Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

3D Will Die On The Vine


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 2:26:46 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:10:35 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 2:39:53 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:11:22 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 3:02:16 PM PDT
EdM says:
Michael De Chellis - Are you saying that you have a movie theater and professional movie equipment at home to watch 3D movies? The Tom's Hardware article was about ordinary DLP HDTVs:

"The DLP TV decodes the incoming checkerboard-encoded frames, separating the correct pixels for the left and right video frames, then upsampling each frame to the full TV resolution. As with other compressed 3D formats, half of the original picture resolution is lost in this process. ...

"Note that while DLP televisions and projectors may be advertised as "3D-Ready," until models are available that support a full-resolution, dual-stream 3D video signal through HDMI 1.4 ..."

OTOH, if you have a Runco 3Dimension™ D-73d Projector or similar, well, most folks don't have $50k to 70k for that.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/runco-d-73d-3d-projector

Also, your statement, "All Theaters use 3D 1080p DLP projectors," apparently lacks factual basis, particularly for "all".

http://askville.amazon.com/movie-theaters-film-movies-projectors/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=6577829

"Do movie theaters still use film movies and projectors?"

"Yes, although all-digital is coming to some of the chains, fairly slowly. ..."
"For the high-end projection, 70 MM and IMAX, don't expect to see digital for some years yet. ..."

"Only the big chains can afford this, you're looking at over 100,000 a projector to go digital (If I remember correctly). ..."

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#2010

"As of June, 2010, there are close to 16,000 digital cinema screens, with over 5000 of them being stereoscopic setups. ... in North America (46.2 per cent of global figure) ... As regards digital 3D screens, there were a total of 21,936 3D screens, which equals 60.5 per cent of all d-screens. This is a rise from the 55 per cent in 2009 but is expected to drop slightly in 2011 to 57.5 per cent."

If you have some actual facts, Please provide the citation of basis for these facts, rather than winging it. Just because you think something is true, doesn't mean it's so.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 3:19:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:12:06 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 4:44:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:13:02 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 5:07:32 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:13:46 PM PST]

Posted on Sep 27, 2011 6:26:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:14:19 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 6:51:09 PM PDT
decipher says:
I would dispute it being "unfinished technology" any more than HD itself is unfinished technology. The blu-ray 3D standard (link below) has been finalized for a while now, and there are plenty of full HD 3D TV's.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091217005371&newsLang=en

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 7:41:05 PM PDT
2K resolution as stated in your previous post is only a little higher than 1080p. 1080 refers to horizontal pixels, whereas 2k refers to vertical. An apples to apples comparison would be 1920 (x1080) compared to 2000.

Also, as far as I know, HDMI 1.4 spec does not support 1080p48 or 1080p60. 3D signals are sent, by default, from the Blu-ray player using frame packing, which doubles the resolution to ~2200px for any given frame (there's a buffer zone between the two), and then the display converts that to frame sequential. If the display can only take in frame sequential, then the resolution has to be 720p60. So unless there's a converter box doing the conversion, this wouldn't be full HD. I could be wrong...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 9:14:04 PM PDT
EdM says:
It's not about your BD player per se. 3D normally requires 3 things. 1) glasses, not in question. 2) a 3D BD Player, which you have. 3) a 3D HDTV that's capable of 1080p 3D display.

The question was about your DLP projector [front projector?], not the BD player. DLP tech was able to use some existing 1080p 2D sets and update for 3D via firmware, e.g., or newly manufactured with that older, less costly tech. These are set up to display 3D via the checkerboard method of 3D. They will resolve less than fully 1080p sequential 3D. It will still look good to most people, but full 1080p 3D is the point, not looking good. You haven't said what specific equipment/DLP projector you have; you could look that up.

The Runco I mentioned above does the full 1080p DLP kind of 3D, and deliciously so as it rightfully should at the price. I don't know all of the DLP projectors that do, but more and better are coming on the market, such as the soon to be [maybe just?] introduced Epson 3010:

"http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2011/09/02/new-epson-home-theater-projectors-a-first-look/

"The Home Cinema 3010, however, blew me away. With an MSRP of only $1599, the Home Cinema 3010 projector looks to be the least expensive 1080p Home Theater projector that's 3D capable. OK, you are going to say - "but the Optoma HD33 you just reviewed was only $1499."

