the kudos and suggestions guys.










New myth to be added later today.


EDIT:


Myth #17 is up


----------



## Ssoto0055

In regards to myth 17. If HDMI 1.3 can carry 3d can I still use my current receiver without having any trouble? Will the receiver allow the 3d image to pass through so I can also benefit from the audio or will I need a new receiver for this? Really not looking to upgrade my receiver if I do upgrade my tv soon.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ssoto0055* /forum/post/18528960
> 
> 
> In regards to myth 17. If HDMI 1.3 can carry 3d can I still use my current receiver without having any trouble? Will the receiver allow the 3d image to pass through so I can also benefit from the audio or will I need a new receiver for this? Really not looking to upgrade my receiver if I do upgrade my tv soon.



It isn't the bandwidth. It is other factors. If you are interested in 3DTV and 3D BD specifically, then you would want a Panasonic 3D BD player. It has two HDMI outputs and one can be configured to output HD audio only (for HD audio processing by an exisitn 1.3 AVR) while the other would be 3D and HD audio that would go to a 3DTV's 1.4 HDMI RX input.


This will help to explain the situation:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/


----------



## Ssoto0055




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18529112
> 
> 
> It isn't the bandwidth. It is other factors. If you are interested in 3DTV and 3D BD specifically, then you would want a Panasonic 3D BD player. It has two HDMI outputs and one can be configured to output HD audio only (for HD audio processing by an exisitn 1.3 AVR) while the other would be 3D and HD audio that would go to a 3DTV's 1.4 HDMI RX input.
> 
> 
> This will help to explain the situation:
> 
> http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/



Thanks for the info Lee. I have a PS3 so I was hoping to avoid buying a 3d player. So now I have decisions to make. I might just buy a new receiver and send the old one to my room. The wife might not like surround in our room but when have I ever listened?


----------



## Geaux Tigers




Lee Stewart said:


> *Myth #9 = You can upgrade your HDTV to a 3DTV*
> 
> 
> TRUE & FALSE - 120Hz DLP RPTV's by Mitsubishi and Samsung, that were made as 3D ready, their owners will have the opportunity to purchase later this year, the Mitsubishi 3DC-1000 converter box. This is a 3D format converter that will convert 3D BD, SAT and CBL's 3D formats into the 3D format that these DLP HDTV's use, which is Checkerboard LINK , a 3D format that offers half HD resolution per eye instead of full HD resolution per eye, like the brand new FPD's do just being released. The frame /refresh rate will be 60 per eye, 120 total.
> 
> 
> Again, active shutter glasses will be needed along with an external transmitter/emitter to sync the glasses to the TV that plugs into the back of the set in a special 3 pin VESA connection. If your set is equipped with a DLP-Link, then no emitter is required but you will need the DLP-Link 3D glasses like the XpanD X102 series.
> 
> 
> So what about all the other HDTV's? The ones with 120Hz and 240Hz refresh rates? No - they will not be able to be upgraded to 3DTV's for a number of technical reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> This a great thread. However, you need to update the information concerning the Mitsubishi Converter and the Samsung 3D ready DLPs in your first post contained in Myth 9. Thanks.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Done - Thanks for the reminder


----------



## NorthTV

This "myth" has to top them all.



http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/05/1...oman-pregnant/


----------



## mastermaybe

Ok, so final word:


It is a MYTH that I need an 1.4 HDMI AVR to pass 3D?


I can use a 3D SOURCE, a 1.3 High Speed HDMI cable to interconnect said source to an 1.3 AVR, and a 1.3 HS cable to connect said AVR to a 3D capable television and be perfectly fine?


I have read more conflicting info on this than any other aspect of the technology.


Some vehemently maintain that I will NOT get full 1080P 3d while others maintain (just as vehemently) that I WON'T.



thanks!


EDIT: Sorry, I don't know how I missed the above pair of posts regarding the HDMI myth.


James


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NorthTV* /forum/post/18631085
> 
> 
> This "myth" has to top them all.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/05/1...oman-pregnant/



The title of that article should have been 3DTV makes woman stupid.


----------



## supernoob

nice sticky. good read here.


----------



## Vincent Shaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18349438
> 
> _The 1954 film was shot with M.L. Gunzberg's Natural Vision 3-D camera rig. This rig was notable for being the same rig that started the 3-D craze of 1953 with Bwana Devil and House of Wax. Intended originally to be shown in dual strip, polaroid 3-D, the film played most theaters flat due to the loss of interest in the 3-D process in conjunction with the time of its release. In February 1980, the dual-strip system was used for the revival of the film in 3-D at the York Theater in San Francisco. This revival did so well that Warner Brothers re-released the film in the single-strip system 3-D version in February 1982._
> 
> 
> From WIKI
> 
> 
> If this is ever released on 3D BD, I would sincerely home that WB went back to the original stereo film elements and did not attempt a transfer from the single strip 3D film elements



In a thread devoted to 'getting things right', let's make sure the small details are covered, too:


DIAL M FOR MURDER wasn't shot with the Natural Vision 3-D rig, despite what it says at Wikipedia. It was shot in WarnerVision, the studio's own stereoscopic format, which would have saved them the expense of hiring the Natural Vision rig (which they had used on HOUSE OF WAX the previous year, for no other reason than the WarnerVision rig wasn't ready at the time).


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vincent Shaw* /forum/post/18747697
> 
> 
> In a thread devoted to 'getting things right', let's make sure the small details are covered, too:
> 
> 
> DIAL M FOR MURDER wasn't shot with the Natural Vision 3-D rig, despite what it says at Wikipedia. It was shot in WarnerVision, the studio's own stereoscopic format, which would have saved them the expense of hiring the Natural Vision rig (which they had used on HOUSE OF WAX the previous year, for no other reason than the WarnerVision rig wasn't ready at the time).



LOL! Well - it was a myth that they used Natural Vision 3D camera rigs to shoot Dial M For Murder - as per Wiki.










I checked another source which also shows Warner Vision 3D camera rigs.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Well . . . . it took long enough but I have come up with another myth and would like to thank jbug for his inspirational post. While trying to come up with a new myth, I reread this thread and his post "rang my bell."


Yes - I know I am scraping the bottom of the barrel but that's all that's left.


----------



## shawny

This is great, i had proposed we start using 3D broadcast TV at LosAngeles Web design lab to assist those client who need advanced flash based websites and also buy another one for our theater but was faced with rejection due to this myths now i will have the facts to prove my points. Thank you very much.


----------



## Thefrisbee

Myth #17 = You will need new a HDMI cable for 3D


I'm half confused, pardon my ignorance. Does this mean that now that there _are_ 1.4 cables with Ethernet that I will be needing to upgrade to produce the highest quality 3D experience?


I currently have these cables.
http://www.igonemobile.com/product.aspx?p=21888


----------



## walford

Any high speed Ethernet cable will work with HDMI 1.4a content. None of the 3D TVs

or 3D players have any support for the use of Ethernet over HDMI.


----------



## Ken H

Off topic posts deleted.


----------



## high def mon

Some fun stuff here: http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/07...knew-about-3d/


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Myth #19 = 3D is THE cutting edge of movie technology*


Just added


----------



## BlackShark

You spend hundreds of dollars on shutter glasses so that you don't have to spend thousands more for the TV in order to get the equivalent picture quality for polarised glasses.


----------



## icester

Quote:

Originally Posted by *mjvmec* 
so according to myth 15... if home and movie theatre 3d is the same... why do we need to spend hundreds of dollars on glasses?


seems like a rip off... watch... after the first big push in 3d the next wave will be glasses-less displays
It is not the same at all.

Home theater equipped with dual projector, silver screen and passive glasses outperforms any theater system including IMAX.

Most of all, theater screen size is not compatible with stereo content and always shows gigantic exaggerated scenes and actor sizes.



Mathew Orman


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *icester* /forum/post/19463254
> 
> 
> It is not the same at all.



Yes - they are the same. They are both true stereoscopic full color 3D



> Quote:
> Home theater equipped with dual projector, silver screen and passive glasses outperforms any theater system including IMAX.














> Quote:
> Most of all, theater screen size is not compatible with stereo content and always shows gigantic exaggerated scenes and actor sizes.
> 
> 
> Mathew Orman



LOL! As opposed to totally diminished in size scenery and actor sizes.


----------



## icester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/19463996
> 
> 
> Yes - they are the same. They are both true stereoscopic full color 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! As opposed to totally diminished in size scenery and actor sizes.



I guess you are not familiar with human stereoscopic vision geometry.


'True stereoscopic' is a meaningless statement.


Mathew Orman


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *icester* /forum/post/19464031
> 
> 
> I guess you are not familiar with human stereoscopic vision geometry.
> 
> 
> 'True stereoscopic' is a meaningless statement.
> 
> 
> Mathew Orman



As opposed to Anaglyph or ColorCode 3D. If my description doesn't please you . . .


----------



## icester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/19464956
> 
> 
> As opposed to Anaglyph or ColorCode 3D. If my description doesn't please you . . .



It is irrelevant to projection method.

The fact still remains that screen sizes of home theater will

display 3D actors lot closer to his/her real size.

But for regular movie theater screen size it will always be

excessive size due to gimmick content that is parallax limit driven.


Mathew Orman


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *icester* /forum/post/19465073
> 
> 
> It is irrelevant to projection method.
> 
> The fact still remains that screen sizes of home theater will
> 
> display 3D actors lot closer to his/her real size.
> 
> But for regular movie theater screen size it will always be
> 
> excessive size due to gimmick content that is parallax limit driven.
> 
> 
> Mathew Orman



Well - you could say the same thing about normal movies shown in a theater.


----------



## icester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/19465872
> 
> 
> Well - you could say the same thing about normal movies shown in a theater.



Yes,

the most of adrenaline from movies is related to abnormal size of actors. And IMAX is the top score.


Mathew Orman


----------



## 8:13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *icester* /forum/post/19466025
> 
> 
> Yes,
> 
> the most of adrenaline from movies is related to abnormal size of actors. And IMAX is the top score.
> 
> 
> Mathew Orman



You know that 3D content thread we made that's stickied? Are you saying that if they make movies like that it will be incompatible with theaters and big screens and imax?

And if they are will they still look good or worse than they currently do if they follow our advice in that thread?


----------



## icester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8:13* /forum/post/19475390
> 
> 
> You know that 3D content thread we made that's stickied? Are you saying that if they make movies like that it will be incompatible with theaters and big screens and imax?
> 
> And if they are will they still look good or worse than they currently do if they follow our advice in that thread?



To make a cinema theater realistic and undistorted projection of 48 inch screen content, the movie projector in the theater must float the stereo window from the screen size to 48 inch stereo window size

and then movie spectators will see the same as if they ware sitting in front of their homes theater screens.

Floating is the technique for matching screen size to the content's stereo window size in order to satisfy geometry requirements for realistic content projection.


Mathew Orman


----------



## MR.FEATURE

If this has been addressed elsewhere forgive me for asking again.

Is 3D going to have a "FORMAT WAR" like Beta/VHS or BLURAY/HD? If so I will wait untill there is a winner. I lost on both of the other wars by buying BETA and HD.

Thanks.

Martin


----------



## Steve P.

There isn't a format war.


----------



## pmalter0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MR.FEATURE* /forum/post/19503582
> 
> 
> If this has been addressed elsewhere forgive me for asking again.
> 
> Is 3D going to have a "FORMAT WAR" like Beta/VHS or BLURAY/HD? If so I will wait untill there is a winner. I lost on both of the other wars by buying BETA and HD.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Martin



What different formats do you think there are?


----------



## MR.FEATURE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmalter0* /forum/post/19504559
> 
> 
> What different formats do you think there are?



Just asking. Will all 3D discs play on any player?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MR.FEATURE* /forum/post/19506669
> 
> 
> Just asking. Will all 3D discs play on any player?



3D Blu-ray discs will play in any 3D Blu-ray player.


----------



## icester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MR.FEATURE* /forum/post/19506669
> 
> 
> Just asking. Will all 3D discs play on any player?



No,

the war is over now and the only format is 3D Blue Ray

and the player does not support any other 3D formats.


So, if you want to play legacy format on DVD like the field sequential DVDs you need to use legacy equipment.


Alternatively you can convert legacy 3D DVDs into 3D HD Frame Compatible format and play is using 3D Blu Ray Players. It requires manual selection of 3D mode on your 3D TV.


