Understanding 3D technology

[mbudman]

Hi Everyone,

I am quite new to 3D technology and I am a little confused about what is available and required. Even speaking with salespeople doesn't help as it seems they know less than me and are jsut interested (naturally) in making a sale.

My home system consists of the following:

Onkyo HT-S300 5.1 ch Home audio system
Samsung BD-C5500 Blu-ray disc player (non 3d)
LG 3D 47" LED TV (model 47LW5700), new purchase, extremely satisfied!

My understanding is that one actually needs a 3D TV in order to view movies in 3D. Is this correct?

Here is what I find confusing:

- My TV can perform 2D to 3D conversion. I tried it with a Blu-ray version of the Lord of the Rings and I thought that the end result was pretty decent.

- Since my TV does the 3D conversion, do I require a 3D DVD player?

- What is the difference between a 3D ready DVD player and one that coverts 2D to 3D?

If I have a 3D video, and use it in my 2D player, how is 3D accomplished on my TV?

I am also reading that newer sound systems support 3D. What does that mean? I currently plug and manage my TV and DVD player through my sound system via HDMI port.

I am also reading that there is software that can convert / simulate 2D to 3D. Will this work on a standard 2d monitor or non 3D TV ?

Please excuse all these questions. I visited 3 stores and got 3 different answers.

Thanks in advance and happy holidays!

Cheers,

Mark

[edDV]

Others will comment with more detail but all your equipment other than the TV is not 3D compliant. All needs replacement if true 3D source is the goal. 2D to 3D conversion is all pseudo guessed.

Conversion order of priority.
The Blu-Ray model needs replacement with a 3D version to play 3D discs in 3D. Gift the old one to your brother in law

You can connect the HDMI from the new 3D Blu-Ray player to the new TV to avoid replacing the receiver.

Another source of 3D may be your cable system. Discovery and ESPN 3D channels are currently on my Comcast service. Again connect cable box to TV directly.

I am also reading that newer sound systems support 3D. What does that mean? I currently plug and manage my TV and DVD player through my sound system via HDMI port.

That means your receiver cannot strip audio and pass on video in 3D. This depends if your receiver is an audio stripper or just a pass through HDMI switch.

I am also reading that there is software that can convert / simulate 2D to 3D. Will this work on a standard 2d monitor or non 3D TV ?

No for standard 2D monitor/TV. I doubt the quality of the result for 3D TV but that would be in the eye of the beholder.

If you are committed to 3D you need to in order of priority

1. Buy new 3D Blu-Ray player

2. Buy 3D Blu-Ray discs and/or subscribe to 3D cable/sat.

3. Replace receiver when it becomes a bother.

[Cornucopia]

Ok, I'll chip in (y'all probably knew I would)...

Here's what one needs to view in 3D:

1. TRUE stereo3D source material
2. Stereo3D source technology - this can be one or more of:

A. BD 3D player
B. 3D channels on OTA/Sat/Cable
C. 3D-capable HTPC, using local files or internet streams material
D. 3D camera/camcorder

3. a 3DTV or 3D-capable projector
4. 3D glasses that match the 3DTV/projector's technology
5. 2 eyes and good binocular vision (let's assume you've got that)

If you go the most obvious way, you need a 3DBD player (which happily can now be had for less than $100 US!).
You'll also need a high-speed HDMI cable (so it's 1.4 compliant).

If you still MUST send your HDMI through you receiver before passing through to your TV, it most likely WON'T work.
That's because 3DBD players expect a fully HDMI-1.4 complaint signal chain in order to pass 3D. In fact, if any part of the chain doesn't have 1.4 compliance and allow passing through of the 3D SEI data (and presents a "3D-ready" EDID), the BD player will fall back to just sending out the 2D version.

So, if your receiver isn't already HDMI 1.4 compliant, or if it isn't fully firmware updatable to 1.4 compliance, it will "ruin" the 3D, dropping it back down to 2D.

If, like in my system, it isn't necessary to go HDMI to the receiver (I use Optical/TOSlink instead), then you can rewire the layout so most things pass through the TV first before going on to the receiver. Then you'd have no problems in the 3D portion of the chain.

