OK, I know nothing about 3D TV

[jimisbell]

I do have an extensive electronics background as an EE for 40+ years, but its in computer design, programming etc.

I have an older Sony (non HD) 60" TV that is working just fine.

But I have been thinking about upgrading to HD since prices have dropped so much. But after looking is seems like I would be better off switching all the way to 3D HD since the 3D prices are so close to the 2D prices on the 55" and up sets.

But there seem to be several formats and I dont want to get stuck with the one BetaMax of 3D TVs.

Questions:

1) is there a place where the pros and cons of various formats are available to sort through?

2) I read somewhere that a screen was developed to convert 2D to 3D (not HD however) Is this ready for use?

3) are the Auto 3Ds better than the ones with glasses or the other way around?

4) Finally, I have a huge analog audio system so I need analog outputs and inputs on the TV but the newer TVs I see at the stores have HDMI and very little else. I have seen cable adapters but dont know if that is even possible without more electronics, is it?

[jman98]

I recently bought a 3D LCD Vizio that's 42 inches. Amazon sells it for about $530. You won't find any cheaper 3D TV than that and not only have I liked it, my best friend likes it so much he's going to buy one soon.

1) I didn't really find anything like that.
2) Hmm... don't know about that but 3D BluRay players have an option to convert 2D BluRay movies to 3D. I haven't tried it but reviews on the feature are mixed. Don't expect much from any 2D -> 3D conversion.
3) Vizio uses Auto. I went with that because I really did not want to have to replace batteries all the time in shutter type glasses. My friends who've seen my TV and I think the Auto technology is fine.
4) My TV has no analog inputs of any kind. That's not a problem for me, but I see how it could be for some. It doesn't have a lot of inputs period, but as I run everything I've got through a receiver and send that signal to the TV, it's workable for me. If you can do that, I think receivers still come with analog inputs. Or you could look into some kind of analog to HDMI conversion box, but I know nothing about those.

[aedipuss]

a 60in 4:3 tv is about the same as a 70in 16/9 hd tv. rather large for sd, it must have been a rear projection unit. go to a best buy store or similar and actually put your hands on the 2 types of 3d and see which you prefer. neither type will go away because of the other, the 3d info is on the blu-ray or in the type of file played and won't change. and the batteries seem to last a long time - over a year here with a samsung plasma 3d. changing them takes a whole minute when needed.

time to buy a new receiver also. along with 7.1 or better speaker system. relegate the old stuff to an audio only system elsewhere.

[Cornucopia]

I recently bought a 3D LCD Vizio that's 42 inches. Amazon sells it for about $530. You won't find any cheaper 3D TV than that and not only have I liked it, my best friend likes it so much he's going to buy one soon.

1) I didn't really find anything like that.
2) Hmm... don't know about that but 3D BluRay players have an option to convert 2D BluRay movies to 3D. I haven't tried it but reviews on the feature are mixed. Don't expect much from any 2D -> 3D conversion.
3) Vizio uses Auto. I went with that because I really did not want to have to replace batteries all the time in shutter type glasses. My friends who've seen my TV and I think the Auto technology is fine.
4) My TV has no analog inputs of any kind. That's not a problem for me, but I see how it could be for some. It doesn't have a lot of inputs period, but as I run everything I've got through a receiver and send that signal to the TV, it's workable for me. If you can do that, I think receivers still come with analog inputs. Or you could look into some kind of analog to HDMI conversion box, but I know nothing about those.

As luther heggs once said: "Let me clarify this!"

There are NO affordable consumer Autostereoscopic 3DTVs available yet.

There are a few models (Toshiba 84", some startup company brands) that are available to the public that go 1/2 way there and allow either:
1. Lower-than-fullHD quality at a VERY SPECIFIC viewing position (and unwatchability at most all other viewing positions) with very, very high price, or
2. FullHD quality on MUCH smaller screens that also MUST utilize head-tracking (making it only workable for 1 viewer) or
3. Lower-than-HD (maybe even lower than SD) quality at a few specific viewing positions on EVEN SMALLER screens (tablet or smaller).
That's it. The problem is the laws of physics & economics. When it becomes cost-effective to create Ultra, Super-D-Duper HD screens and pack them into regular sizes, then it will be possible to divide up the viewpoints into enough variations to handle multiple general consumers sitting in different positions - without glasses. But that's a longer wait that you might think. It might even make sense to skip trying that route and to instead invest in research in Integral Imaging or Full-color Motion Holography.

