#37194 - 03/31/10 04:37 PM
Re: 3D TV
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
Meq
Banned
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Loc: UK
|
Today's technology in 3D TV typically involves plasma or high-quality LCD screens, which can run at a framerate of 120 frames per second. This is the MINIMUM you'll need to avoid eyestrain, and hence is usually branded as "3D ready", in contrast to standard TVs which run at 60FPS (or 50FPS in PAL or SECAM regions such as the UK). Of course, these 3D screens also do normal 2D.
The 3D ready screen is typically used in conjunction with a pair of LCD active shutter glasses, which may cost at least $150 each. The screen displays one frame for the left eye, followed by one for the right eye, then repeats. The glasses are synchronized with the screen and simultaneously block out the right eye for the first frame, then the left eye for the second, and so on. This creates a 3D effect with each eye receiving 60 frames per second, good enough to avoid eyestrain imposed by the shutters.
To complete a 3D setup, you'll need a compatible set-top box for 3D TV channels (if there's any available in your area yet!), and perhaps a 3D Blu-Ray player (recently standardized).
For 3D gaming, you'll want a high-end PC (or Mac with BootCamp) with a compatible video card (and the glasses need to be compatible with both). Expect to pay more for compatible hardware if you go the Apple route.
Alternatively there may be a 3D upgrade for consoles such as the PS3 (with compatible glasses) - although the next generation's consoles and PCs (over the next few years) are very likely to push 3D hard, giving a far more photorealistic "virtual reality" experience - for both games and more serious applications.
3D ready CRT (cathode ray tube, the old 'box' TVs and monitors) screens have been available for some time now - however, the dominance of flatscreen LCD (and larger plasma) screen has led to an extraordinary thing to happen - technological development went backwards.
With flatscreen all the rage, the 3D technology which was almost ready for prime time on CRT screens became obsolete. Unfortunately, LCD and plasma screens weren't up to doing the required 120FPS - that is, until very recently.
Now, for several grand, anyone with the cash can get a pretty good 3D setup.
It'll just take a while before enough movies and games become available - by which time your shiny expensive setup will be obsolete - but that's technology! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#37196 - 03/31/10 04:55 PM
Re: 3D TV
[Re: Meq]
|
Meq
Banned
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Loc: UK
|
An alternative method to the above setup is to use the method used in 3D cinemas - a dual polarized projector, a suitable screen to project to, and a pair (or dozens of pairs) of cheap passive polarized 3D glasses. (As before, this should also function as a 2D display.)
This works by a very different method, utilizing a physical property of light: The projectors polarize the two images using polaroid filters at right-angles to each other, and project them onto the screen on top of each other. The polarized 3D glasses then separate out the two images for the left and right eyes, creating the 3D effect.
This is a similar (but much better) technique to the old "anaglyph" effect utilising colored glasses, as this method does not fuck up the color, as well as working much better.
(You can however use anaglyph 3D without any special hardware - just some tacky glasses  )
Both of these methods have their pros and cons.
It should theoretically be possible to use the same 3D movies, TV channels, and 3D games and applications on both types of setup (active shutter glasses and passive polarized glasses, or even crappy anaglyph for those without the hardware).
I'm not sure how standardized these things are as yet however, although it would be good to see 3D media working seamlessly with different methodologies.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#39773 - 07/02/10 01:22 AM
Re: Avatar
[Re: Arianwen Seren]
|
NeoZombie
pledge
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
|
I do not like one line-liners but, Avatar really was a waste of money. MAA did do a nice analyses of the movie spot on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Mercury_Templar, Woland, Bacchae, Morgan, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