Mathew Orman


----------



## Mastiffman

So is there talk about a unified system for viewing? in otherwords, will it come down to all manufacturers producing 3D displays using the same Technology?


Isn't there technology being tested for holographic TV's coming? The Television program "The Biggest Loser" and some concerts have used this holographic technology already.... How long of wait for that?


Or is that like asking how long until flying cars are put into production?


----------



## BlackShark

Be careful with holographic displays, many people are fooled very easily, they see a picture in mid-air reflected on a semi transparent glass and they believe they see holograms.


The best Holographic display currently demonstrated is monochrome, small, ultra low resolution extremely slow (1 frame every 2 seconds) and are laboratory prototypes that cost would cost millions on the market.

Saying an approximative release date for holographic displays would be like reading a crystal ball. Usually people say "at least 15-20 years" to look less dumb when asked that question.

What's more, recording a holographic picture is horribly complicated and extremely impractical. Recording stereo video for current 3-D is a piece of cake in comparison, it works almost like 2D with small differences. I have a tendency to consider Holography as a completely different medium, it's like comparing a painting (TV/cinema/2D/stereo3D) and a sculpture (holographic display).


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mastiffman* /forum/post/19519861
> 
> 
> So is there talk about a unified system for viewing? in otherwords, will it come down to all manufacturers producing 3D displays using the same Technology?



Why - does that exist with HDTVs? Don't we have PDPs, LCDs and DLP RPTV to say nothing of FPTVs. And we have multiple HD resolutions; 1080P, 1080i and 720P


Currently, 3DTVs use active shutter glasses and frame sequential 3D. There is another method which is in use, circular polarized passive glasses (super cheap) and Xpol tech. for 3D LCDs. This is not yet available here in the USA but is available in the UK and Japan (first launched). The panels are more costly and do not display full HD per eye (max res is 1920x540) but the glasses cost dissappears.



> Quote:
> Isn't there technology being tested for holographic TV's coming? The Television program "The Biggest Loser" and some concerts have used this holographic technology already.... How long of wait for that?
> 
> 
> Or is that like asking how long until flying cars are put into production?



Latest estimate is 20 years.


----------



## Chris.Kut

Hi Lee:

Thanks for the detailed and interesting illustrations.


*Would you where I may look for enthusiastic & technical individuals to do 3D software?


I am looking for Software developers who might work on Stereoscopic 3D Web Player, especially for the following Display mode:


No Glasses/Free Viewing

3D Display formats:

1. Cross-eyed

2. Parallel

3. Mirror Split

4. Left (2D)

5. Right (2D)


This is much like what YouTube has in their 3D channel, but they still can't support direct stereoscopic viewing for Nvidia 3D Vision.


*I wonder if there are successful add-on or plug-in tools had been developed to the Nvidia system.


----------



## Widgetcraft

I don't own a 3D TV, but a common complaint that I hear is that you HAVE to use the 3D for 3D content. Am I wrong in assuming that you can turn the feature off? It seems like a pretty stupid idea, so I'd have to assume that the manufacturers would think so too.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Widgetcraft* 
I don't own a 3D TV, but a common complaint that I hear is that you HAVE to use the 3D for 3D content. Am I wrong in assuming that you can turn the feature off? It seems like a pretty stupid idea, so I'd have to assume that the manufacturers would think so too.
A 3DTV is an HDTV. Most of the 3DTVs have a 2D to 3D conversion on the fly feature that allows you to watch 2D content in 3D. The results are a mixed bag leaning towards meh. If you don't want to use the feature, you don't turn it on. Same as other features like DNR or Sports Mode, etc.


----------



## CatsTide

good stuff here...forgive if this has already been talked about(i'm a bad skimmer).


i have an onkyo TX-NR905 it only has 1.3 hdmi's. will i lose any 3D (or anything else) by going through the onkyo instead of going straight to the tv? the tv is a 3D 240Hz tv.


----------



## CatsTide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Widgetcraft* /forum/post/19593682
> 
> 
> I don't own a 3D TV, but a common complaint that I hear is that you HAVE to use the 3D for 3D content. Am I wrong in assuming that you can turn the feature off? It seems like a pretty stupid idea, so I'd have to assume that the manufacturers would think so too.



just think of 3D as an extra bell and whistle on a great tv. 2D looks great on them too.


----------



## pmalter0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CatsTide* /forum/post/19639232
> 
> 
> good stuff here...forgive if this has already been talked about(i'm a bad skimmer).
> 
> 
> i have an onkyo TX-NR905 it only has 1.3 hdmi's. will i lose any 3D (or anything else) by going through the onkyo instead of going straight to the tv? the tv is a 3D 240Hz tv.



Yes.


----------



## CatsTide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmalter0* /forum/post/19642162
> 
> 
> Yes.



can you elaborate?


----------



## CatsTide

my confusion is that i think i understand that 3D doesn't require a 1.4HDMI so why would i lose anything going through my onkyo that is 1.3HDMI???


----------



## Melville

How about this for a myth: 3D for the home is worth the investment of extra $. I have seen a few 3D movies, and found the 'out-of-screen' content amusing, but certainly not indispensible. If given the choice, I will always choose 2D. I have viewed 3D TVs at a few different shops, a couple with excellent dedicated rooms and top-of-the-line ancillaries. The 'out-of-screen' content in these demos was consistently underwhelming. In fact, it always seemed just plain gimicky. I am not a fan, and consider the whole thing a huge marketing hype from corporations who have bought into it and must now sell it. In a perfect world, it would just fade away. Unfortunately, it may become sufficiently popular so as to be the driving force behind movie and TV production, making 2D obsolete.


----------



## icester

Dear Mathew,


Thank you for your interest in DLP(r) Link.


You are correct that DLP 3D Ready projectors do not support the DLP HDTV

checkerboard input as the display devices used in our projectors and our

HDTVs are made differently. The DLP 3D Ready projectors do, however,

support 120 Hz or 60 Hz inputs as well as 120 Hz output frequencies.


The native format for the DLP 3D Ready projectors is frame sequential 3D

(as opposed to checkerboard, side-by-side, or over/under). The benefit

of using this format is that there is no compression of the image as in

the other 3D formats, but the drawback is that the projector must know

how to decode which frame is used for the left eye and which frame is

used for the right eye. There are many proprietary encoding and decoding

formats that will allow the frame sequential source material to insert

metadata into the content to mark each frame and have the display device

decode it correctly, but unfortunately, there is no mainstream standard

of how to do this with current 3D content. Current DLP 3D Ready

projectors, therefore, do not automatically support this type of

automatic left/right detection. Most, if not all, DLP 3D Ready

projectors have a menu control to invert the L/R sequence if a pseudo

stereoscopic condition exists. The same control also exists on most 3D

software and 3D compatible PC graphics cards.


In recent months, this 3D standard situation has changed with the

adoption of the HDMI v1.4a standard. This standard defines 7 different

3D formats that all display devices must support. Since it is a digital

interface, the content is in a fixed format and it is very easy for the

display device to know which frame is used for left eye and which is

used for right eye. Our more recent home theater 1080p DLP projectors

that support HDMI v1.4a (including BluRay) formats do not have the

problem of pseudo stereoscopic image display. As more and more of the

DLP 3D Ready projectors adopt support for the HDMI v1.4a standard, the

pseudo stereoscopic issue will no longer be an issue.


Sincerely,


DLP(r) Call Center

Texas Instruments

888-357-2984
www.dlp.com


----------



## Photokid1970

Myth #17 - this is the first time I've heard anyone state that the CEM's haven't yet incorporated ethernet over HDMI...that makes a lot of sense. I got a 'high speed' cable from Amazon, and then I wondered if that would be the one feature that required a 1.4a when I couldn't get it to work. If that feature is not yet available, then that's probably a much better reason!


Wonderful article. Thank you for continuing the updates.


----------



## JGTravelor

Thanks for spending so much time on this post.

Truely great information. Thanks.


----------



## rhassle

I didn't read this whole thread but stating that 3D on a TV is anything like it is at the movies is a myth.


The small screen size imposes a signficant barrier to the immersive experience. In short, you see the boundary to the 3D effect at normal viewing distances (rather than the "in your face" demos that are provided at the big box stores). This makes it look more like a shoe box diorama rather than the immersive 3D experience that you get at the theater. A totally different experience that renders the whole thing useless to me.


Why has this serious flaw to the whole thing gotten more exposure in the press.


I can imagine that a front projector with 3D would look great at home for the tiny percentage of us who have those.


Richard


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rhassle* /forum/post/20105798
> 
> 
> I didn't read this whole thread but stating that 3D on a TV is anything like it is at the movies is a myth.
> 
> 
> The small screen size imposes a signficant barrier to the immersive experience. In short, you see the boundary to the 3D effect at normal viewing distances (rather than the "in your face" demos that are provided at the big box stores). This makes it look more like a shoe box diorama rather than the immersive 3D experience that you get at the theater. A totally different experience that renders the whole thing useless to me.
> 
> 
> Why has this serious flaw to the whole thing gotten more exposure in the press.
> 
> 
> I can imagine that a front projector with 3D would look great at home for the tiny percentage of us who have those.
> 
> 
> Richard



And you don't think the same thing happens when you watch a movie on a 50 foot screen versus at home on a 50" display? It has nothing to do with 2D versus 3D.


----------



## Barbed Wire

just got my new 3d tv! can't wait


----------



## sleonard

Just yesterday in Best Buy I saw an LCD flat panel made by LG that displays 3D using the cheap polarized glasses from the movie theatres. I know next to nothing about 3D tech but the info in this thread seems to indicate that this should not be the case.


S


----------



## StreetPreacher

That's passive 3D, which uses an interlaced format. Search for the Vizio passive 3D thread to read up on the technology.


----------



## shinksma




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rhassle* /forum/post/20105798
> 
> 
> I didn't read this whole thread but stating that 3D on a TV is anything like it is at the movies is a myth.
> 
> 
> The small screen size imposes a signficant barrier to the immersive experience. In short, you see the boundary to the 3D effect at normal viewing distances (rather than the "in your face" demos that are provided at the big box stores). This makes it look more like a shoe box diorama rather than the immersive 3D experience that you get at the theater. A totally different experience that renders the whole thing useless to me.
> 
> 
> Why has this serious flaw to the whole thing gotten more exposure in the press.
> 
> 
> I can imagine that a front projector with 3D would look great at home for the tiny percentage of us who have those.
> 
> 
> Richard



As Lee pointed out, the size of the displayed image needs to be compared to the seating distance. Most people watch their TVs (regular TV, even for movie-nights, etc) at a size/distance ratio that provides a smaller field of view than the so-called-serious HT geeks like me. e.g., I would think a lot of the people buying 50" 3D sets are seated about 10 feet away, on average, probably with non-ideal seating arrangements (like a sectional, or loveseats 90 deg to the screen). My HT front row is 10 feet from my 106" screen, and I would like a bigger screen. But one of my friends like to watch from the back row, because the front row is too overwhelming for her.


(I must admit I have no feedback regarding 3D, as I have not yet received my new 3D PJ - soon, though...)


That being said, I would also think many people are "satisfied" with their 50" 3D sets at 10 feet away. Not everyone is as manically involved in film-watching as the average AVS poster. Especially if it for the kids, who will sit on the floor at watch the 50" TV from 5 feet away.










IMHO, YMMV (or more accurately Your Distance May Vary),


shinksma


----------



## orangeproav

I had some additional thoughts here. I'd love some feedback in the comments here or at the blog. . .

http://mandarintheater.wordpress.com...-3-dimensions/ 


Best,


Mark C


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *orangeproav* /forum/post/20228814
> 
> 
> I had some additional thoughts here. I'd love some feedback in the comments here or at the blog. . .
> 
> http://mandarintheater.wordpress.com...-3-dimensions/
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Mark C



Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but in my opinion, you obviously misunderstand the current state of the art, and you are about a year behind in your research. Please do some heavy reading here and on other forums.


----------



## Elfrima

Wow. I didn't know about #1. interesting! and #10 annoys me!


----------



## humphrey11

Could someone explain why my head feels "heavy" and my eyes tired after watching a 3D t.v. with active-shutter glasses, yet when I see a 3D movie at the theater, using passive glasses, I feel perfectly fine?


----------



## Rgb

*"Stop being duped by the 3D scam"*

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/hin...83?tag=nl.e010 

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...By-the-3D-Scam 


I tend to agree with most of the points- films not shot with 3D cams in the first place should never be viewed in 3D (i.e. 2D upconverts).