Since the 3D channels on OTA/SAT/Cable are NOT FullHD3D (aka 1080p x 2 views), they DO NOT require HDMI 1.4 compliance, so you could get by with an HDMI 1.2? or 1.3 compliant receiver.

*************

Good choice on the 3DTV - I intend to get that very same model at the beginning of the new year!
I prefer PASSIVE 3D (aka Circularly Polarized), like the LG, to ACTIVE (aka FrameSequential/LC Shutterglasses), like the Panasonics Samsungs and Sonys, most of the time anyway.
Plus, you get to reuse the RealD glasses that you pick up from the theatre (I've accummulated ~50 of them). So you could have some BIG 3D parties!

The only downside right now with current passive TVs is that they aren't truly FullHD3D either - they use alternate line polarization, so their equivalent resolution is actually 1920x540 x 2 views. But, as I've stated previously, that won't detract from the 3D-ness. Only alternate COLUMN polarization would (because of the greater granularity of the parallax).

BTW, there are manufacturer's plans to provide in the near future an ACTIVE+PASSIVE 3DTV (aka a "RealD"-TV), which will dynamically alternate the polarization of the whole screen (in tandem with double-framerate Frame-sequential imaging), yet still use PASSIVE glasses, for a FullHD3D experience. At first, those would be costly TVs, but like everything the price would come down pretty quickly...

*************

All else that edDV told you is correct. I'll add just a bit more.

You could have 2D->3D conversion going on in your source technology (player/settopbox/htpc/camera), or you could have the conversion going on in your display (TV/projector).

If it happens IN the display, you are locked into using that display ONLY for the conversion to work.
If it happens in the source technology, you are still locked into using a 3D capable display - UNLESS one of the 3D viewing options happens to be one of the varieties of ANAGLYPH (Red/Cyan, Blue/Yellow - colorcode, Green/Magenta - trioscopic/inficolor). Then, you could use nearly ANY standard 2D TV (with the appropriate anaglyph glasses) and get acceptable results (as long as you can stand watching anaglyph for extended periods of time).

BTW, there are NO true 3D-ready DVD players, nor 2D->3D converting DVD players. While I have a method of both creating 3D DVDs and manufacturing 3D DVD players (which is similar to, but unique from, Panasonic's 2003 patents of the same), no DVD player manufacturer has even attempted to create such a thing. I'm guessing the point would be that DVD is past it's day and one might as well go with a High-Def version (and BD fits that bill very well).
This makes some sense, because of what I said about parallax granularity...

If you actually intended to refer to 3D-ready BD players vs 2D->3D converting BD players, you'll find that NO 2D BD players do 2D->3D conversion. ONLY 3D BD players! I believe the point there is to provide a semblance of "additional 3D material" available to consumers, since the selection of TRUE 3D material is still somewhat small.

This will change with time...

Now, as to the QUALITY of 2D->3D conversion:
As I've said before, don't do yourself (or others) a disservice by kidding yourself that conversion is "good enough". It isn't and probably NEVER will be!
Just like automatic/realtime conversion of mono->stereo, grayscale->color, stereo->surround (most times). These are all parlour tricks that rely on certain assumptions which might apply to simple special cases but never to real world varieties of material.
IMO, this will ultimately dumb down the public's expectation of just how good true 3D (or those others) can be. Lowered expectations = greater criticism = lowered demand = lowered production = lowered support = fading away...
Not a good scenario.

***************

Hey, I just looked at onkyo's page...If you have the HT-S5300 and not the S300 as you wrote, your receiver is ALREADY HDMI 1.4 compliant!! So that would mean no need to change your receiver or your setup...

Hope that helps,

Scott

[mbudman]

Thanks for the explanations. It is extremely helpful.

By the way, my Onkyo model is HT-S3300.

[KBeee]

The Onkyo HT-S3300 also looks like it can pass through 3D via HDMI, so that's one less problem to worry about.
It it didn't pass through, you could buy a 3D BD player with 2 HDMI outputs, one straight to TV, and the other to the receiver to get HD sound.

[budwzr]

OK, now here's another point of view.