"The thing is, the Epson Home Cinema 3010 comes with two pair of 3D glasses, but with the Optoma, the glasses are optional (at $99 each). Based on that, the title (for now) for lowest cost 3D ready projector, will belong to Epson when it ships. ..."

In any event, if you have an older technology DLP front projector that wasn't quite expensive, it likely does the checkerboard thing resulting in less than 1080p full resolution 3D.

BTW - I know it's not the glasses per se that provide the resolution, they are just necessary for 3D to work.

An additional factor mainly for front projectors is the HDMI cable. For a front projector, the cable length can be long from BD player to projector. If it is long [over 2 M] and a cheap cable is used, there can be signal loss which results in degradation of the signal and possibly less than full 1080p from that signal loss. See this:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/hdmi-1-4-cable.htm

"..."High-speed" cables are tested to handle bitrates up to 3.4 Gbps per data channel, which is the maximum data rate allowed by the spec. What this means is that higher frame rates (e.g., 1080p/60), higher resolutions (e.g. 4K x 2K), deeper color (12 or 16 bit), or 3D video, applied to an HD signal (but not necessarily to a standard-definition signal) will push the bitrate into "high-speed" territory, where only a "high-speed" cable is certified to work. ...

"Caveat Emptor: ...

"For example, one prominent internet vendor of HDMI cable calls all of its HDMI cables which aren't "high-speed" "standard speed," when in fact many of those cables are not HDMI compliant even at standard speed. In 24 AWG cable, we have never seen a compliance certificate for a conventional passive cable longer than 40 feet ...

"coming-soon Series-FE 28 AWG HDMI cables, one showing a high-speed with Ethernet certification at 15 feet (the longest-length high-speed certification we have ever seen for a 28 AWG cable) ..."

Where the front projector is somewhat distant, then, there may be signal [and thus resolution] loss with longer distances. If the BD player is close to the projector, e.g. 1-2 meters, this is usually not a problem with proper high speed cables, absent a cable defect.

Posted on Sep 27, 2011 9:37:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:15:05 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 10:36:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2011 10:38:57 PM PDT
EdM says:
You have been talking about 1080p 3D from early on in this discussion:

on Sep 15, 2011 4:30:55 AM PDT - "if you want a better picture a 3D DLP projector at either 720p or 1080p is the way to go. A complete system will come in at about $1200."

This statement of DLP 1080p 3D for $1200 is not correct per the folks at Projector Reviews.

on Sep 26, 2011 8:55:41 AM PDT - post #151 -
">"All 3D tvs are 1080p 3D as far as I know. The only instance where resolution takes a hit is with BROADCAST tv."<"

"whereas with active 3D the full 1080p, or 780p for some 3D projectors, is available for each eye"

on Sep 26, 2011 12:38:45 PM PDT - "Real 3D sets which use shutter glasses are still hi-def @ 1080p."
[you got 2 ATTA-Boys, but it's not true for all DLP HDTVs; you confuse BD player for HDTV ability. It's not the shutter glasses, it's both the BD player being 3D RealD able plus the HDTV being 1080p 3D capable.]

IN my post on Sep 27, 2011 1:40:09 PM PDT - I said "Regardless of how well you like the look, DLP projection 3D movies have a compromised picture, compared to full 1080p 2D movies. OTOH, you didn't say what specific model you have ..." [Got 3 no votes to 0 yes votes, despite being correct that the DLP checkerboard method as explained in Tom's Hardware reduces resolution for that technology, used in lower cost DLP sets.]

on Sep 27, 2011 2:17:15 PM PDT - you replied to my post just above - suggesting you don't have full 1080p in your home, that 3D does compromise some DLP front projectors by providing less than full 1080p resolution on screen:
"EdM says:"
"<"In any event, it may appear that your judgement is biased or otherwise flawed, if you think DLP 3D provides uncompromised 1080p images. "Looking good" is not the same as having full 1080p resolution.">"

"All Theaters use 3D 1080p DLP projectors."

This clearly implies that your DLP projector at home is fully 1080p 3D.

on Sep 27, 2011 5:07:32 PM PDT - "I am saying that I have a 1080p 3D BD DVD player which delivers a HDMI 1.4 compliant frame sequential signal to my 3D DLP front projector at 120hz(60hz to each eye which is necessary for flicker free 3D) without any reduction in resolution."
You state "without any reduction in resolution" for your DLP projector based on the BD player, but that is untrue.

on Sep 27, 2011 9:37:13 PM PDT - you say, "the system I've got right now and suits me just fine."

