Active glasses vs. Passive glasses -share your thoughts
1 / 2
I think passive is not only overrated, but passive camp is using questionable tactics to gain attention ( flicker coin has two sides and someone is lying), honestly, I think public passive stuff dont have many legs to stand on, plus all this stuff is getting boring, I think active has much brighter future.
Check this out, the active camp is already integrating eye tracking into a transparent substrate:
[quote]OLED microdisplay based eyetracking HMD
The Fraunhofer IPMS has worked on the integration of sensors and microdisplays on CMOS backplanes for several years now. For example the researchers have developed a bidirectional microdisplay, which could be used in Head-Mounted Displays (HMD) for gaze triggered augmented-reality (AR) aplications.
The chips contain both an active OLED matrix and therein integrated photodetectors. The combination of both matrixes in one chip is an essential possibility for system integrators to design smaller, lightweight and portable systems with both functionalities.
Rigo Herold, PhD student at Fraunhofer IPMS and participant of the development team, declares "This unique device enables the design of a new generation of small AR-HMDs with advanced functionality".
The OLED microdisplay based Eyetracking HMD enables the user on the one hand to overlay the view of the real world with virtual contents, for example to watch videos at jog. And on the other hand the user can select the next video triggered only by his gaze without using his hands.
[/quote]
okay , we need no AMOLED for 3d into our glasses here, but!
Can someone tell me how some sad passive glasses going to be better than active at 300hz+ and eye tracking? /stud.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stud:' />
I think passive is not only overrated, but passive camp is using questionable tactics to gain attention ( flicker coin has two sides and someone is lying), honestly, I think public passive stuff dont have many legs to stand on, plus all this stuff is getting boring, I think active has much brighter future.
Check this out, the active camp is already integrating eye tracking into a transparent substrate:
OLED microdisplay based eyetracking HMD
The Fraunhofer IPMS has worked on the integration of sensors and microdisplays on CMOS backplanes for several years now. For example the researchers have developed a bidirectional microdisplay, which could be used in Head-Mounted Displays (HMD) for gaze triggered augmented-reality (AR) aplications.
The chips contain both an active OLED matrix and therein integrated photodetectors. The combination of both matrixes in one chip is an essential possibility for system integrators to design smaller, lightweight and portable systems with both functionalities.
Rigo Herold, PhD student at Fraunhofer IPMS and participant of the development team, declares "This unique device enables the design of a new generation of small AR-HMDs with advanced functionality".
The OLED microdisplay based Eyetracking HMD enables the user on the one hand to overlay the view of the real world with virtual contents, for example to watch videos at jog. And on the other hand the user can select the next video triggered only by his gaze without using his hands.
okay , we need no AMOLED for 3d into our glasses here, but!
Can someone tell me how some sad passive glasses going to be better than active at 300hz+ and eye tracking? /stud.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':stud:' />
I tentatively think passive is the better technology if using a 1920 x 2160 (or higher) Tv/Monitor that supports full 1080p resolution while in 3D.
If i were to speculate based on the sum of what i've heard, I would say that passive might be [b]far[/b] superior.
Its worth mentioning that in most reviews ive come across, if not all, the reviewer at some point states he prefers the half-resolution passive solution. Comments by forum members on various sites seem to indicate that the majority prefer passive and supposedly surveys show that passive is preferred 3 to 1. One reviewer stated that people probably like passive more because 3D sort of adds its own detail, making the resolution loss less noticeable, or something like that.
I know so little that i would be surprised to find out that passive was somehow horrible for my needs..
I tentatively think passive is the better technology if using a 1920 x 2160 (or higher) Tv/Monitor that supports full 1080p resolution while in 3D.
If i were to speculate based on the sum of what i've heard, I would say that passive might be far superior.
Its worth mentioning that in most reviews ive come across, if not all, the reviewer at some point states he prefers the half-resolution passive solution. Comments by forum members on various sites seem to indicate that the majority prefer passive and supposedly surveys show that passive is preferred 3 to 1. One reviewer stated that people probably like passive more because 3D sort of adds its own detail, making the resolution loss less noticeable, or something like that.
I know so little that i would be surprised to find out that passive was somehow horrible for my needs..
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible...
The ideal shutter is close to a mechanical shutter = 100% transmittance 100% opaque
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.
Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible...
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='29 April 2011 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1304097492' post='1231713']
The ideal shutter is close to a mechanical shutter = 100% transmittance 100% opaque
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.[/quote]
Why is the polarizer it already defeated? The ideal shutter, is NO shutter IMO. With passive, you seen both images at the same time and the screen refreshes like it normally does and the neither side occupies the other sides pixels.
[quote]Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible... : )))
[/quote]
I don't understand, don't shutter glasses block more light than a polarizing system?
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='29 April 2011 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1304097492' post='1231713']
The ideal shutter is close to a mechanical shutter = 100% transmittance 100% opaque
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.
Why is the polarizer it already defeated? The ideal shutter, is NO shutter IMO. With passive, you seen both images at the same time and the screen refreshes like it normally does and the neither side occupies the other sides pixels.
Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half. /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' />
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible... : )))
I don't understand, don't shutter glasses block more light than a polarizing system?
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.
Looks like you are more interested in time parallel vs. sequential, I think there can't be much difference once the display is fast enough.
Check out specs for TMOS ( most promising short term display tech IMO)
[quote]UniPixel armed with TMOS to go to war against LCD, OLED, and Plasma technology[/quote]
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Time-multiplexed_optical_shutter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMvzmqd9S8U
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.
Looks like you are more interested in time parallel vs. sequential, I think there can't be much difference once the display is fast enough.
Check out specs for TMOS ( most promising short term display tech IMO)
UniPixel armed with TMOS to go to war against LCD, OLED, and Plasma technology
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='29 April 2011 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1304101947' post='1231728']
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.[/quote]
Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge.
It's not efficient, your display gets thicker and it creates a lot of heat but the option is there and manufacturers do use it.
Tritosine, I think you do not understand why people prefer a solution that seems inferior to you. Polarised has more crosstalk than a DLP projector with active shutter glasses : that is true.
The problem is that the difference is so small that most people don't see it unless you show them a crosstalk test.
On the other hand these people immediately see the enormous differences in :
-brightness
-flicker
-sometimes DLP RBE issues
-glasses weight
-glasses design
-cost of glasses and confidence that they can give them to their friends/children not worrying they'll break them.
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If you do a specific test content designed to show the issue you can make any time sequential display completely fall apart whereas time paralell displays would pass with flying colours, the exact same way crosstalk tests are designed to show crosstalk.
One day maybe you'll get shutter systems fast enough so that there won't be any difference between the two, but we're clearly not there yet.
As a side note :
I dropped my CRT for an LCD screen years ago, at a time when LCD were dim, had poor colour accuracy and ghosted like hell, I loved 3D and had Elsa 3D Revelators and still bought a monitor that couldn't run them.
The reason : weight and space on my desk.
Don't ask why people prefer inferior products, ask yourself what these inferior products do that your superior one does not.
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='29 April 2011 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1304101947' post='1231728']
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.
Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge.
It's not efficient, your display gets thicker and it creates a lot of heat but the option is there and manufacturers do use it.
Tritosine, I think you do not understand why people prefer a solution that seems inferior to you. Polarised has more crosstalk than a DLP projector with active shutter glasses : that is true.
The problem is that the difference is so small that most people don't see it unless you show them a crosstalk test.
On the other hand these people immediately see the enormous differences in :
-brightness
-flicker
-sometimes DLP RBE issues
-glasses weight
-glasses design
-cost of glasses and confidence that they can give them to their friends/children not worrying they'll break them.
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If you do a specific test content designed to show the issue you can make any time sequential display completely fall apart whereas time paralell displays would pass with flying colours, the exact same way crosstalk tests are designed to show crosstalk.
One day maybe you'll get shutter systems fast enough so that there won't be any difference between the two, but we're clearly not there yet.
As a side note :
I dropped my CRT for an LCD screen years ago, at a time when LCD were dim, had poor colour accuracy and ghosted like hell, I loved 3D and had Elsa 3D Revelators and still bought a monitor that couldn't run them.
The reason : weight and space on my desk.
Don't ask why people prefer inferior products, ask yourself what these inferior products do that your superior one does not.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
[quote]"Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge."[/quote]
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
[quote]
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If[/quote]
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
"Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge."
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
If its about whats better with the available products, i'd say active, for gaming, (passive for movies, based purely on what i hear).