3D is an old idea that's been tried before, and never really catches on. Sure, there's some buzz every time they try to bring it back, but at the end of the day, most people prefer 2D.

I would say to venture into it is a waste of time and money.

As far as "True 3D", I would assume the stuff at Disneyland is fairly current, and I still consider it just a clever diversion. It just doesn't have "legs" in the real world because you have to wear special glasses, and more than one type of glasses, and it's just not port-able to mainstrean advertising or marketing in general. There's no money in it.

[aedipuss]

if you have some of the better made 3d movies like avatar, cloudy with a chance of meatballs, nightmare before christmas, how to train your dragon, etc., and the cost isn't much more than 2d, then it isn't a bad idea. make sure to personally check both active and passive versions of 3d, for me passive appears blurry at times and gives me a headache, the full frame active 1080p doesn't.

[handyguy]

BestBuy has those TVs on display & you can see what it looks like.

[fritzi93]

This is very interesting. Sometime in the coming year, I'll probably be getting another HDTV (a really big one this time). So it might as well be 3D, and will need another Blu-Ray player too anyway.

I wonder if someone will comment on/clarify a few things:

1) I didn't realize that a reasonable 2D to 3D conversion could be done by the set itself. Yes, inferior to the real thing no doubt, but still... That would be a big bonus, as I don't see replacing all my 2D Blu-Rays, not immediately at least. And I've been skeptical as well as to whether this will catch on, or will only certain movies (blockbuster type movies...ugh) get released as 3D.

2) Passive versus Active. It seems we have two opposing opinions already by very knowledgeable veteran members. And I presume there are a number of proprietary systems on offer?

Looking forward to more comments, thanks.

[budwzr]

I think the bottom line is whether there's a rosy future world of 3D on the horizon, or a dismal outlook due to declining interest.

[aedipuss]

This is very interesting. Sometime in the coming year, I'll probably be getting another HDTV (a really big one this time). So it might as well be 3D, and will need another Blu-Ray player too anyway.

I wonder if someone will comment on/clarify a few things:

1) I didn't realize that a reasonable 2D to 3D conversion could be done by the set itself. Yes, inferior to the real thing no doubt, but still... That would be a big bonus, as I don't see replacing all my 2D Blu-Rays, not immediately at least. And I've been skeptical as well as to whether this will catch on, or will only certain movies (blockbuster type movies...ugh) get released as 3D.

2) Passive versus Active. It seems we have two opposing opinions already by very knowledgeable veteran members. And I presume there are a number of proprietary systems on offer?

Looking forward to more comments, thanks.

1 - depends on your idea of reasonable. i tried the fake 2d -> 3d conversions and find it useless and won't be using it at all.

2 - since they are both methods of tricking the brain into thinking it's seeing 3d one may work better for you than the other. get a 3d blu-ray and cart it around for a reference video and see what works best for you. the active samsung glasses connect to my tv using bluetooth, but are reasonably priced at $30.

[budwzr]

And remember the HD-DVD vs. BlueRay debacle? A lot of people had to junk their DVD players.

Probably not so easy to junk a TV.

[mbudman]

Well, from speaking with sales people, they say active is better. As for doing a 2D to 3D conversion, I did it with a Blu-Ray DVD of "Lord of the Rings". Perhaps Blue convert pretty easily to 3D compared to HD-DVD's.

What is interesting is that one can purchase a 59" Samsung Plasma TV with active 3D for under $1000 now. Then one needs to buy the glasses, probably for around $150 / 2 pairs of glasses.

The other issue is that the selection to purchase 3D ready movies is quite limited; One salesman went as far as to say they only come with the purchase of the appropriate units (he was wrong) and that 3D movies cost $35-40 pop.

[budwzr]

Well, from speaking with sales people ....

That's your first big mistake. Go to WiKi and find out the facts.

At Fry's, the salesmen get a bigger "spiff" to push certain stuff out the door. And the good stuff, that's selling well, might get them a dollar or two vs. $10 or more.

[bacardi/avt]

And remember the HD-DVD vs. BlueRay debacle? A lot of people had to junk their DVD players.

Probably not so easy to junk a TV.