In other words, you skip the point you have been arguing almost the whole time about DLP home front projectors having 1080p uncompromised 3D. Thus, it appears you cannot truthfully say that your home DLP set produces full 1080p 3D, nor that all DLP sets produce 1080p.

The statement you now quote is not in accordance with the things you have been saying in your various arguments as mentioned above. I didn't say your setup didn't produce good pictures, nor that you don't enjoy them, only that it was likely compromised compared to full 1080p 3D DLP front projectors. These 1080p 3D DLP projectors have not been available for $1200, but cost far more, often $3000 and up to much more, as with the wonderful $50k + Runco 3D projector. Only for this fall has the price for full_1080p 3D DLP front projectors fallen to the ~ $1500 + level.

You were discussing with WolfPup that 3D doesn't take a hit from 1080p, but for your own DLP projector [which is 1080p for 2D but not for 3D], that is not so. Thus, arguably WolfPup had the right of it for that aspect of the logical or rational argument/Discussion. Regardless of "yes" or "no" votes.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 11:12:47 PM PDT
"You were discussing with WolfPup that 3D doesn't take a hit from 1080p, but for your own DLP projector [which is 1080p for 2D but not for 3D], that is not so."

While it might not be so for his particular setup, it is so with various products already on the market that support frame packing -- and at reasonable prices too.

"Thus, arguably WolfPup had the right of it for that aspect of the logical or rational argument/Discussion."

So Wolfpup's argument that 3D is inferior to 1080p 2D is right because Michael De Chellis has a DLP setup. Gotcha!

"Regardless of "yes" or "no" votes."

You're the first person in this thread that's preoccupied with them.

"All Theaters use 3D 1080p DLP projectors."

This statement is so clearly mis-worded that it would be absurd to take literally.

Posted on Sep 28, 2011 12:02:31 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:15:31 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 12:11:10 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:15:50 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:36:51 AM PDT
EdM says:
JAC - ">"All Theaters use 3D 1080p DLP projectors."<"

"This statement is so clearly mis-worded that it would be absurd to take literally."

So, words don't mean what they say, or De Chellis gets a pass because you're on his side? Here is the exact post with De Chellis' exact words:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/blu-ray/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2R11KXGJPWBTU&cdMsgNo=200&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxEP1RZ5D9ZT0I&cdMsgID=Mx2SJ8YSZ4QBAET#Mx2SJ8YSZ4QBAET

People here are being religious in defense of 3D that they like, making factual errors, and/or opinion statements without regard to the facts. Like something or not, in a rational discussion, a factual basis is a sound point of departure. Correction of errors so the knowledge base is factually correct should be a part of the discussion.

I don't think 3D will go away, nor is it the next great thing IMO. There is a real cost to do something right, like unreduced resolution 1080p 3D. People should know the cost and what they're getting. People should also know the cost increment of proper 1080p 3D over the 1080p, otherwise similar 2D. People obviously purchase what they like and can afford, but there is no free lunch for 3D; it does cost more.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:41:34 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Jonathan A. Chang says:
And your irrelevant article that you posted as a red herring to throw us off.>>>

Huh? That's your gig.

<<<Your insistence that no critic has ever supported 3D despite other people showing you to the contrary.>>>

Lying again I see.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:44:35 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<turkish says:
you are confusing the movies that are shot natively for 2D then converted to 3D at the last minute.>>>

Presumably not since that's how Avatar looks too, and how the Tested people report it, et al.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:45:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2011 7:51:35 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:50:33 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:16:31 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:52:09 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Quit trolling.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 7:53:58 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:16:58 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 8:00:35 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 8:17:51 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 8:04:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2011 8:22:06 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
EDIT: Basically a double post. Amazon's forums are wonky and this didn't show up for 15 minutes...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2011 8:18:22 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
I don't know, maybe the one you just quoted there, or the others mentioned?

Or...you know, your EYES? How about you go to your local theater with it's 1080p video projector, and see for yourself, before arguing with people who actually know and love film?

Nah, you'll just keep trolling.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Blu-ray forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  217
Total posts:  1465
Initial post:  Sep 11, 2011
Latest post:  Jan 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 20 customers

Search Customer Discussions