Some 3DBD players have "Auto convert 2D->3D", but most do not. Most NEWER 3DTVs, however, DO have this capability.

I must strongly warn you, it is nothing to write home about, nor something that truly engages you, nor something that sometimes even makes sense (think: common Pseudoscopic effects). All-in-all. It is a joke and a sham. And unfortunately, it fools a few people some of the time - just enough to cloud the general understanding of why 3D is actually cool.

To correct jman98, Vizio TVs (newer models at least) make use of Passive 3D. Passive 3D doesn't require batteries, just polarized filters in the glasses. Newer Vizio & LG & Samsung TVs (IIRC) and a few others use Passive (polarized) glasses as opposed to Active (LC Shutter) glasses. The glasses are "passive" because they don't have to do anything except filter the signals coming to them. The Vizios, while they may have the aforementioned "auto 2D->3D" feature, do NOT use that as their main way of viewing the screen, that's just a marketing bonus.

There are 2 kinds of Polarized glasses formats: Circular & Linear. The difference is that, while it might have better overall light efficiency and less ghosting, Linear P. glasses must ALWAYS be oriented the same way. If you tilt the head, the 3D effect is ruined (or even reversed). Circular P. glasses waste a little more light and have a little more ghosting (cross-talk), but do not suffer from tilt problems at all. Almost all Consumer passive 3DTVs use Circular P. glasses.

The alternative to passive is Active systems, where each of the 2 LC lenses alternately open & shut, in time with their corresponding view's image. To convincingly do this with consumer TVs, they are usually operated at DOUBLE (or sometimes QUADRUPLE) the standard framerate. So, Half of Double = Back to where you would originally be. Each eye gets a FULL HD experience (because the WHOLE screen switches viewpoints when alternating). There are some competing sub-formats that differentiate themselves by which technology is used to signal the glasses to alternate (IR, Ultrasonic, BlueTooth, etc), but those are soon getting merged into a common consumer format.

So, unless one gets a 4k (Ultra HD) quality 3D screen, or a screen that makes use of a full-screen-sized "Z-screen", passive TVs show only Half the resolution of Active TVs. However, my A/B experience has been that 3D adds so much anyway that you aren't losing that much going passive.
The question remains: which one to choose?
If you have a problem with flickering, go passive.
If you MUST have the highest vertical resolution possible, go active.
If you are on a budget but want to have many people viewing, or if you don't want to mess with batteries, go passive.
If you don't like the way the FPR/micropol technology applies the polarization to the screen, go active.

That's my take on it.

The LG TV that I got this last summer had PLENTY of inputs, incl. 4 HDMI, 2 Analog Composite, 1 Analog S-Video, 1 Analog Component, 1 VGA & 1 USB 2.0 in addition to the RF input. There are still units out there that have a variety of inputs, but they are diminishing. It also has SPDIF/TosLink Optical output and headphone out, but not standard Analog line out.

How is your audio set up? I have a nice Yamaha Surround receiver (c. 2005) that I take the Optical out from the TV and it beautifully passes through everything to the receiver (including AC3 & DTS). Unfortunately, it's too old for the newer BD format add-ons, but I'm not complaining. So the TV acts as a switcher, which makes it much easier logistically for the wife & kids to operate.

If you have more Q's let me know...

Scott

edit: one more thing to add...3D blu-ray players composite the 2 stored views (from the MVC-encoded M2TS/SSIF files) and re-displays them into one of the few formats supported by the HDMI 1.4 spec (usually the FramePacking method). Each of these HDMI 1.4 methods also include SEI signalling that automatically tells your 3DTV that it is receiving something in 3D, helping it to automatically switch over to the CORRECT incoming signal layout. Other forms of media playback(not counting those that might be built into the Display) do not yet/currently provide this signalling, so those must be MANUALLY turned on and adjusted to the correct 3D input layout (usually SbS or T/B). This includes Settops & DVRs and Internet appliances & media players.
Next gen tuners/cable/sat cards & boxes should be 3D-aware and would likely include that signalling. Same for future "streaming apps" that are 3D-aware. On the way, but not here yet.

[jimisbell]

Thanks, thats almost a book. I was thinking that the Auto 3D was not out yet in small size when he said the Visio had it. Glad you cleared that up. I guess my next step is to go out and look at some of them tomorrow. I have a surround sound unit that also akts as a switcher for everything. I think I can re wire everything so I can survive with just a couple of inputs on the TV.

Are there any recommended brands or are they all about the same depending only on method and size?