If its about all the possibilities and technologies that are in dev or are mature and haven't been put to use yet, i'd say passive. Yet both technologies seem capable of equal picture quality. Yet if one lets more light through, you won't have to turn your brightness up, consuming more energy and possibly crushing the lowest black levels. In passive shows the lines, even in a 1080x2160 display, that might not work then.
These are just some of the comments i've recently come across.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/225218/active_3d_vs_passive_3d.html
If its about whats better with the available products, i'd say active, for gaming, (passive for movies, based purely on what i hear).
If its about all the possibilities and technologies that are in dev or are mature and haven't been put to use yet, i'd say passive. Yet both technologies seem capable of equal picture quality. Yet if one lets more light through, you won't have to turn your brightness up, consuming more energy and possibly crushing the lowest black levels. In passive shows the lines, even in a 1080x2160 display, that might not work then.
These are just some of the comments i've recently come across.
Well I have seen both passive FPR displays and active shutter displays. I don't think there is a clear winner, and I am not sure which is ultimately better. I think they both have pros and cons. Its really up to personally preference. Just like with gaming, some people put the settings on maximum to get the best PQ, while others lower the settings and get smoother framerates. Its the same type of thing. What I like about active glasses is that they maintain the picture quality and the resolution. But at the cost of light throughput and added flicker. With passive you get a more comfortable, natural experience since your eyes are seeing a simultaneous persistent image. The glasses are also lighter, cheaper, and seem to block less light. Downside is that you lose half the resolution and get reduced viewing angles. But the image still looks good. Not nearly as bad as some people believe (without actually seeing it). And there are other passive technologies that are not based on FPR. RealD has some prototypes of a Z-Screen based HDTV which is like a mix of active and passive. You use passive glasses (same as in the movies) but the actual screen itself has an active layer which alternates the polarization. So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
Well I have seen both passive FPR displays and active shutter displays. I don't think there is a clear winner, and I am not sure which is ultimately better. I think they both have pros and cons. Its really up to personally preference. Just like with gaming, some people put the settings on maximum to get the best PQ, while others lower the settings and get smoother framerates. Its the same type of thing. What I like about active glasses is that they maintain the picture quality and the resolution. But at the cost of light throughput and added flicker. With passive you get a more comfortable, natural experience since your eyes are seeing a simultaneous persistent image. The glasses are also lighter, cheaper, and seem to block less light. Downside is that you lose half the resolution and get reduced viewing angles. But the image still looks good. Not nearly as bad as some people believe (without actually seeing it). And there are other passive technologies that are not based on FPR. RealD has some prototypes of a Z-Screen based HDTV which is like a mix of active and passive. You use passive glasses (same as in the movies) but the actual screen itself has an active layer which alternates the polarization. So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
[quote name='cybereality' date='30 April 2011 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1304172159' post='1231999']
So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
[/quote]
yes Z screen is interesting, but it has only one advantage over shutterglasses, the transitions between on/off are better, otherwise its the very same thing. I'd say for home use it won't worth the price premium, cause you can buy 4 samsung shutterglasses for less than 100 bucks now.
I think kicking the liquid crystal stuff out of the chain is much more interesting eg. MEMS display and MEMS glasses and eye tracking . Wow. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
Actually with OLED you'd want MEMS glasses too , LC is too lossy and on/off transition is not good.
[quote name='cybereality' date='30 April 2011 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1304172159' post='1231999']
So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
yes Z screen is interesting, but it has only one advantage over shutterglasses, the transitions between on/off are better, otherwise its the very same thing. I'd say for home use it won't worth the price premium, cause you can buy 4 samsung shutterglasses for less than 100 bucks now.
I think kicking the liquid crystal stuff out of the chain is much more interesting eg. MEMS display and MEMS glasses and eye tracking . Wow. /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
Actually with OLED you'd want MEMS glasses too , LC is too lossy and on/off transition is not good.