That's a lame comparison, since the TV does not stand and fall with the 3D functions (it is normally just an extra feature and NOT the only thing it can do). And from what I have seen most of the 3d enabled TVs are the top-of-the-line models from all manufacturers and so they still are the best when it comes to 2D.

[fritzi93]

depends on your idea of reasonable.

Yeah, "reasonable" is subjective. Others are welcome to their own definitions. Take the OP, who says a LOTR movie looks "pretty decent" as a 2D -> 3D conversion. I take that to mean he/she liked the result as opposed to plain 2D. I'll take that as a starting point.

Maybe fakery is a better term than conversion? Anyway, what I'm getting at is this: Would you rather watch a 2D -> 3D "conversion", or regular 2D? Never mind that it's inferior to true(?) 3D. I'm just thinking it would be a nice bonus if it's "watchable" (subjective term again).

[Cornucopia]

My further thoughts:

@KBeee,
Yes, good option. Panasonic has just such models (w/ 2nd HDMI port only requiring HDMI 1.3)!

@aedipuss,
Correctly-implemented, both PASSIVE (either Linear or Circular polarized) and ACTIVE (LC Shutterglasses) methods can have equally high quality. Also holds true for the Infitec method. It all just depends on the content, alignment, etc.
Though, there will be some variance based on user-sensitivies. Some users are VERY sensitive to checkerboard/field/frame-sequential. Some are very sensitive to crosstalk. That's one reason why RealD works as well as it does in the theatres: because it triple-flashes (= 72Hz per eye/view = 144Hz) and because it uses both PASSIVE & ACTIVE technologies, the time-sensitive people are OK because of the very high rate of change and the crosstalk people are OK because there is only alternating bleedthrough, not simultaneous bleedthrough.
Reason I like PASSIVE better is the lighter, "cooler", battery-less glasses, and the fact that they're cheap enough to get MANY of them.
Both technologies are OK, really.

@fritzi93 (and others),
Please, GO SEE "HUGO" (in 3D). It's a game-changer, even more than "Avatar" was acclaimed to be. Even Cameron agrees. Even Ebert has admitted it "was done right" in 3D! It gives a good indicator of what could be possible (well, more is STILL possible) with 3D adding to the movie skills palette. Someone who has seen that in 3D and is not inspired must be a bitter soul indeed.

@budwzr,
Please don't repeat others' FUD, especially when it isn't true.
3D movie sales in the US in 2011 was only 25-40% of the gross as opposed to 2010's 60-70% of the gross. But that's STILL 25-40% of the gross given 3D still has a small piece of the production pie. IOW, If 10% of all your movies made that year were pulling in 25-40% of all the grosses, you'd still be OVERJOYED at their great success. It's also a bit of maturing in the audience (and with good result - I believe there will be less "badly-made" 3D conversions as a result). Plus, INTERNATIONALLY, 3D is still pulling in 60-70% of the gross.

When people have compared this round of 3D with the surge in the 50's and the smaller surge in the 80's, they've compared the outlandish effects (paired to mainly bad movies) and the H'wood scare/fad/fickleness mentality. What they haven't compared is: overall multidisciplinary conglomerate cooperation (on an international scale) with efforts to provide consumer standards. In both the 50s and the 80s, end projection was fraught with difficulties, directors/dp's/editors often didn't understand the complexities and possibilities of 3D, other technologies competed WITH 3D (not supporting it), and it was a MOVIE-only wavecrest. Now, because of the convergence of PCs + Consumer Electronics, plus the digital convergence in filmmaking/projection, plus the Across-the-board investment by nearly ALL media technology companies, plus the strong artistic efforts to fully understand the "language" of making 3D, plus the triple threat of 3D movies + 3D gameplay + 3D sports TV covers a much wider audience need, plus there are many similar smallscreen opportunies (iphone, 3Ds, etc), plus the greatly improved audience satisfaction, plus the fact that 3D is a causative factor in technology companies expanding their opportuniess and repertoire of processing capability...Well, you should be able to see that "this ain't your grandfather's 3D" anymore.
Plus, this fad's duration has already lasted nearly 3 years longer than those original ones did, and it hasn't really lost steam yet. Plenty of money in it, AFA the manufacturers, media companies, and yes - even advertisers. Maybe you haven't seen them where you pass by, but there are glasses-less 3D digital signage out there.