I have avoided HD up to now because I could see black lines surounding peoples faces and in their faces like wrinkled that the owners denied were there. But I now think that may be because they were still on "Showroom setting" and had not been adjusted for the home lighting.

[Cornucopia]

If you DO decide 3D (and note that 3DBD utilizes it to best ability), you want to make sure how you wire things up. Because, the 3D capability of the HDMI 1.4 spec only works correctly with a complete 1.4-compliant pathway to the TV. If you use a receiver that uses HDMI 1.3 or less, and it is in the middle of the chain, you will only get 2D.

As many people here know, I'm partial to LG now. There's a similar range of prices for all the decently-sized 3D-capable displays. I would stick with the better known brands: Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Mitsubishi, (Pioneer?), maybe Sharp. You can get more economy brand ones as well, e.g. Vizio, but I've had a bad time with Vizio so I won't recommend it, even though others here seem to have gotten an ok deal.

Good luck.

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

HD does show more "flaws" than SD did, but it's now in a way more like film and you get used to it after watching alot. Don't know what you mean by "black lines"...

Scott

[fritzi93]

I have a passive 3D LG myself. In fact, it was Scott who first interested me in it over a year ago, when there started to be discussion threads here about the then-new FPR (passive) system by LG. I ended up getting a 65" LG 65LW6500, about a year ago (before Scott got his!).

Just a few things to add or emphasize:

1) The loss of resolution with passive is there alright, but not dramatic, depending on your viewing distance. If you do the numbers, it's about like going from 1080p to 720p. Regular 2D is 1080p, so no worries

2) The glasses are the same as in a RealD 3D theater. Like lightly-tinted sunglasses. I have and use several pair I've brought home from theater. You lose significantly less light than with active glasses.

3) The only crosstalk you'll see is if you get too far above or below the center of the screen. Horizontal viewing angle is good with the IPS panel. I'd say at least 30 degrees either way from dead center for 3D. More for 2D.


My opinion is that passive has the edge in all particulars (crosstalk, ghosting, flicker, viewing angle, light cheap glasses) over active. Everything except resolution. Even that will no longer be a drawback when 4k passive sets hit the market (some are being demonstrated at CES now).

2D -> 3D conversion is not worth bothering with. AFAIK, every new 3D set has it though.

Good luck.

[EDIT] Oh yeah, I have a pre-HDMI receiver. What I do is run a toslink optical cable from the TV to receiver, also one from 3D BD player to receiver. A cheap, simple optical switch allows me to change inputs easily (thanks again Yoda for suggesting it).

My TV will output DD 5.1. However, DTS gets downsampled to stereo. So I've encoded all my MKVs (for playing directly from external hard drive) with DD 5.1. Playing Blu-Rays with DTS from standalone is no problem using the afore-mentioned switch.

[jman98]

Yes, "Passive" and not "Auto" is exactly what I meant. Didn't remember the right term and just assumed the OP meant that. Thanks Cornucopia!

[wulf109]

Do any 3D fprmats cause the 3D image to pop off the screen at you? Any I've seen only create depth in the picture. I had a Toshiba 32 which was "3D" I only tied it's 2D to 3D conversion. While occasionaly interesting it darkened the image too much and resolution was poor. I returned it.

[Cornucopia]

No problem, jman98! You've helped me lots also.

@wulf109, Yes, there are plenty of images that POP OUT of the screen. These can be fun & exciting, but should be rare compared to in-screen depth effects, otherwise it gets campy & gimmicky as well as very tiring on the eyes. As 3D acquisition grows up, you will probably see much more judicious use of PopOut and more/better use of depth effects, especially my favorite: Particulate effects (which, BTW, are especially hard to do correctly with 2D->3D conversion, so it favors native 3D).

Interesting tidbit: Did some test 3D shoots at a wedding this fall. Because of the run&gun nature, some shots weren't composed so well (too close) so they Popped Out too much (thankfully not so much as to lose 3D fusion). While my family & I were reviewing the photos, my Son got up from the couch and went over to the screen which was showing an image of a reception table with wine goblets. As a joke, he attempted to look like he was "picking up a goblet". 5 of us at once literally jumped out of our chairs in loud surprise because it looked to all of us that he had actually grabbed the object on screen. That's how powerful some of this can be visually.
Thought you might like that...