There is always loss while using 3d. Dual projector rig only emitts one projector to each eye, so does a planar rig. Shutterglasses make the eyes share one screen by altering the views for each eye, some polarized displays shows an interleaved image which results in half resolution. Some other lenticular displays alter backgroundlight and shutters the display which results in full resolution but only half the total light used. Anaglyph only displays red in one eye and green+cyan in the other... The list goes on and on but point for now is that sacrifices always has to be made! However developement is going quite fast in 3d right now and in current state noone can determine what's the best 3d-solution. We can only have opinions and while i'm personally more into passive viewing for now it can change in the future once shutters catches up (i'm using dual projector polarized rig and wait support for that or decent hardware for 3d to show up).
Btw: mems shutterglasses is a myth, there's difference between transparency and transparancy and can be described as the difference between a transparent glasswindow (desired for shutters) and a matte bathroomwindow (forgive my lack of desire to find the correct words but i think you understand...).
The ultimate 3d-solution is one that doesn't require glasses, are independant where you sit, no crosstalk and sacrifices compared to 2d-viewing. I bet other finds more properties but the point is we're not there yet.
There is always loss while using 3d. Dual projector rig only emitts one projector to each eye, so does a planar rig. Shutterglasses make the eyes share one screen by altering the views for each eye, some polarized displays shows an interleaved image which results in half resolution. Some other lenticular displays alter backgroundlight and shutters the display which results in full resolution but only half the total light used. Anaglyph only displays red in one eye and green+cyan in the other... The list goes on and on but point for now is that sacrifices always has to be made! However developement is going quite fast in 3d right now and in current state noone can determine what's the best 3d-solution. We can only have opinions and while i'm personally more into passive viewing for now it can change in the future once shutters catches up (i'm using dual projector polarized rig and wait support for that or decent hardware for 3d to show up).
Btw: mems shutterglasses is a myth, there's difference between transparency and transparancy and can be described as the difference between a transparent glasswindow (desired for shutters) and a matte bathroomwindow (forgive my lack of desire to find the correct words but i think you understand...).
The ultimate 3d-solution is one that doesn't require glasses, are independant where you sit, no crosstalk and sacrifices compared to 2d-viewing. I bet other finds more properties but the point is we're not there yet.
[quote name='mocca' date='29 April 2011 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1304099665' post='1231721']
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
[/quote]
Are you using 3DTV Play or 3D Vision? If 3D Vision, what 3D mode? Framepacking? checkerboard? something else?
[quote name='mocca' date='29 April 2011 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1304099665' post='1231721']
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
Are you using 3DTV Play or 3D Vision? If 3D Vision, what 3D mode? Framepacking? checkerboard? something else?
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='30 April 2011 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1304142531' post='1231906']
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
[/quote]
What you are seeing isn't companies telling "passive is the future", what you are seeing are companies trying to promote their own products. When LG was still promoting it's active shutter displays, they said "active is the future", then when they started producing both active and passive they were saying "we want to give consumers the choice, they'll choose what they think is better".
I'm not telling you to use passive displays. Active has the best quality/price and the best picture quality. If that's your priority, go for active.
All I'm saying is that in the real world, you're not alone and other people may have other priorities, so don't dismiss passive technologies.
[quote name='tritosine2k' date='30 April 2011 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1304142531' post='1231906']
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
What you are seeing isn't companies telling "passive is the future", what you are seeing are companies trying to promote their own products. When LG was still promoting it's active shutter displays, they said "active is the future", then when they started producing both active and passive they were saying "we want to give consumers the choice, they'll choose what they think is better".
I'm not telling you to use passive displays. Active has the best quality/price and the best picture quality. If that's your priority, go for active.
All I'm saying is that in the real world, you're not alone and other people may have other priorities, so don't dismiss passive technologies.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
Check this out, the active camp is already integrating eye tracking into a transparent substrate:
[quote]OLED microdisplay based eyetracking HMD
The Fraunhofer IPMS has worked on the integration of sensors and microdisplays on CMOS backplanes for several years now. For example the researchers have developed a bidirectional microdisplay, which could be used in Head-Mounted Displays (HMD) for gaze triggered augmented-reality (AR) aplications.
The chips contain both an active OLED matrix and therein integrated photodetectors. The combination of both matrixes in one chip is an essential possibility for system integrators to design smaller, lightweight and portable systems with both functionalities.
Rigo Herold, PhD student at Fraunhofer IPMS and participant of the development team, declares "This unique device enables the design of a new generation of small AR-HMDs with advanced functionality".