On a further note, HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray was a conflict of (nearly) mutually exclusive source technologies with corporations taking sides and providing material that only supported one of those sides. That meant a winner and a loser, and a consumer that sided with the losing technology was truly the biggest loser.
Where's the analogy now?
Passive vs. Active vs. whatever else display technologies aren't mutually exclusive as far as the media is concerned. It's the same media, it's only at the display that there is any difference, and the glasses are already tied to the display. A 3DBD disc will play in 3D on ANY 3DBD player and will show in 3D on a 3DTV whether it's active or passive, no conflict there, no forced obsolesence. Same with Sbs or T/B 3D cable/sat channels - works either way. No need to "junk" anything. Even if in say, 7 years, you couldn't buy any more of a particular set of glasses, the TV (if it still works by then) will still perfectly act as a 2D TV anyway.

and Prices are getting very good now:
The LG 47LW5300 is quoted in Amazon as $899 for the 3DTV+3DBDplayer+4 pairs of glasses.

3D movies are still in short supply, but there is a concerted effort by the media companies to put out as much as possible as soon as possible. Last year, all told, there were only about 10 titles available (and you had to look for them). A quick look at the Illustrated 3D Blu-ray list shows that this year that figure is at 159 titles (though ~40% of those are still international). That's still a HUGH increase in one year for something which "has no legs" (as you would say) .
And price? The great majority of 3DBD titles are the same discs they are selling as 2D discs, for the same price - $25-$40 for new titles. No higher. That's part of the beauty of the 3DBD format - backward compatibility.

Merry Christmas!

Scott

[budwzr]

I'm gonna bow out before the 3D fanatics steamroller me. Merry Holidays too.

P.S. "Short supply? Hmmmm....why would that be? "short demand?".

[aedipuss]

merry christmas - hope all your stockings were nicely filled!

cornucopia - the lg uses a polarizing film applied to the top of the screen. scratches and yellowing may be a problem along with the usual lcd cleaning issues. will the polarizing film affect the sharpness of the picture over time?

plasma has a glass front. the samsung active glasses this year don't seem to weigh enough to notice and use a single watch type 2025 bat. $30/pair seems affordable.

[budwzr]

Another thing is, the old stereovision 3D you could pass out paper glasses. CHEAP.

Now that flat panels are cheap and going up everywhere like gas stations, restaurants, malls, etc. if you're not carrying your own glasses, the displays will look terrible.

And I can't imagine people constantly taking the glasses on and off just to see ads.

That's what I mean by "no legs". It's only good on home systems, and families are doing their own thing now, so while dad is excited over 3D, mom is busy with her iPad, and kids are FaceBooking all over the place.

[aedipuss]

the paper red/blue glasses were a joke compared to current tech 3d. and my only interest for 3d is well crafted movies. the glasses stay in a drawer other than that.

[handyguy]

Get a PS3, it does 3d for films & 3d games too.

[Cornucopia]

Dashing off a few quick replies...

@budwzr,
AFA demand? That would be a highly unusual and counterintuitive tactic on the part of media companies but I'm not a h'wood distributor so I won't 2nd guess them on that. Maybe you should ask them...
Seems to me, in classical market economy, short supply + high demand = higher cost and limited availability and that looks to be what was going on there. It sounds like you're fitting the facts to support your hypothesis and not the other way around.

AFA old stereotv wasn't really ever formalized as an entire industry (not like this time), but most implementations did use anaglyph. That technology is very cheap and does work in a way, but has many drawbacks, loss of resolution and color-based retinal rivalry not the least. It's basically considered the lowest common denominator in 3d. Nobody really wants to go back there. Even stereo3d enthusiasts. I do think it's handy as a fallback for 2d sets.

AFA no "legs in the marketplace" evidently you never witnessed a glasses-less Phillips wowvx tv (uses 9-view lenticular). Quite impresive, I'll tell you. I grant you, mass-marketed glassesless tv is still more on the horizon than actually available in everyday life right now, but many devices are already out of the labs and being enthusistically & successfully showcased at high profile sites.