Because of the need for glasses, ALL of which work on some form of FILTERING OUT LIGHT, 3D will always be less bright than 2D. That's just the physics of it. However, I don't find it to be so much of a loss that it is a hiindrance. Most modern 3DTVs & 3D Projectors have pretty decent base brightness to begin with, so a ~30-60% (?) loss still leaves lots of remaining brightness to work with.
I have not experienced any instances where I noticed a loss of resolution because of 3D. Because there are lots of 2D shows that are presented in 720p, and that seems HD enough, a 1080p title that is to be presented in 3D would have the equivalent resolution, per eye. With both eyes, there is a perceptual bump in resolution so it seems nearly 1080 anyway. Maybe in your case it was because of the 32" size? YMMV, I guess, particularly with something as subjective as 3D acuity.

Scott

[jimisbell]

HD does show more "flaws" than SD did, but it's now in a way more like film and you get used to it after watching alot. Don't know what you mean by "black lines"...

Scott

What I meant was dark black lines that seem to outline the head of people on news shows. Almost like a shadow on one side or the other of the face. Sometimes they appear in the faces like wrinkles. Usually near vertical. Almost like the contrast is set very high but is not affecting the brightness. This was on HD, not 3D

[Cornucopia]

That was probably just people/showrooms with misadjusted settings.

Scott

[addu]

Anyhow best of luck on ur new purchase of 3d tv. Hope u get my new 3d bluray express dvd with cutshort features to watch on it with ur new 3d bluray players.

[betwixt]

I would endorse everything above and advise you not to pay too much attention to 2D -> 3D effects. These are akin to the "stereo out of mono" claims of audio systems years ago. As there is no depth information in a 2D picture, it is impossible to display it accurately afterwards. The conversion done in the TV/BD player is done by displacing high contrast objects slightly which gives an impression they are forward of the background but it gets it wrong frequently and can be more of a distraction than it's worth.

For the audio - see if your amplifier has SPDIF (optical) inputs, many 3D TVs have optical outputs which may be compatible. If they have, and your amplifier has a suitable decoder, all you need might be a fiber-optic cable to link them.

Brian.

[Cornucopia]

I would endorse everything above and advise you not to pay too much attention to 2D -> 3D effects. These are akin to the "stereo out of mono" claims of audio systems years ago. As there is no depth information in a 2D picture, it is impossible to display it accurately afterwards. The conversion done in the TV/BD player is done by displacing high contrast objects slightly which gives an impression they are forward of the background but it gets it wrong frequently and can be more of a distraction than it's worth.
.

That's not quite true. There are a number of cues the eyes & brain use to process into depth. Parallax/Disparity and Convergence/Accommodation are the 2 that require the use of 2 eye-views and are arguably the most powerful & dramatic, but there are other, important ones, which only require a single, 2d view: eclipsing objects & revelation, receding lines, horizon diminuation...plus a special one that can be derived: horizontal camera motion (providing an enhanced form of revelation).
Good auto 2d->3d converters at least make use of these cues, which is why they work better than NOTHING.

Granted there are things they could never figure out; that is why the pros pay the big bucks to do it manually (roto, shift, paint-in).

Scott

[addu]

good scott.

[betwixt]

I didn't mean to imply that 2D -> 3D was no good at all but most of the methods described are more relevant to production than in a consumer TV. It is certainly possible to re-author some 3D from 2D using editing techniques but then the decision of apparent position and prominence is made by the editor working on it (I have 3D editing facilities here). Given a flat image, most if not all 3D TVs are rather dumb and work only on the simplest cues when converting, they don't have the processing power to do all the operations suggested and in real time.

I have a top of the range 3D TV here but playing my DVD conversions of old VHS tapes does not give good 3D results.

Brian.

[KBeee]

And if your receiver doesn't have HDMI 1.4, look for a 3D BluRay player with twin HDMI outputs, so you can connect 1 to the receiver for HD sound, and the second directly to your TV for 3D.

[hello_hello]

What I meant was dark black lines that seem to outline the head of people on news shows. Almost like a shadow on one side or the other of the face. Sometimes they appear in the faces like wrinkles. Usually near vertical. Almost like the contrast is set very high but is not affecting the brightness. This was on HD, not 3D

I wouldn't judge a TV using the picture from a free to air broadcast. It no doubt differs from place to place, but often they're heavily compressed and look terrible on any TV. Where I am (Australia) free to air TV is horrible quality.
Keep in mind too that many TVs have built in "image enhancements" such as dynamic contrast, edge enhancement, sharpening etc.... all of which I dislike with a passion. Many people don't disable all that junk.