Most purpose made 3D films are gimmicky, except for the Cameron-class flicks. Even a Cameron class flick must stand up to the 2D test- if the movie is not engaging and "good" without the glasses, then it's not worth it with the glasses.


Lastly, any long time videophile knows that a well calibrated, high contrast, good gray scale, good colorimetry, good black level display can achieve a real, no foolin' 3D effect, further amplified with current state of the art 120Hz frame displays, without glasses.


And the 3d effect of a well calibrated display and good source is very real, not something only some people can perceive, from any seating position.


And the effect does not depend on BluRay (i.e. 1080p)- I've seen it on ISF'd CRT front and rear projectors (and CRT tubes) with DVD's and Laserdiscs since the mid 90's.


It is only now that ISF'd plasma's, some LED LCD's, and Epson UB-class LCD's (and probably 3 chip DLP's and some LCOS) can achieve the ISF'd 3 dimensionality, so most non-AV hobby people have never experienced it- the black levels and colorimetry/grayscale of good CRT's used to be the only way to achieve it. Even funnier is that even plain old 480i CRT's could achieve the 3 dimensionality- no progressive scan needed.


Just as all the audiophiles (guys with high end monoblock amps and $1000 CAL CD players) I know laugh about really needing anything more than well mastered red book CD (16 bit, 44.1Khz) or lossless PCM 2 channel on concert DVD's vs "HD Audio" on BluRay (watermarked to boot, destroying any bit perfect-ness there was), no HT enthusiast I know, with gear ranging from $250 Panasonic SAXR50 receivers to Lexicon processors and PSB speakers through Revel and Vandersteens, takes steroscopic 3D seriously.


----------



## rjyap

I owned both 2D 1080p BENQ W6000 projector and 3D 720p Acer H5360BD projector projecting on 114" screen with 10 feet distance. 3D to me is not a gimmick or scam. The depth perception is great but again, I would say the movie itself will either make or break the 3D. The problem now is there is not enough quality 3D content so early adopters tends to grab any 3D material they could find. Try out IMAX under the sea 2D and 3D version and I think most people will agree that the 3D version give you an illusion you are there with the divers.


Another selling point for 3D is for gamers. First person or third person shooter in 3D is an awesome experience. It's like mention in Matrix movie, you can't tell a person how 3D feel but only experience it. Anyway, I agree 3D need to be watch on big screen as the depth is relative to width.


----------



## poppabk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/20345256
> 
> 
> Lastly, any long time videophile knows that a well calibrated, high contrast, good gray scale, good colorimetry, good black level display can achieve a real, no foolin' 3D effect, further amplified with current state of the art 120Hz frame displays, without glasses.
> 
> 
> And the 3d effect of a well calibrated display and good source is very real, not something only some people can perceive, from any seating position.
> 
> 
> And the effect does not depend on BluRay (i.e. 1080p)- I've seen it on ISF'd CRT front and rear projectors (and CRT tubes) with DVD's and Laserdiscs since the mid 90's.
> 
> 
> It is only now that ISF'd plasma's, some LED LCD's, and Epson UB-class LCD's (and probably 3 chip DLP's and some LCOS) can achieve the ISF'd 3 dimensionality, so most non-AV hobby people have never experienced it- the black levels and colorimetry/grayscale of good CRT's used to be the only way to achieve it. Even funnier is that even plain old 480i CRT's could achieve the 3 dimensionality- no progressive scan needed.



What are you talking about? If reality fails to have a significant 3D effect with one eye closed then how does a display achieve it?


----------



## Bill

I know the effect he's talking about (one eyed 3d), it doesn't come close to a 3d tv. I watch everything converted to 3d on my LG passive, it's that much better just with conversion.


----------



## javanpohl

I like the er, "myth" where some people seem to think that "3d adds nothing to the story" (this was on bluray.com, mind you). Errr... yeah, neither does: color, 70 foot screens at the theater, a comfy chair, popcorn, 5.1 or 7.1 digital audio, 1080p, et cetera, et cetera. Doesn't mean they don't add to the enjoyment of the film.


----------



## rschleicher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/20354960
> 
> 
> I like the er, "myth" where some people seem to think that "3d adds nothing to the story" (this was on bluray.com, mind you). Errr... yeah, neither does: color, 70 foot screens at the theater, a comfy chair, popcorn, 5.1 or 7.1 digital audio, 1080p, et cetera, et cetera. Doesn't mean they don't add to the enjoyment of the film.



Good comment!


For that matter, as far as the story is concerned, the book is usually better....


Of course, now we have to be concerned with the display resolution of the book version, as well!


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill* /forum/post/20354897
> 
> 
> I know the effect he's talking about (one eyed 3d), it doesn't come close to a 3d tv. I watch everything converted to 3d on my LG passive, it's that much better just with conversion.



I recently saw an ISF'd Epson 8500UB projector playing Avatar BluRay "2D" on a 9ft screen in a light controlled room.


The 3 dimensionality was quite striking and not subtle.


3 dimensionality is not simply a function of stereoscopic separation of images. 3D-ness is heavily influenced by accurate gray scale, colorimetry and black level/shadow detail.


Think about it logically from everyday eyesight.


Viewing the person standing next to you- does it take two of them to make them appear "3D" to you?


Why should it necessarily take two images on a surface a distance away from you to see 3 dimensionality?


I know what someone may say- the geometric distances from the person's depth to each eye.


But that's what good gray scale and shadow detail can do- they can give your eye-brain system enough "depth cues" to make you perceive 3 dimensionality.


In the past, it took a well qualified ISF calibrator and a good quality CRT to do this. Only in the past two years or so have affordable LCD front projectors achieved this. Soon, more panels should achieve the contrast, gray scale accuracy and shadow detail necessary. Reasonable room light control is needed, too.


Again, I have only seen the effect on ISF'd CRT's up until 12 months ago when I saw an ISF'd Epson UB projector. No one uses CRT's any more, and most home theater people of the past 10+ years have used mass produced LCD's or DLP's, which even if ISF'd, could not achieve the contrast, shadow detail, or accurate gray scale needed to achieve the 3 dimensionality. We've all been chasing pixel counts, lumens, and screen size up until now. Now the game will change back to the basics of colorimetry, gray scale accuracy and shadow detail.


I think this debate will go the way of the audio 2-channel purist vs multichannel audio wars, i.e. "which religion is best?"


----------



## JimP

RGB,


Not sure, but isn't the simple answer that to see in 3D the guy next to you that your eyes see slightly different views of him as they're spaced apart. To see the same thing on the screen, you have shutters on your glasses that work in tandem with different images being flashed on the screen that recreates this perspective difference? Not sure, but it does seem to make sense.


By the way, I was at a friend's home who has a new 3D projector playing the 3D version of Avatar. I know he hasn't done anything to calibrate but I saw the same thing that I noticed at the commercial theater and that is that the shadow areas were a bit dark and less saturated. This might and probably is due to calibration or rather lack of calibration. Did you notice that on the calibrated system you recently viewed?


----------



## Rgb

An ISF'd, quality display with sufficient gray scale and shadow detail addresses the monocular cues described here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception 


Stereoscopic 3D displays address the Binocular cues.


Curious how the monocular cues outnumber the binocular cues, isn't it?


...and one out of the three binocular cues depends on- you guessed it- shadows!


Also, see

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf 



> Quote:
> *Sources of information about 3D shape*
> 
> 
> There are many different aspects of optical stimulation that are known to provide perceptually salient information about 3D shape. Several of these properties are exemplified in Figure 1. _They include variations of image intensity or shading, gradients of optical texture from patterns of polka dots or surface contours, and line drawings that depict the edges and vertices of objects._Other sources of visual information are defined by systematic transformations among multiple images, including the disparity between each eye’s view in binocular vision, and the optical deformations that occur when objects are observed in motion



Just as a 2 channel audio purist will claim that multichannel setups are a crutch to make up for poor stereo imaging (or bad room layout vs artificial audio room correction, etc), a video purist can claim that stereoscopic 3D video is a crutch to make up for poor colorimetery, gray scale and shadow/edge detail.


Note I am not claiming that stereoscopic 3D display systems and well calibrated displays with best in class gray scale and shadow detail are completely equivalent re: the 3D effect. But for me and most others in the AV hobby I know locally, we would take the color/gray/shadow accurate dislpay any day of the week over a stereoscopic display.


----------



## poppabk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/20357404
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a 2 channel audio purist will claim that multichannel setups are a crutch to make up for poor stereo imaging (or bad room layout vs artificial audio room correction, etc), a video purist can claim that stereoscopic 3D video is a crutch to make up for poor colorimetery, gray scale and shadow/edge detail.



They would be wrong though. I doubt you will find any mono purists out there for example. Some of the depth cues can be recreated with a single image, but for a normal person you require proper stereoscopic images to correctly perceive 3D. For people who struggle to perceive stereoscopy in real life they may perceive more '3D' in 2D images as they have come to rely on the other visual clues.


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/20357402
> 
> 
> RGB,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I was at a friend's home who has a new 3D projector playing the 3D version of Avatar. I know he hasn't done anything to calibrate but I saw the same thing that I noticed at the commercial theater and that is that the shadow areas were a bit dark and less saturated. This might and probably is due to calibration or rather lack of calibration. Did you notice that on the calibrated system you recently viewed?



On the system I viewed, the shadow detail was outstanding, though I only viewed for several minutes, near the end of the film.


----------



## Bill

Rgb, I have a calibrated 73" Mitsubishi top of the line CRT-RPTV. The sense of depth on it doesn't come close to the depth of my passive 3D tv. Yes there is a sense of 3D with the Mitsubishi. If it isn't obvious to you, then it just isn't obvious to YOU. BTW the shadow detail on the passive is outstanding also and it holds up in a bright room, along with the blacks, unlike the Mits. When I watch 2D, I watch the Mits.


----------



## Rgb

Excellent discussion:

*Does [stereoscopic] 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache?*

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...-Happy-Or-Ache 


of note:

Quote:

Re:No one? (Score:4, Informative)

by JustinOpinion (1246824) writes: on Wednesday March 30, @05:41PM (#35671562)

Indeed. Humans infer distances and thus reconstruct three-dimensional scenes from their two-dimensional retinas using at least five levels of measurement/processing:


1. Focal depth: based on how much the eye has to focus

2. Convergence: based on the slight differences in pointing of the two eyes

3. Stereoscopy: based on the slight differences between the left and right image

4. Parallax: the different displacements/motions of objects at different distances

5. Visual inference: reconstructing using cues like occlusion, lighting, etc.


When you watch a normal 2D movie, 1, 2, 3, and 4 don't work. So your brain relies entirely on #5. This turns out to work remarkably well, because our brains are quite good at inferring and guessing what the real 3D scene looks like. (For instance, whenever looking at faraway objects, this is pretty much all you have to work with.) Move-makers have also learned how to best frame shots to make things look 'right'. And at least 1, 2, and 3 agree with each other, so your eyes can simply focus on the theater's screen (it also helps that the screen is far away).


The various versions of "3D" try to trick you, but unfortunately they don't hit all 5 of the above and so this confuses your brain. A typical 'glasses' setup tricks you using #3, but now the position of objects as determined by #3 doesn't match 1 or 2, so your brain gets confused (tiredness and headaches ensue). And try as it might, it can't compensate (e.g. no matter how hard it tries, it can't bring out-of-focus things into focus). Really bad 3D (where things 'jump out' at you and whatnot) can even violate #5. Ultimately your brain isn't happy because half the signals are saying one thing (distance to the theater screen) and the other half are saying something else (object really close to you!).


Nintendo's 3DS apparently tries to use parallax to fool your brain, but again the effect won't be perfect, so your brain will be unhappy.


To be truly 3D, you would need to record, and then reproduce/project, the entire waveform (e.g. collect light from every angle impinging on your camera 'screen'). In principle holography can do this, but in practice we don't have good technology. Besides, this causes many other problems (e.g. every person in a theater sees a slightly different angle, that's not necessarily desirable). True 3D isn't going to be technologically feasible anytime soon. In the meantime, we will have only approximate 3D solutions... which it seems are actually worse than just allowing the person's brain to fill in the blanks.
Like DLP rainbows, many people can't do stereoscopic 3D displays due to headaches, nausea (motion sickness) ,etc, for reasons cited above.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/20361331
> 
> 
> Like DLP rainbows, many people can't do stereoscopic 3D displays due to headaches, nausea (motion sickness) ,etc, for reasons cited above.