AFA glasses on and off, you don't need to do that with 2d/3d changes. 2d ads look just the same as ever through 3d glasses, and "service compatible" 2d+3d programming is being mapped out by a number of media companies as we speak (well, maybe not TODAY the 25th).

@aedipuss,
AFAIK, the FPR polarizer isn't just layed on the outside of the TV, it's sandwiched into the screen. I don't think anybody really knows true longevity figures about any of this technology (OLED, capacitive touchscreens,...), so I couldn't say whether it "could" yellow and scratch. I'd hope that any manufacturer would stand by their product and replace something defective. I certainly haven't heard anything like that (you are the 1st I've heard to mention it).

AFA plasmas, people do have a problem with contrast in sunlit room (for both 2d and 3d screens) which I believe is one reason companies are focusing on LCD (cost is another). Yes, the newer active glasses are much better - I'm very glad!

Ho, ho, ho!

Scott

p.s. although it does have a few quirks, a ps3 is a good choice for all-around 3d.

[budwzr]

Hohoho, I want to disclose to the thread that:

1) I am NOT an owner of any 3D equipment (I have no horse in the race)
2) I'm still undecided and waiting for others to take a hit, if any. (I'm not an early adopter)
3) I AM considering buying a second GoPro and the 3D camera shell. (I'm willing to try it for fun)
4) I still consider it a novelty. (because that's what it's always been)

[fritzi93]

It seems that the LG FPR (Film Patterned Retarder passive 3D) sets are limited to their LED-LCD line. The plasmas all use what they call SG (shutter glass) type, rechargeable via mini-USB. Is there a technical reason for this? Or is it possible (likely?) that the next LG plasmas will use FPR glasses? I confess I do like the idea of light non-powered glasses, and picking up extras when going to the theater.

[EDIT] And I'd still like for the OP to describe the 2D -> 3D effect, and why it's "pretty decent".

[budwzr]

AFA old stereotv wasn't really ever formalized as an entire industry (not like this time), ....

Putting the cart before the horse still doesn't create demand, except in the mind of those that think like "If X is doing it, it must be good". That works only for clothing and cosmetics though.

Example: They have Jennifer Lopez driving the new Fiat mini car to kick off sales, and to offset that Fiat is owned by Communist China, and nobody normally wants a Chinese car.

[edDV]

Example: They have Jennifer Lopez driving the new Fiat mini car to kick off sales, and to offset that Fiat is owned by Communist China, and nobody normally wants a Chinese car.

As far as I know Fiat is still an Italian company but given Italian debt, that could change any day if the Chinese sweep in.

Sergio Marchionne serves as both CEO of Fiat and Chairman/CEO of Chrysler (our government at work left Chrysler under control of Fiat). Expect a full line of Fiats (some with Alpha Romeo branding) in the near future. If these don't take, Chrysler goes under.

[budwzr]

As far as I know Fiat is still an Italian company but given Italian debt, that could change any day if the Chinese sweep in.

I can't prove it, but I read it somewhere reliable. No doubt Fiat AND China would want to bury that news.

But this is how China makes inroads into other economies. They buy undercover and let the locals keep running it. Meanwhile they take over supplier contracts and steal technology that way.

Recently a US company bought Saab just for that reason. So China doesn't assume the parts contract.

They're (China) is using our contract laws against us to circumvent political scrutiny and it's a big problem. No doubt future supplier contracts will have a provision for automatic cancellation if a change in ownership occurs.

It's funny, the other day I saw a portable recorder made by "Marantz". I haven't heard of Marantz sine the 70's. The Chinese know Americans buy established brand names, and this practice of buying defunct brands and reintroducing them is hurting the whole concept of a trusted brand.

Sorry, I'm WAY OT.

[aedipuss]

budz, do you really need to spout crud like that? your grasp of facts is pretty low. fiat is italian. a dutch company called spyker runs saab for now but saab is bankrupt and gm recently blocked a deal to sell saab to chinese car manufacturers to prevent the export of gm technology, so they may be folding completely.

[budwzr]

[image]https://forum.videohelp.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10270&stc=1&d=13250442 45[image]