Hmmmm. I wonder how many have bought a new set and it took a few days to find out that they can't tolerate 3D? How soon would this likely show up if it shows up at all? ...and does it show up on passive (non shutter) systems?


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimP* /forum/post/20362282
> 
> 
> ...and does it show up on passive (non shutter) systems?



Yes. The incongruity between #3 (stereoscopy) and #1 (focal depth) + #2 (convergence) above still exists with polarized glasses or any other method that uses stereoscopy with images generated on a 2D plane, i.e. ALL current theatrical and home 3D displays.

http://hothardware.com/News/3D-Does-...appy--or-Ache/ 



> Quote:
> About a year ago, much news was made about how 3D could cause headaches and visual disturbances. One report went so far as to blame 3D for causing a car crash. (An 18 year-old reportedly blacked out while driving after watching the 3D film Alice in Wonderland.). Researchers found that Stereo 3D movies and television could cause people to suffer as many as seven perceptual problems, said Martin Banks, a professor of optometry and vision science at the University of California at Berkeley. Banks found that as the distance to the 3D display is reduced, the brain has more problems with the 3D techniques used to fake it into seeing an object as closer than it really is. Banks had also warned that children's exposure to 3D should be limited.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/20357085
> 
> 
> [snip] ...and most home theater people of the past 10+ years have used mass produced LCD's or DLP's, which even if ISF'd, could not achieve the contrast, shadow detail, or accurate gray scale needed to achieve the 3 dimensionality. [snip]



Rgb, I agree with most everything you are saying about 3 dimensionality in 2D displays, except I must take exception to the comment I quoted above.


I have had several (calibrated) DLPs, and even the 5 year old Mits DLP displayed this dimensionality. It depends on the source material as well.


I used to tell people all the time that, at the beginning of _Rio Bravo_, when Dean Martin dismounts, he is standing exactly three feet and 10 inches in front of his horse. I would tell them I know, because I stuck my tape measure into the screen and measured it!


It is that good.


By "that good", I mean from your chair, you could almost believe that you could measure it. I also tell people I've had to replace my carpet, because the horses in Westerns keep grazing on it!


Exaggerations? Yes. But they make the point.


At the beginning of _The Searchers_, when John Wayne walks to the back of the room while the posse is forming, he really appears to recede into the distance. In this scene and others, it appears as if you are looking into the room and could reach in and pick up a coffee cup from the table.


There are many more programs and movies where this is apparent, and a DLP is definitely no slouch at this when calibrated.


Today's DLPs are a lot better than people think.


----------



## scionracing

I would like to hear a technical explanation of why polarized technology and FPR cannot be applied to plasma display tech, only LCD? All the (passive) polarized mfrs. are applying the tech exclusively to AM-LCD.


Is it because the (inside of the) screens must be coated with a polarizer and this conflicts in some way with the emissive nature of PDP?


Secondly, I've found that both polarized and active shutter eyewear cut light output significantly (as much as 70%). Is it true that AS reduces luminance MORE than passive glasses?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scionracing* /forum/post/20381401
> 
> 
> I would like to hear a technical explanation of why polarized technology and FPR cannot be applied to plasma display tech, only LCD? All the (passive) polarized mfrs. are applying the tech exclusively to AM-LCD.
> 
> 
> Is it because the (inside of the) screens must be coated with a polarizer and this conflicts in some way with the emissive nature of PDP?


_Plasma TV using patterned retarder or active retarder solutions are quite feasible and possible over the next few years. In fact, as consumers adopt passive solutions in greater numbers, PDP may have to consider a passive solution. PDP, like AMOLEDs, output unpolarized light, so any passive polarized solution will immediate cut the light output in half. That will be an issue for both technologies. We also expect auto-stereoscopic, or no glasses 3D TV solutions to appear over the forecast period. These will initially be expensive, offered in small screen sizes and produce image quality that is not likely to appeal to the mass market. But this could improve fairly rapidly, especially if panel makers decide this is an application they want to use to commercialize much higher resolution panels (quad full HD or 4K - panels with four times the resolution of FHD panels today). These approaches could become increasingly important in the out years_

http://www.cln-online.org/index.php?...ll-about-3d-tv 



> Quote:
> Secondly, I've found that both polarized and active shutter eyewear cut light output significantly (as much as 70%). Is it true that AS reduces luminance MORE than passive glasses?



Depends on the quality of the glasses. You can't get lower than 50%.


----------



## Rgb

*Many theaters misuse 3-D lenses to show 2-D films, squandering brightness, color*

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/arti...e_dark/?page=1 



> Quote:
> The uniting factor is a fleet of 4K digital projectors made by Sony — or, rather, the 3-D lenses that many theater managers have made a practice of leaving on the projectors when playing a 2-D film. Though the issue is widespread, affecting screenings at AMC, National Amusements, and Regal cinemas, executives at all these major movie theater chains, and at the corporate offices of the projector’s manufacturer, have refused to directly acknowledge or comment on how and why it’s happening. Asked where his company stands on the matter, Dan Huerta, vice president of sight and sound for AMC, the second-biggest chain in the US, said only that “We don’t really have any official or unofficial policy to not change the lens.’’


 http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...r-Local-Cinema 



> Quote:
> by elrous0 (869638) * writes: on Monday May 23, @03:26PM (#36220808)
> 
> 
> This is actually due to the fact that Sony digital projectors are so locked down with DRM that even changing the lens requires all kinds of password checks (which can potentially lock the camera down if not done correctly).
> 
> 
> Sadly, this is one of the problems that digital projectors were *supposed* to fix. For years, it was a infamous practice for theater managers to extend projector bulb life by reducing the power of the lamp. Since most people don't notice (having no idea how the movie is *supposed* to look), they could get away with it. Roger Ebert in particular complained about [suntimes.com] this practice for decades (even organizing protests at certain theaters engaging in the practice). When digital projection came along, one of the selling points was that it produced a much more consistent image (and managers couldn't futz with it--reducing bulb strength, etc.).
> 
> 
> Now, thanks to our good friends at Sony, it would seem like we're right back where we started from (maybe even worse, since this produces an even darker image than one of the celluloid projectors at half power).





> Quote:
> The Money is in 3D (Score:3)
> 
> by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) writes: on Monday May 23, @04:36PM (#36221520)
> 
> 
> The industry has decided to make this *commitment for DRM* (_harder to copy in 3D theater with a video recorder_) and margin reasons (higher ticket prices). The problem is that the 2D versions with the right lens look brighter and, in some cases, much better. The solution is never show the brighter 2D version. Of course, it cost money to change lenses, too. Bottom line, there in no incentive for the industry to go back to 2D anything, except that, maybe, people will not go to see dark screens.



The inability to cam a theatrical 3D presentation is probably the biggest culprit in the use of 3D for too many films, IMO.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rgb* /forum/post/20480822
> 
> *Many theaters misuse 3-D lenses to show 2-D films, squandering brightness, color*
> 
> http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/arti...e_dark/?page=1
> 
> 
> 
> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...r-Local-Cinema



So the brouhaha is about Sony projectors. Well what about Christie and Barco who have many more digital projectors in cinemas than Sony does. They are both single lens 3D projectors.


----------



## rjhythloday

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* 
LOL! Me too.


And also the myth that people won't buy into 3D because you have to wear glasses in your own home.
I had laser eye surgery, largely in part because I didn't want to wear 2 pair of glasses. One I'm great with. lol


----------



## GXM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20481702
> 
> 
> So the brouhaha is about Sony projectors. Well what about Christie and Barco who have many more digital projectors in cinemas than Sony does. They are both single lens 3D projectors.



Sorry this is quite long, but I wanted to try and be complete.


In general, most of the DLP installations are doing frame alternating 3D where the projector switches between showing the left eye and then the right eye, typically at triple frame rate. So the projector is showing 144 frames per second, 3 left and 3 right, times the 24 frames per second. There are 4 different systems in use presenting this triple flash 3D to the audience. Real-D which uses either a "Z-screen" or the "XL system". Dolby 3D which uses alternate RGB color filtering, Master Image which uses a spinning disk of alternating polarizing segments. and Xpand using shutter glasses. All 4 systems have some advantages and dissadvantages. Real D with a single Z-screen was the first system put into wide use. It is not very light efficient and suffers from a bit of image softness and ghosting/crosstalk. If used with a bright enough projector and carefuly setup, it does provide a very good image with only a minor loss in sharpness and color saturation due to projecting the image through the LCD polarizing Z-screen. Real-D XL is an improvement in many ways, but also adds some new problems. It's biggest improvement is in light output. Well over 40% more light gets to the screen comared to a single Z-screen system, but the light out of the projector is split into 2 paths and have to be recombined back at the screen. I have seen it line up perfectly with ease, but I also spent a solid hour tweaking one and was unable to get the image split to less then 4 pixels at al the edges. I think the box had been dropped and the prisms were mis aligned on that one. The XL box does have 2 images coming out of it, stacked vertically at the projection port, but they are both showing both eyes at full resolution. According to Real-D, 2D should NOT be projected through the box or Z-screen. When the projector is operating in a 3D mode, it is sending a sync signal to drive the LCD active polarizers. When running a 2D feature, this signal is not there and the panels do not behave correctly and could even be damaged. 2D contant such as trailers are often shown before a 3D feature in 3D mode and this is not a problemas it just shows the same image to both eyes. A full 2D feature could be shown in 3D mode this way, but is not done in any of the theatres I have been in. Unfortunately, the real-D screen or box on the front of DLP projectors is not normally motorized to move out of the way, so it does sometimes get forgotten and a few shows run through it. The effect on the picture is not horrible, but can be visible. A little dimmer and softer, and you may see the pulsing of the non synced LCD's. The XL boxes do fall back to a fairly fast mode so it will not damage the LCD's and the flicker is usually fast enough to not be visible. At least two other companies are making motor kits to push the box out of the way when not in a 3D mode, but theatre owners tend to be cheap. Master Image is very similar to Real D in that it is using alternate circular polarizing but instead of using an LCD polarizer it mechanically changes the filters by spinning them in front of the projector on a large motor. It uses 12 segments so the amount of tilt is fairly small. The light efficiency is right between the original Z-screen and the XL system from Real-D. Both systems can use the same glasses and require the silver screen to hold the polarization. Master Image does have one very nice feature, it comes with a motor system to move the spinning disk in and out of the projectors light path to switch in and out of 3D without human help. Dolby 3D is a bit different. Since it is using the shifted colors it works on white screens. The light efficiency is a bit less since it does not have the help of the high gain silver screen, but it also does not suffer the hot spotting and color shifts caused by the silver either. The color filtering is done in the projector before the DLP chips so the image from the chips to the screen is not going through anything extra. The left end right eyes are using different primary colors so the calibration is more involved and care has to be taken to get it right, but when done correctly, the colors are very accurate and vivid without the loss of sharpness and contrast suffered by going through the polarizers or other extra glass. The lower light in the center of the screen is easilly made up for with the much more even light right out to the corners. In many cases people think it is brighter overall when using the same projector and lamp size since shadow detail at the bottom and sides of the screen are lit better. All Dolby 3D systems using a single projector will use only one lens and the filter wheel is powered to move out of the light path during 2D operation. Xpand also works on white screens and has the more even light advantage. The glasses are LCD shutters so they suffer similar light loss to Dolby 3D or a single Real-D Z-Screen. There is nothing in the light path from the projector to the screen, the only thing effecting the image is the glasses on your face. Some people swear by the active glasses, other swear at them. They are heavier and need battteries. They are expensive and fragile compared to the passive glasses. Dolby glasses are also more expensive than the polarized ones and are therefore reused and washed like the Xpand ones, but are far more durable and don't need batteries.


Some larger screen theatres have gone to dual projectors. Digital IMAX is also a dual projector system. Real-D and Dolby can do dual projectors in 2 ways. The best is to dedicate one machine to each eye like IMAX does using static polarizers or fixed color shift filters in each machine. When running in 2D, it is common to then use only one machine, alternating on a show by show or day by day basis to keep the lamps at the same life. IMAX still overlays the two images and claims it increases resolution, but even if perfectly aligned, I see that as a tough act to prove. The DLP pixels do not leave much gap at all to fill with the other projectors pixel, but it does blend away the pixel edges a bit.


Xpand using 2 machines still has to have the machines in sync alternating eyes to match the glasses, so there is less advantage to 2 machines, you only get more light, nothing else. Being able to dedicate a machine to each eye eliminates the lag between the eyes where one eye is seeing the new frame first. This can cause a blurring of shuddering look in fast motion and even a loss of 3D depth on horizontal motion.


The SONY 4K projectors are using SXRD, Sony's own version of LCOS imagers. They are not able to alternate between the 2 eye images at 144 hz like the DLP's can. So they had to do 3D in a different way. After quite a bit of testing they came up with the dual lens system causing all the uproar in the Boston Globe. Basically, they went back to the way 3D was done on film in the 80's. They split the imager in half vertically. One half is always showing the right eye, the other half is always showing the left eye. This does give both eyes the new frame at the same time so it does work very well in moderate motion. The problem is that the 3D lens is a beast. It needs to be installed and aligned very carefully to get the two images perfectly overlayed. The 3D lens also does not have any provision for automated adjustments. So the images need to be scaled and fit to the screen depending on the format between flat and scope. Much of the imager ends up blanked and off the screen. This results in a lower resolution, and light output compared to using the full imager for 2D. Since the Boston Globe article came out, several theatres have started changing the lenses for bigger features. Maximum light output is cut to less than 1/2 when the 3D lens is installed versus the 2D only lens. Several theatres have also pulled fairly new SONY projectors out of larger screens as they just could not put out enough light. The DLP projectors not only hold a larger bulb, they put out more of the light the bulb creates. SONY claims 18,000 lumens out of the model 220 projector with a 4,000 watt bulb, the 320 may be a bit better, but I don't have the spec. The typical DLP with a 6,000 watt bulb is over 30,000 lumens. Barco is using a new 6,500 watt bulb and putting out close to 40,000 lumens.


TI is starting to ship 4K DLP projectors. Currently the DCI spec for cinema does not include a 4K 3D format, but one is going to come. For now, all 3D is only 2K resolution. IMAX does label their shows as 4K 3D, but using two 2K DLP projectors is not going to make a 4K image. True 4K projectors like the Sony and new 4K DLP's have 4 times te pixels, double in both directions.


If I did not answer a question you have, please post it or PM me and I will try to clarify anything I may have missed.


GXM


----------



## Rgb

From

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...y-Eye-Tracking 



> Quote:
> *Focal depth must match stereo depth.* (Score:4, Interesting)
> 
> by dinther (738910) writes: on Thursday July 28, @05:41PM (#36914138) Homepage As I wrote on Gizmag:
> 
> 
> As an armchair scientist, I have been experimenting with screens for quite a while. Trying to plot out what factors are involved for 3D display and depth perception.
> 
> 
> I have been following this whole 3D craze with dismay because TV builders have failed to address the fundamentals.
> 
> 
> Stereo vision is only one aspect of 3D vision and in fact not even nearly as powerful as some other effects. Although there are many causing discomfort the light ray divergence is most relevant.
> 
> 
> Your eye also tells you how far away something is by the amount of work it needs to do to bring it into focus. The lens in your eye bends incoming light rays so they focus on your retina similar to how a photo camera works. To get the best possible 3D effect in commercial flight simulators, they make use of collimated displays.
> 
> 
> Consider the pixels on your LCD screen a light sources. Take a pixel and you can consider it to be a light point that radiates light in all directions. After all you want to see the screen at many viewing angles. So the light rays diverge and the lens in your eye needs to bring the rays that hit the eye together to focus on your retina.
> 
> 
> A collimated display emits light rays that are more or less parallel. Your eyes can relax more in order to focus which is an very powerful depth suggestion.
> 
> 
> Stereo vision and focal distance need to match in order to get rid of the worst nauseating effect. Stereo vision may suggest something is in front of the screen but your eye disagrees because it needs to focus on the screen. These two inputs are fighting each other continuously.
> 
> 
> The only way to solve this problem is if we can build a display with an adjustable micro lens in front of each screen pixel. If we can control the light ray divergence from a single pixel in real-time then we can match the stereo vision with focal distance and finally get rid if this mismatch. Added benefit is that displays like this can be adjusted for your eyes so you can watch TV without your glasses. They would make really good computer monitors.
> 
> 
> A pixel worth of imagery normally only contains R, G and B channels for Red, Green and Blue light that combine to any color. In addition each pixel needs a fourth channel indicating the depth of the pixel. You may find the focal depth powerful enough without the need for stereo vision. You can try this simply by closing one eye and look around and notice how your eye adjusts to things nearby and far away.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Here is the problem with 3D:


S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.


AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D


Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D


Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images


The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.


----------



## GXM

Showscan used 60 full frames per second to give your eyes a lot more information about an movement of an object. Moving objects give away their depth by the change in ange over time compared to other objects in view. Our brains have been taight over many years to understand all of the distance cues together. Chopping time into 24 frames per second is way too slow and we lose a lot of fine detail motion information. Larger motions and moderate speed motion still does give s some depth cues though, and this does cause a problem for stereo 3D. If the depth cue from stereo vision does not match the depth cue you get from motion paralax, your brain knows something is wrong. The size of the screen and the seating distance effects this and makes it so the contant is a compromise for "avaerage" theatres. Most likely it will be way off when put onto a tiny 50 inch screen in a home. At a theatre, the 2.5 inches between your eyes is a very small fraction of screen width, but at just 40 inches wide or so, the width between your eyes is a much larger fraction of screen width. I have seen the effect of the opposite, content made on a 40 inch plazma was ripping my eyes out on a 60 foot wide screen.


----------



## 8:13

I made two new videos and this time they are in 3D side by side format, 720p resolution, left side first.

link 


There is two videos, one is 23.976 fps per eye and the other is 47.952 fps per eye.

As before the goal is to see them move in the same line as the line moves from the left to the right.


I read some replies saying they had 240Hz or 120Hz TV's and this fixes any flickering, well I made a video that uses blu ray 3D speed and now you can see if your fast tv stops flickering.


Please try the test videos and reply with how you did as I find that interesting enough I did this work.


----------



## cakefoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *GXM* 
Showscan used 60 full frames per second to give your eyes a lot more information about an movement of an object. Moving objects give away their depth by the change in ange over time compared to other objects in view. Our brains have been taight over many years to understand all of the distance cues together. Chopping time into 24 frames per second is way too slow and we lose a lot of fine detail motion information. Larger motions and moderate speed motion still does give s some depth cues though, and this does cause a problem for stereo 3D. If the depth cue from stereo vision does not match the depth cue you get from motion paralax, your brain knows something is wrong. The size of the screen and the seating distance effects this and makes it so the contant is a compromise for "avaerage" theatres. Most likely it will be way off when put onto a tiny 50 inch screen in a home. At a theatre, the 2.5 inches between your eyes is a very small fraction of screen width, but at just 40 inches wide or so, the width between your eyes is a much larger fraction of screen width. I have seen the effect of the opposite, content made on a 40 inch plazma was ripping my eyes out on a 60 foot wide screen.
Stereographers get around this by adjusting the convergence ever so slightly going from theater to smaller screens, and vice versa.


----------



## cakefoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* 
Here is the problem with 3D:


S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.


AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D


Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D


Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images


The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.
In what way do we see 3D with a single eye in reality?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20807122
> 
> 
> In what way do we see 3D with a single eye in reality?



The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.


----------



## JimP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20808150
> 
> 
> The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.



Very interesting. I thought that you had to have at least 2 eyes to see 3D in the real world. Ideally, 3 eyes would be better (one above the other two) but how could you wear glasses.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20808150
> 
> 
> The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.



We've established that you are saying people can see in 3D with one eye. But what way do we see 3D in real life with one eye, and how is it different from a monoscopic movie?



> Quote:
> The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN



Resolution, size and framerate don't increase depth perception. They increase immersion, which 3D is also about.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20808608
> 
> 
> We've established that you are saying people can see in 3D with one eye. But what way do we see 3D in real life with one eye, and how is it different from a monoscopic movie?



Not understanding you. Real Life is 3D. Movies are 2D. 3D movies consist of two offset 2D frames.



> Quote:
> Resolution, size and framerate don't increase depth perception. They increase immersion, which 3D is also about.



Using high resolution and high frame rate allows for an increase of depth of field when shooting.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20809856
> 
> 
> Not understanding you. Real Life is 3D. Movies are 2D. 3D movies consist of two offset 2D frames.



There are plenty of depth cues to give us a good idea of the third dimension in 2D photography. The only way real life is better than movies is that we are in the driver's seat controlling focal length and lateral head movements, whereas the director/DOP is controlling the movie's visuals.


We have two 2D cameras in our head. We can control the focal length (accommodation) and truck the cameras laterally by moving our body, and with both eyes open we can toe the cameras in and out to convergence on things and identify their Z axis location without the need of slow head movements or focal adjustments.



> Quote:
> Using high resolution and high frame rate allows for an increase of depth of field when shooting.



What do you base this on? Please explain. Use photography terms.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20811132
> 
> 
> There are plenty of depth cues to give us a good idea of the third dimension in 2D photography. The only way real life is better than movies is that we are in the driver's seat controlling focal length and lateral head movements, whereas the director/DOP is controlling the movie's visuals.



You are using a mechanical lens which has severe limitations when compared to the eyeball's lens. Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't.


The depth that people see when watching a 2D movies is simply an illusion based on the contrast ratio. A movie screen has two measurements; length and width. It has no depth.



> Quote:
> We have two 2D cameras in our head. We can control the focal length (accommodation) and truck the cameras laterally by moving our body, and with both eyes open we can toe the cameras in and out to convergence on things and identify their Z axis location without the need of slow head movements or focal adjustments.



I disagree. We have two 3D cameras in our head not 2D.



> Quote:
> What do you base this on? Please explain. Use photography terms.



Using a greater range of F-Stops. Increasing the Dynamic Range. Using slower film especially in low lighting situations. The ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field.


Did you ever see Showscan Cakefoo?


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20812017
> 
> 
> You are using a mechanical lens which has severe limitations when compared to the eyeball's lens. Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't.



Huh? A camera can have shallow depth of field, deep depth of field, whichever it wants. It can focus on something far away or an inch away.



> Quote:
> The depth that people see when watching a 2D movies is simply an illusion based on the contrast ratio. A movie screen has two measurements; length and width. It has no depth.



just contrast ratio? How about shallow depth of field? How about motion parallax? How about occlusion? Perspective?





> Quote:
> I disagree. We have two 3D cameras in our head not 2D.



Yes, you keep saying that. And I keep asking you to explain yourself. And you just keep repeating it. That's not explaining.




> Quote:
> Using a greater range of F-Stops. Increasing the Dynamic Range. Using slower film especially in low lighting situations. The ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field.
> 
> 
> Did you ever see Showscan Cakefoo?



Shooting at higher fps means you have to use a faster shutter speed, leaving less time for exposure, reducing brightness, and requiring a wider aperture, causing a shallower depth of field. Showscan is about framerate (60fps) and film stock (65mm), improving clarity and eliminating flicker. Nothing about depth. Absolutely nothing. You've just made that up along with everything else.


Your opinions on 3D are strange, I'll be nice and put it like that.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20812300
> 
> 
> Huh? A camera can have shallow depth of field, deep depth of field, whichever it wants. It can focus on something far away or an inch away.



Not with a single lens. Plus shot a close up and anything in the background is totally out of focus. The human eye doesn't do that. If you are looking at someone standing 3 feet away from you, anything behind them is still in focus.



> Quote:
> just contrast ratio? How about shallow depth of field? How about motion parallax? How about occlusion? Perspective?



Not anywheres near as conclusive as the contrast ratio is.




> Quote:
> Yes, you keep saying that. And I keep asking you to explain yourself. And you just keep repeating it. That's not explaining.



I have explained it. You refuse to accept the explaination because it disagrees with yours.



> Quote:
> Shooting at higher fps means you have to use a faster shutter speed, leaving less time for exposure, reducing brightness, and requiring a wider aperture, causing a shallower depth of field. Showscan is about framerate (60fps) and film stock (65mm), improving clarity and eliminating flicker. Nothing about depth. Absolutely nothing. You've just made that up along with everything else.



No I didn't. It was one of the benefits that was realized after the process was put into use.


So you haven't seen Showscan have you?


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20813721
> 
> 
> I have explained it. You refuse to accept the explaination because it disagrees with yours.



No? I refuse to accept the explanation because it is full of holes.


You said, "Our eyes give us infinite focus, something a camera lens can't." Which is false. You then adjusted it to, "..with a single lens." Why should that matter? Switch lenses, take the shot. Next setup, choose the best lens for the job. Edited together everything is seamless. It should be a plus that cameras have that interchangeable lens flexibility, but you've made it into a negative somehow. Please explain.


Our eyes have a finite control over depth of field. A camera lens can really crank the depth of field very shallow or very deep, and can focus on very near things or very far. Our eyes can't focus on macro stuff, it can't control the depth of field, just focal length.



> Quote:
> It was one of the benefits that was realized after the process was put into use.



Please explain "the ability to increase focus as you increase depth of field." You mean distant objects becoming clear as you increase depth of field? That doesn't make sense to me in terms of why that's better for discerning one plane from the other-- shallower depth of field, not deeper is what queues depth.


----------



## cakefoo

The most popular myth about 3D is that it's all about things coming at your head, or the "I hate 3D but I haven't tried it lately" whiners. I just find it odd that people, especially those in the film industry, don't take the time to see what all the hype is truly about.



> Quote:
> C-3PO actor Anthony Daniels says he has "a problem with sitting in my own sitting room and being surprised by things coming into the room. I don't expect things to come out my television!"
> 
> 
> Star Wars' stunt co-ordinator Nick Gillard is surprisingly not keen on 3D either, saying "I hate 3D!" and that even in 2D, he wasn't that impressed by James Cameron's Avatar: "I saw Avatar on non-3D and I thought it was pretty average."


 http://gizmodo.com/5830261/c+3po-hates-3dtv-too 




So we have people hating 3D because a theme park ride or cheesy horror movie gave them the impression that popout is all they're about; and we have people hating 3D without even sampling the most game-changing 3D in film history.


----------



## Lee Stewart

Cakefoo: So you haven't seen Showscan have you?


----------



## cakefoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* 
Cakefoo: So you haven't seen Showscan have you?
No. All I know is what I've read, and it all conflicts with what you've said.


P.S. The depth "advantages" you cite are referred to in the "downsides" section of this article: http://www.barbeefilm.com/showscan%2...It%20Works.htm 


The shallower depth of field is a result of opening the aperture to let more light in to compensate for the lower exposure caused by the faster shutter speeds required.


In other words, the depth-related effects of the Showscan system were not done for artistic reasons, and can easily be replicated in non-Showscan systems.


You really hurt your credibility when you said we see 3D with one eye, and then dodged my requests for a thorough explanation. The fact is you can't give a more thorough explanation because you just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20815390
> 
> 
> No. All I know is what I've read, and it all conflicts with what you've said.
> 
> 
> P.S. The depth "advantages" you cite are referred to in the "downsides" section of this article: http://www.barbeefilm.com/showscan%2...It%20Works.htm
> 
> 
> The shallower depth of field is a result of opening the aperture to let more light in to compensate for the lower exposure caused by the faster shutter speeds required.
> 
> 
> In other words, the depth-related effects of the Showscan system were not done for artistic reasons, and can easily be replicated in non-Showscan systems.



Well - I have seen Showscan and from your link:



> Quote:
> As with any technology, SHOWSCAN has advantages and disadvantages. *On the screen, SHOWSCAN is all advantages*.





> Quote:
> You really hurt your credibility when you said we see 3D with one eye, and then dodged my requests for a thorough explanation. The fact is you can't give a more thorough explanation because you just don't know what you're talking about.



So you honestly believe that only having a single eye means you see the world with zero depth?


Talk about a loss of credibility!


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20816236
> 
> 
> Well - I have seen Showscan and from your link:



"On the downside of the equation, the increased frame-rate takes light away from the negative. One and one quarter stops to be exact. Also in 65mm there is the approximate doubling of the focal length of the lenses, with the attendant shorter depth of field, for any given shot. This, coupled with the exposure loss can be troublesome, since you end up working at longer focal lengths with larger apertures than you might in 35mm."


It's obviously not all advantages.


> Quote:
> So you honestly believe that only having a single eye means you see the world with zero depth?
> 
> 
> Talk about a loss of credibility!



I'm not saying you lost credibility for saying we see 3D with one eye; it was the sequence that it spawned, of me asking for more detail and you responding with non-answers and such. You continue to ignore everything I've said and asked of you. You're too childish to have a technical conversation with, as you never expand on anything I ask you to. I apparently caught you off-guard when you thought you could just say whatever you want and expect the gullible to nod in agreement. Stop pretending to be some hotshot expert on 3D. If you're such an expert, my requests for detailed technical explanations would be of no challenge to you and you'd be happy to share the wealth of knowledge and expertise. I inquired of you and you failed miserably.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20816349
> 
> 
> "On the downside of the equation, the increased frame-rate takes light away from the negative. One and one quarter stops to be exact. Also in 65mm there is the approximate doubling of the focal length of the lenses, with the attendant shorter depth of field, for any given shot. This, coupled with the exposure loss can be troublesome, since you end up working at longer focal lengths with larger apertures than you might in 35mm."
> 
> 
> It's obviously not all advantages.



The light loss was compensated by the super brite lamp that Showscan projectors used. And longer focal lengths equal more of the background in focus no?


I would have had more respect for you if you had seen Showscan with your own eyes as i did , then just thinking you kown what it looked like simply by reading stuff off the internet.



> Quote:
> I'm not saying you lost credibility for saying we see 3D with one eye; it was the sequence that it spawned, of me asking for more detail and you responding with non-answers and such. You continue to ignore everything I've said and asked of you. You're too childish to have a technical conversation with, as you never expand on anything I ask you to. I apparently caught you off-guard when you thought you could just say whatever you want and expect the gullible to nod in agreement. Stop pretending to be some hotshot expert on 3D. If you're such an expert, my requests for detailed technical explanations would be of no challenge to you and you'd be happy to share the wealth of knowledge and expertise. I inquired of you and you failed miserably.



Your failure is not taking into account common sense. That and a simple lookup on Google explains how a person with one eye sees. You caught me at nothing. Don't flatter yourself on something that didn't happen. Sorry to deny you the ego stroke you seem to desperately need.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20817608
> 
> 
> longer focal lengths equal more of the background in focus no?



No.



> Quote:
> Your failure is not taking into account common sense. That and a simple lookup on Google explains how a person with one eye sees.



I don't need to Google how the eye sees. I already know. You just need to tell me what you find to be so drastically different in the human eye compared to a camera. Because frankly, the only advantage my eye has over a recorded image is the ability to control the muscles used for accommodation, which only has an effective range of a few feet, and requires the scene to be slow-moving or static so as not to add motion blur. Binocular vision is far more effective, as I can detect the dimensionality of a complex network of leaves and branches pretty much instantly. It's also why I can juggle 3 fast moving objects at a time. As a kid I'd close one eye and I'd always fumble the next ball that came down.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20757536
> 
> 
> Here is the problem with 3D:
> 
> 
> S3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with glasses. The brain combines them to make 3D.
> 
> 
> AS3D - Uses seperate L & R 2D images with no glasses and the brain combines them to make 3D
> 
> 
> Both methods are unnatural as far as human vision. We see 3D images with either eye. A person who only has one eye still sees in 3D. Just close one of yours to mimic this. That person can not see either S3D or AS3D
> 
> 
> Human Vision - Uses seperate L & R 3D images
> 
> 
> The closest thing to real 3D, the way humans see, was SHOWSCAN.



I kind of see what you're saying, as there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see, but calling that 3D is quite a stretch. Let's try this together: hold out your index fingers and point them at each other about a foot away. Close one eye. Now try to put the tips of your fingers together. Oops!







I missed! But my one eye is 3D!!?!


Of course that one eye still has a number of depth clues so there's a good chance you were able to put your finger tips together (we're also aided by a non-visual sense, where our brain knows where our body parts are, so you can walk without watching your legs). Regardless, it's limited clues and there's a fair chance your finger tips will glide right by. Try it again with both eyes open. Try it 100 times, you'll never miss. This is (full) 3D. The addition of a second disparate image is a powerful clue. Don't cheapen it or suggest that one eye is just as good. We would not have evolved to have two front facing eyes if one eye could do the job.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20836411
> 
> 
> I kind of see what you're saying, as there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see, but calling that 3D is quite a stretch. Let's try this together: hold out your index fingers and point them at each other about a foot away. Close one eye. Now try to put the tips of your fingers together. Oops!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I missed! But my one eye is 3D!!?!
> 
> 
> Of course that one eye still has a number of depth clues so there's a good chance you were able to put your finger tips together (we're also aided by a non-visual sense, where our brain knows where our body parts are, so you can walk without watching your legs). Regardless, it's limited clues and there's a fair chance your finger tips will glide right by. Try it again with both eyes open. Try it 100 times, you'll never miss. This is (full) 3D. The addition of a second disparate image is a powerful clue. Don't cheapen it or suggest that one eye is just as good. We would not have evolved to have two front facing eyes if one eye could do the job.



Not a very good test, IMO. I could touch my figers every time. Try this (to eliminate "body part knowledge"). Place your remote control on the table in front of you. With one eye closed, choose a button, then try to touch it with your finger. Repeat with random buttons.


I never missed with that test either.


Now, go to a batting cage...


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20839850
> 
> 
> Not a very good test, IMO. I could touch my figers every time. Try this (to eliminate "body part knowledge"). Place your remote control on the table in front of you. With one eye closed, choose a button, then try to touch it with your finger. Repeat with random buttons.
> 
> 
> I never missed with that test either.



It's a crude quick test, but one people can try while reading my post. Everyone's different, but plenty of people either mess it up or succeed only with skill or concentration, because you can only see full 3D with both eyes. With one eye open, it's a task. With both eyes open it's effortless, pointless. So I think calling one eyed vision 3D is a stretch.


----------



## Augerhandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Airion* 
It's a crude quick test, but one people can try while reading my post. Everyone's different, but plenty of people either mess it up or succeed only with skill or concentration, because you can only see full 3D with both eyes. With one eye open, it's a task. With both eyes open it's effortless, pointless. So I think calling one eyed vision 3D is a stretch.
Enough conjecture. http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...653F8A716AF422 

Quote:

Each eye sends a different signal to the brain, and the brain compares the two pictures. But even *using just one eye, the world doesn’t suddenly appear flat*. So how can just one eye provide depth perception? A team at the University of Rochester recently published a possible answer to that question on-line in the journal Nature. *It has to do with a small part of our brain* called the middle temporal area. This region processes information both from visual cues and from the motion of our eyes.


----------



## Airion

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* 
Enough conjecture. http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...653F8A716AF422
I'm not some unlearned stooge with limited vocabulary. I read the wikipedias and stuff!


I said previously that "there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see." Tons! I'm not making the case that it can't. I'm saying that calling that 3D is too much of a stretch, as the the difference between one eye "3D" and two eye 3D is big.


Ultimately it's just an argument about how to define things. Our eyes work like they work no matter how we choose to define 3D and 2D. But I think saying one eye sees 3D muddles the difference in depth perception accuracy you get with two eyes. It also raises the question, if one eye can see 3D, then what the heck is 2D?


----------



## cakefoo

I just did a test juggling 3 tomatoes. On my first test I juggled with 2 eyes, and counted more than 300 consecutive catch and throws before I started getting bored and just stopped. With 1 eye, I tested 3 times, and get on average 8 or 9 throws before dropping.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20840963
> 
> 
> I'm not some unlearned stooge with limited vocabulary. I read the wikipedias and stuff!












> Quote:
> ... then what the heck is 2D?



2D is height and width.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20842536
> 
> 
> I just did a test juggling 3 tomatoes. On my first test I juggled with 2 eyes, and counted more than 300 consecutive catch and throws before I started getting bored and just stopped. With 1 eye, I tested 3 times, and get on average 8 or 9 throws before dropping.



I drop every third tomato, no matter how many eyes I have open.










Does that mean I can't see in 3D? Or does that mean I need to practice?


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20842920
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2D is height and width.



I should say, what would we define as 2D vision? If we say one eye sees 3D, is 2D vision even possible? Just because I can see depth cues in a 2D TV, or successfully navigate a 3D game world on a 2D TV, that doesn't mean I'm seeing 3D. At least not 3D as in "3D Tech Talk" 3D.


It's a plea for sanity.


----------



## Augerhandle

Stereopsis is not the be-all end-all to perceiving 3D. It is but one part of the equation, and one of the parts most relied upon in 3DTV.


What about this do you find so hard to understand?

http://www.eyecaresource.com/problem...erception.html


----------



## cakefoo

It is also the most relied upon in real life depth perception...
Quote:

By definition, depth is looking into a hole or tube and estimating forward distances. *To do this accurately, one must have binocular stereoscopic vision, or stereopsis. If someone lacks stereopsis, perceiving depth may be more difficult and less accurate*, and they must rely on visual cues other than stereopsis.
Monocular queues include:
Quote:

* Interposition - Interposition cues occur when there is an overlapping of objects

* Linear perspective - When objects of known distance appear smaller and smaller, it's interpreted as these objects being further away.

* Aerial perspective - The relative color and contrast of objects gives us clues to their distance. When scattering light blurs the outlines of objects, the object is perceived as distant.

* Light and shade - Shadows and highlights can provide information about an object's depth and dimensions.

* Monocular movement parallax - When our heads move side to side, objects at different distances move at different speeds, or relative velocity. Closer objects move in the opposite directions of the head movement, and farther objects move with our heads.
However, none of those queues will help you as much as binocular vision.


Stereopsis makes depth perception easy and accurate.


----------



## Airion

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* 
Stereopsis is not the be-all end-all to perceiving 3D. It is but one part of the equation, and one of the parts most relied upon in 3DTV.


What about this do you find so hard to understand?

http://www.eyecaresource.com/problem...erception.html
I understand it just fine. I think it's correct to say that one eye has many ways to judge depth. I think calling it 3D in a forum about 3D technology, which relies on stereopsis, is silly. They're not the same. They look different.


----------



## Augerhandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Airion* 
I understand it just fine. I think it's correct to say that one eye has many ways to judge depth. I think calling it 3D in a forum about 3D technology, which relies on stereopsis, is silly. They're not the same. They look different.
Okay call one 3D and the other Airion 3D










Seriously, though, I think it's been mentioned many times before. The term you're looking for is called steroscopic 3D or S3D for short.


----------



## Augerhandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by *cakefoo* 
...However, none of those queues will help you as much as binocular vision...
Explain that to a bird or a squirrel. They get along just fine without binocular vision.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Depth_perception 

Quote:

Since (by definition), binocular depth perception requires two functioning eyes, a person with only one functioning eye has no _binocular_ depth perception. Contrary to popular belief, however, such a person is still possessed of a faculty of depth perception using monocular cues which is fully functional for "natural" situations, with unimpaired abilities at catching, throwing, aiming, driving, and other tasks which require depth perception. *Only the ability to perceive artificial stereographic images is absent.*
Quote:

Of these various cues, *only convergence, focus and familiar size provide absolute distance information*.


All other cues are relative (ie, they can only be used to tell which objects are closer relative to others). *Stereopsis is merely relative* because a greater or lesser disparity for nearby objects could either mean that those objects differ more or less substantially in relative depth or that the foveated object is nearer or further away (the further away a scene is, the smaller is the retinal disparity indicating the same depth difference).


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20845291
> 
> 
> Explain that to a bird or a squirrel. They get along just fine without binocular vision.



Birds and squirrels survive better with near 360 degree vision instead of binocular vision. It's one or the other; both have advantages. For our ancestors, it turned out that two forward facing eyes 3D, aka stereoscopic 3D, aka "Airion 3D," aka highly accurate depth perception was most advantageous. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't have evolved to have it. If one eyed "3D" was so great and accurate, we'd have eyes like birds or squirrels.


Call me a bigot, but I think human depth perception with two forward facing eyes is far superior to that of bird or squirrels. Sorry, I know that's not PC and all, but someone had to say it.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20845291
> 
> 
> Explain that to a bird or a squirrel. They get along just fine without binocular vision.



Squirrels getting along fine without it does not prove my statement wrong.


To prove the rest of the quotes in your post wrong though:


1) with both eyes open I can practically juggle until the cows come home. But with one eye closed, I become so impaired that I can't catch and throw an object from one hand to the other without dropping it after a few seconds.


2) the writer says stereopsis is relative and that convergence is absolute, but that is a bit of a contradiction. Convergence is a huge part of stereopsis, so they're the same thing.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20846306
> 
> 
> Squirrels getting along fine without it does not prove my statement wrong.
> 
> 
> To prove the rest of the quotes in your post wrong though:
> 
> 
> 1) with both eyes open I can practically juggle until the cows come home. But with one eye closed, I become so impaired that I can't catch and throw an object from one hand to the other without dropping it after a few seconds.



When you first began juggling, could you juggle with two eyes "until the cows come home" on your first try? Practice as many years with one eye as you had previously with two eyes, and then post your results.


> Quote:
> 2) the writer says stereopsis is relative and that convergence is absolute, but that is a bit of a contradiction.



Not if you understand the difference between the two.


> Quote:
> Convergence is a huge part of stereopsis, so they're the same thing.



Flour is a huge part of a cake, so is flour the same as cake?


According to the author, the muscle cues from convergence provide absolute distance information. Stereopsis can only be used to tell which objects are closer relative to others.


Read the article, not just the quotes. Learn something besides juggling.


No offense intended, but I am no longer going to research the subject, post links, and then explain the content of the links, only to be countered by anecdotal nonsense in every reply. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.


Peace.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20846131
> 
> 
> Birds and squirrels survive better with near 360 degree vision instead of binocular vision. It's one or the other; both have advantages. For our ancestors, it turned out that two forward facing eyes 3D, aka stereoscopic 3D, aka "Airion 3D," aka highly accurate depth perception was most advantageous. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't have evolved to have it. If one eyed "3D" was so great and accurate, we'd have eyes like birds or squirrels.
> 
> 
> Call me a bigot, but I think human depth perception with two forward facing eyes is far superior to that of bird or squirrels. Sorry, I know that's not PC and all, but someone had to say it.



Same advice. Read the article.


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20848915
> 
> 
> When you first began juggling, could you juggle with two eyes until the cows come home on your first try?



Show us a squirrel or bird who can juggle, let alone get along just fine with it, no matter what time the cows come home. That's a fair point though, as even with stereoscopic vision, humans can't juggle with ease. I'd say the limiting factor is the hands, muscles, and hand-eye coordination rather than lack of visual cues.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20848915
> 
> 
> No offense intended, but I am no longer going to research the subject, post links, and then explain the content of the links, only to be countered by anecdotal nonsense. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.



No offense intended maybe, but your posts have been condescending and full of offense quite frankly.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20848965
> 
> 
> [snip]...No offense intended maybe, but your posts have been condescending and full of offense quite frankly.



I'm sorry you feel that way about a post not directed at you, but in your own words:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20840963
> 
> 
> I'm not some unlearned stooge with limited vocabulary. I read the wikipedias and stuff!
> 
> 
> I said previously that "there are tons of depth clues that one eye can see." Tons! ...
> 
> 
> ...if one eye can see 3D, then what the heck is 2D?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20846131
> 
> 
> ... If one eyed "3D" was so great and accurate, we'd have eyes like birds or squirrels.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20848965
> 
> 
> Show us a squirrel or bird who can juggle...



All this and another guy who juggles tomatoes, neither of whom has posted or referenced any real scientific data on human vision, yet who continue to provide anecdotal and paralogical arguments in opposition of any real data presented.


I don't care anymore. You two work it out without me.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20848915
> 
> 
> Not if you understand the difference between the two.
> 
> 
> Flour is a huge part of a cake, so is flour the same as cake?



Not "the same," I don't mean literally they're nothing more and nothing less- just that stereopsis is partially dependent on convergence. Stereopsis is the process in which we can perceive depth with 2 eyes by noting the differences between the dual views. Convergence is the physical eye movement or even mental process (though with limited effectiveness, I'm sure) responsible for the fusing of the 2 images into one on a single plane on the z axis.



> Quote:
> According to the author, the muscle cues from convergence provide absolute distance information. Stereopsis can only be used to tell which objects are closer relative to others.



Stereopsis relies on converge. If everything is doubling a lot because we're converged at a point only 10 inches away because we can't rely on our convergence abilities, then it's going to be hard perceiving the parallax difference between something 3 feet away and 4 feet away. They'll both just be doubling a wide amount. But if we're converged on the object 4 feet away, we'll be able to gauge relatively the location of the object 3 feet away, because it's easier to gauge relative things when they are not as biased, if you will, from the outset.


Stereopsis, convergence- they require 2 eyes and combined they allow effective gauging of both absolute and relative distance.


That is a statement that should have gotten us back on the 2-eyes-are-better-than-one track.


----------



## Augerhandle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Airion* /forum/post/20848965
> 
> 
> Show us a squirrel or bird who can juggle...


----------



## evnow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Augerhandle* /forum/post/20845291
> 
> 
> Explain that to a bird or a squirrel. They get along just fine without binocular vision.
> 
> http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Depth_perception



Irrespective of why we got binocular vision, the fact is they help us judge the depth better. All that Cartmill is saying is that we developed it because of predatory history rather than being tree dwellers.



> Quote:
> Matt Cartmill, a physical anthropologist & anatomist at Duke University Medical Center, has criticized this theory, citing other arboreal species which lack binocular vision, such as squirrels and certain birds. Instead, he proposes a "Visual Predation Hypothesis," which argues that ancestral primates were insectivorous predators resembling tarsiers, subject to the same selection pressure for frontal vision as other predatory species. He also uses this hypothesis to account for the specialization of primate hands, which he suggests became adapted for grasping prey, somewhat like the way raptors employ their talons.



Funny - have you seen how primate similar a Squirrels hands are at grasping things they eat ?


----------



## Airion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *evnow* /forum/post/20892799
> 
> 
> Irrespective of why we got binocular vision, the fact is they help us judge the depth better. All that Cartmill is saying is that we developed it because of predatory history rather than being tree dwellers



Yep, my evolutionary defense of binocular 3D vision got ignored too. Just an anecdotal and paralogical argument in opposition of any real data, evidently.


----------



## j4str




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/20808150
> 
> 
> The loss of an eye affects depth perception but it still allows us to see in 3D; length, width and depth. But not the 3D at the movies. That requires two eyes.



This is completely ridiculous. The reason we have any depth perception with one eye is from things being out of focus and the way that things move....... Exactly the same as a 2d film. As we move our heads, things in the foreground move faster than things farther away. Exactly like in 2d film. Also things get bigger as they are closer, exactly like in 2d film. By your definition, when I watch a movie and I can tell what's in front of what and what's behind, that is 3d.






My question for 3d myths, are movies with active shutter glasses enjoyable to watch? When the technology first came out I remember reading reviews where people said, after the wow factor wore off, it seemed incredibly gimicky and they very much preferred watching the movie in 2d. That the active shutter glasses were only cool to impress your friends, not for watching tv on a regular basis. I assume it has come a long way since then, but how much?


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *j4str* /forum/post/20909586
> 
> 
> My question for 3d myths, are movies with active shutter glasses enjoyable to watch? When the technology first came out I remember reading reviews where people said, after the wow factor wore off, it seemed incredibly gimicky and they very much preferred watching the movie in 2d. That the active shutter glasses were only cool to impress your friends, not for watching tv on a regular basis. I assume it has come a long way since then, but how much?



Whether something's gimmicky or not is going to be dependent on the content. It all depends on what you find gimmicky. Some people think popout moments are gimmicky and that Avatar is wholesome 3D; other people don't seem to appreciate the depth effect in Avatar and call _that_ gimmicky, and think 3D movies should be filled with popout moments.


----------



## j4str




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/20909778
> 
> 
> Whether something's gimmicky or not is going to be dependent on the content. It all depends on what you find gimmicky. Some people think popout moments are gimmicky and that Avatar is wholesome 3D; other people don't seem to appreciate the depth effect in Avatar and call _that_ gimmicky, and think 3D movies should be filled with popout moments.



im not talking about the content, and whether the director used 3d as a gimick. As an example, i remember an interview with james cameron. He he said "when Jake is twirly his torch around it would have looked really cool to make you feel like you are going to get hit in the face with a torch, but it would take you away from the story. It would make you think about how cool the 3d is, and make you forget about whats happening. He said he wanted to use 3d to make you feel like your their, not make you forget that your aren't.



Anyway, What i mean, is if i got a copy of avatar in 3d that uses red and cyan glasses. You would probably think it looks cool at first, but then soon realize that it looks 10x better in ordinary 1080p 2d. That is what i mean by gimmicky. Does the 3d soon become annoying?


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *j4str* /forum/post/20910570
> 
> 
> Anyway, What i mean, is if i got a copy of avatar in 3d that uses red and cyan glasses. You would probably think it looks cool at first, but then soon realize that it looks 10x better in ordinary 1080p 2d. That is what i mean by gimmicky. Does the 3d soon become annoying?



No it doesn't become annoying or gimmicky for me. Good 3D is always good 3D. I only get tired of it when it's poor 3D or a bad movie.


----------



## bloodyjack

keep up the nice work ,lee


----------



## 3DBluRayRentals

Great posts, Thanks!! I've learned a lot


----------



## Lee Stewart

Myth #20 added


----------



## SAS6907

I hope someone can help me on the question of using a new Samsung 3D bluray player & TV with a couple year old receiver...Will it pass the 3D content through an Onkyo TX-SR705 reciever...is it possible?

I really hate the thought of having to replace this beautiful sounding piece of equipment.


Thank you for this entertaining and informative thread Lee.


----------



## AVTrauma

Sorry, but the 705 ain't gonna work... see previous post with someone having a 905.


Gotta also say thanks Lee, informative thread, even if the last page or two had rants not really related to the thread topic! (But I again state this is just as much fun as the LCD/Plasma debates I've read!)


----------



## SAS6907

Thanks for the response AVTrauma, I appreciate it, even though it's not the answer I was hoping for...but I kinda already knew the answer.

Oh well, the fiber cable will have to do for now, cause I'm not getting a new reciever.

This Onkyo reciever is really good. I'll just have to use the Older Samsung BDU5000 for most blu-rays (and HD-DVD's) for the awesome sound, and use the new player for 3D movies only. Have a great day and gotta love this site.


----------



## Z0p




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAS6907* /forum/post/21127026
> 
> 
> I hope someone can help me on the question of using a new Samsung 3D bluray player & TV with a couple year old receiver...Will it pass the 3D content through an Onkyo TX-SR705 reciever...is it possible?
> 
> I really hate the thought of having to replace this beautiful sounding piece of equipment.
> 
> 
> Thank you for this entertaining and informative thread Lee.



I have a Pioneer AVR that I wasn't about to replace. There are Samsung and Panasonic 3d blu-ray players with 2 HDMI outputs so you can still use your HDMI 1.3 AVR. I use a HTPC with a DVI to HDMI cable to the TV and a HDMI cable to the AVR... works perfect. Best PQ and HD audio.


----------



## AVTrauma

Going with a 3D set means much more than just getting the set. I do believe that there are several factors limiting the wide spread adoption of this "new" emersive form of home entertainment. Content is an issue, but improving. The quality of that content is also an issue, but also slowly improving. The economics plays a major factor, since many have recently purchased a HDTV in the last few years, especially with the changes in broadcasting format. Then you have to upgrade your bluray player. And then there is the AVR/HTIB upgrade necessary also. The costs are difficult to justify with the current state of the economy. I also believe that it is not a fad, and many would love to be able to enjoy this type of entertainment, if they had the funds. More 3D products coming at midlevel price points will be increasing the adoption of this medium. Now if we can get the cost of the 3D blurays to reasonable levels, it will become even more cost effective and desireable for everyone... including those who view this as a fad & complain about the glasses










just my $0.02 worth... (that brings me up to about 10-12 cents worth by now







)


----------



## supersoldier11

Disclaimer: I have not read this thread, this is the first time I've actually clicked this subforum of 3D Central, *so I have no idea if this is old news*. But just in case anybody hasn't seen this, I felt it had to be posted on here somewhere. I'm actually in the middle of pulling an all-nighter writing a paper as it's the last week of school, and stumbled upon this gem on the first page of google search results for "i will not i won't".







Anyway...


The title of the article is:

*Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.* from 1/23/11


Just the name alone made me LMMFAO literally!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html


----------



## AVTrauma

That article by Roger Ebert was in January 2011...


Before he viewed & approved of the 3D use in "Hugo" by the way!


----------



## inyouratmosphere

Incredibly informative. Thank you for such a clear breakdown on everything having to do with 3D. It helped clear up a lot of confusion on my part. Keep up the posts. I love it!


----------



## cakefoo

One of the most often complained about myths is that crosstalk is the fault of the content.


3D content is no more to blame for crosstalk than the latest PC game is to blame for choppy framerates on an outdated computer. The only difference really is that PCs today are many many times more powerful than they were 40 years ago; the average modern 3DTV is worse at crosstalk than passive polarized cinemas 60 years ago, so home 3D is playing catchup.


----------



## Augerhandle

Thank goodness for DLPs, and those super fast mirrors. My DLP exhibits no crosstalk.


----------



## Rgb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supersoldier11* /forum/post/21322373
> 
> 
> 
> The title of the article is:
> 
> *Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.* from 1/23/11
> 
> 
> Just the name alone made me LMMFAO literally!
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html



Great articulation of the focus/convergence problem endemic to all current 3D displays (Passive/active) on all consumer displays-



> Quote:
> The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
> 
> 
> But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
> 
> 
> If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
> 
> 
> We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. *This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix*. *Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images*.


----------



## Airion

It's true that the focus/convergence mismatch is a problem that can't be fixed. However, the severity of the problem is greatly exaggerated in that article. Focus is only a weak indicator of depth, and convergence and disparity we get with stereoscopic 3D is given priority and our brains see it as a 3D image. Stereoscopic 3D wouldn't work otherwise. I think the focus/convergence mismatch may be one source of eye strain or headaches though. However, these things go away with more exposure to stereoscopic 3D, which I think suggests the brain learns not to sweat the mismatch.


In fact, a similar problem exists in 2D as well. There are plenty of monocular 3D cues that we get with 2D images (and Ebert would be the first to tell you), but the focus and convergence of our eyes suggests the image is 2D at all times. So while we might get a strong 3D sensation with motion parallax in a given sceen, the focus and convergence of our eyes contradict it. There's really nothing in the natural world like it, a 2D image with 3D depth cues, but we don't get eye strain or headaches because we've all been exposed to these man-made images since birth and I think long ago learned to process (or rather, ignore) the mismatch. The only problem is that stereoscopic 3D images on a flat screen is relatively new to a lot of us.


----------



## cakefoo

Busted myth: Hunger Games is in 3D

http://www.observer.com/2012/03/hung...ross-rex-reed/ 



> Quote:
> Unlike Brake, in which the thrills are generated by people, the sci-fi adventure The Hunger Games relies heavily on CGI effects in a variety of visual formats2D, 3D and 3D Imax. As a wearer of distance glasses, I loathe the revival of 3D, a silly gimmick for kids from the 1950s that blighted everything from Bwana Devil to Kiss Me Kate and mercifully died out with House of Wax. So I chose a simpler way to watch The Hunger Games without the discomfort of two pairs glasses, and don't feel like I missed a thing. I can live without another flying spear.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo* /forum/post/21810784
> 
> 
> Busted myth: Hunger Games is in 3D
> 
> http://www.observer.com/2012/03/hung...ross-rex-reed/



Not according to this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/technical


----------



## cakefoo

Yes, that's what I said.


----------



## ShakingSonyDown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart*  /t/1236394/popular-myths-about-3d/0_100#post_18340687
> 
> *Myth #8 = You need glasses to see 3D in your home*
> 
> 
> 
> TRUE - either active shutter glasses or passive polarized glasses. And the red/cyan cardboard "glasses" used for the old Anaglyph 3D method. That is for today and the foreseeable future. But in the not too distant future (some say 7 to 10 years), we may be watching 3D in our homes without glasses. There are companies all over the world that are developing for the commerical market, glasses free 3D. They are called *Autostereoscopic 3D* displays.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a LINK that explains briefly how they work.
> 
> 
> 
> *Myth #10 = 3D glasses are interchangeable between 3DTV brands*
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE - today, the CEMs are using proprietary 3D active shutter glasses for their 3DTVs. A set of Samsung 3D glasses will not work with a Panasonic 3DTV and visa vera. But help is on the way from a company called XpanD Cinema, a seller of both active shutter glasses and 3D cinema equipment for theaters. They will be releasing their X103 http://]LINK[/URL ] Universal IR (Infra Red) 3D active shutter glasses later this year, that will be interchangeable with the major CEM's like Samsung, LG, Sony, Panasonic and even Nvidia (3D from a PC). The cost will be about the same as the ones being sold by the CEMs
> 
> 
> 
> Later in the year they will release; "the holy grail" of 3D active shutter glasses, the X104 series, which will include Bluetooth (Vizio) and DLP-Link along with IR. They will be made out of titanium and will be extremely light. Guesstimate on the cost per pair is $250.
> 
> 
> 
> Both the X103s and X104s will be battery powered. They claim a battery life of about 250 hours.



Great work but these two need to be updated.


Myth 8: While its not quite upto par and requires users to usually sit/stand in a particular 'sweetspot'; they were all over CES this year. As well as a company; 'Ultra D'; is working on a box that can do it on ANY TV. One called 3D Fusion was in the lime-light after their showcase in Macy's for Christmas 2012 but havent heard much since.


Myth 10: There are users all over this forum who state they use so-and-so's glasses with another manufacturers TV/projector.


But defiantly a great sticky article! One of my favorite stereoscopic movies from yester-year was Amytiville 3D... Im still wishing they release the 3D BlueRay for this one!!!


----------



## JSUL

I enjoy select 3d movies.

I have a Sony hx800, and bought Blick 3d glasses, and they work very well together.


----------



## tgm1024


About Myth #1  (regarding *anaglyph 3D only*)

 

Isn't the "golden era" of the 1950's considered 1953/1954?  At least it seems to be mentioned as such here and there (wikipedia, and the link at the bottom here).

 

Also, you might want to mention the 1 and 2 reel anaglyph "shorts" done in the 1953/1954 golden era:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/3dfilmarchive/home/top-10-3-d-myths/1953-anaglyph-films


----------



## JSUL

Along with the advent of widescreen films (a major topic alone) the resurrection of 3d was another means to draw the public to the theatres.


As noted many times, films like Creature from the Black Lagoon, Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, Hondo, House of Wax, etc. were made for 3d specifically, and not an afterthought. There are even a few Three Stooges shorts that are 3d.


----------



## Don Landis

Contrary to the myth that negative Nancy's continue to spread, especially every time some major cancellation occurs ( vis a Vis ESPN3D), 3D continues to grow and more content and new innovations continue to amaze those of us who love the format.


One of the most fascinating new innovations is the use of 3D conversion process in post production. This laborious method is still costly in labor and time but can produce results that range from subtle to highly exaggerated depth range with little to no cross talk. There have been some amazing 3D conversion releases lately that have been game changers.


While many will try to claim that 3D is only driven by money and therefore will never last don't see the bigger picture. That is that while the inspiration to produce a movie in 3D may be based in a director's understanding of the artistic benefits of the format, the reality is that 3D is adding profits to the coffers and the combination of artistic benefit AND profits make for a very powerful foundation to the truth that 3D is here to stay. We don't need to have every film in real world dimension, but those that benefit, either by the art of 3D stereo or profit motive, stretching beyond flat world is seen as a positive by the industry.


For those who want more titles in 3D, I suggest you scan ALL the 3D Blu Ray titles in Amazon from time to time. They come up with many little known titles that never made the big lists of 3D titles. Many are not very expensive to buy. Some are low budget documentaries, but some are decent movies with top named actors. One word of caution- always check the language and region codes to be sure you will get the most for your money. You can't enjoy 3D if you have to read subtitles because you don't know the language.


----------



## cwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1236394/popular-myths-about-3d/180#post_23571431
> 
> 
> For those who want more titles in 3D, I suggest you scan ALL the 3D Blu Ray titles in Amazon from time to time. They come up with many little known titles that never made the big lists of 3D titles. Many are not very expensive to buy. Some are low budget documentaries, but some are decent movies with top named actors. One word of caution- always check the language and region codes to be sure you will get the most for your money. You can't enjoy 3D if you have to read subtitles because you don't know the language.



Picked up many titles with this method Don [ and cross checking the same title on amazon uk simultaneously with google chrome if you have a region free player







] I also regularly check bluray.com for titles that have depreciated big time if your good at waiting









http://www.blu-ray.com/deals/?sortby=popularity&category=3dbluray


----------