The OLED microdisplay based Eyetracking HMD enables the user on the one hand to overlay the view of the real world with virtual contents, for example to watch videos at jog. And on the other hand the user can select the next video triggered only by his gaze without using his hands.
[/quote]
okay , we need no AMOLED for 3d into our glasses here, but!
Can someone tell me how some sad passive glasses going to be better than active at 300hz+ and eye tracking?
Check this out, the active camp is already integrating eye tracking into a transparent substrate:
okay , we need no AMOLED for 3d into our glasses here, but!
Can someone tell me how some sad passive glasses going to be better than active at 300hz+ and eye tracking?
If i were to speculate based on the sum of what i've heard, I would say that passive might be [b]far[/b] superior.
Its worth mentioning that in most reviews ive come across, if not all, the reviewer at some point states he prefers the half-resolution passive solution. Comments by forum members on various sites seem to indicate that the majority prefer passive and supposedly surveys show that passive is preferred 3 to 1. One reviewer stated that people probably like passive more because 3D sort of adds its own detail, making the resolution loss less noticeable, or something like that.
I know so little that i would be surprised to find out that passive was somehow horrible for my needs..
If i were to speculate based on the sum of what i've heard, I would say that passive might be far superior.
Its worth mentioning that in most reviews ive come across, if not all, the reviewer at some point states he prefers the half-resolution passive solution. Comments by forum members on various sites seem to indicate that the majority prefer passive and supposedly surveys show that passive is preferred 3 to 1. One reviewer stated that people probably like passive more because 3D sort of adds its own detail, making the resolution loss less noticeable, or something like that.
I know so little that i would be surprised to find out that passive was somehow horrible for my needs..
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.
Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
[img]http://images.gizmag.com/hero/13167_22100972132.jpg[/img]
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half.
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible...
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.
Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half.
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible...
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
Gigabyte x99 gaming 5p Intel 5930k 16gb Kingston Fury Sli Kfa Hof 980ti 500gb Samsung Evo Ssd Corsair hx v2 850w HafX Case + Full set of Demciflex filters Sony 8505 4k 3d
The ideal shutter is close to a mechanical shutter = 100% transmittance 100% opaque
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.[/quote]
Why is the polarizer it already defeated? The ideal shutter, is NO shutter IMO. With passive, you seen both images at the same time and the screen refreshes like it normally does and the neither side occupies the other sides pixels.
[quote]Let me show you something else, why that hypothetical 2k vertical resolution display won't fly:
[img]http://images.gizmag.com/hero/13167_22100972132.jpg[/img]
you see, if you are putting your FPR foil on that display, you are cutting that into half. We are approaching zero and we re not done yet, backlight strobing going to cut another half.
In fact at 60hz , they should use 4ms hold time so they should cut it into 1/4.
Oh, 60hz... 2-3 frames of input lag at 60hz sounds quite terrible... : )))
[/quote]
I don't understand, don't shutter glasses block more light than a polarizing system?
The ideal shutter is close to a mechanical shutter = 100% transmittance 100% opaque
Crossed polarizer, as used in passive displays , and LC shutterglasses is nowhere as good, in fact it can't be that good.
So Passive is already defeated.
Why is the polarizer it already defeated? The ideal shutter, is NO shutter IMO. With passive, you seen both images at the same time and the screen refreshes like it normally does and the neither side occupies the other sides pixels.
I don't understand, don't shutter glasses block more light than a polarizing system?
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
Looks like you are more interested in time parallel vs. sequential, I think there can't be much difference once the display is fast enough.
Check out specs for TMOS ( most promising short term display tech IMO)
[quote]UniPixel armed with TMOS to go to war against LCD, OLED, and Plasma technology[/quote]
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Time-multiplexed_optical_shutter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMvzmqd9S8U
Looks like you are more interested in time parallel vs. sequential, I think there can't be much difference once the display is fast enough.
Check out specs for TMOS ( most promising short term display tech IMO)
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Time-multiplexed_optical_shutter
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.[/quote]
Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge.
It's not efficient, your display gets thicker and it creates a lot of heat but the option is there and manufacturers do use it.
Tritosine, I think you do not understand why people prefer a solution that seems inferior to you. Polarised has more crosstalk than a DLP projector with active shutter glasses : that is true.
The problem is that the difference is so small that most people don't see it unless you show them a crosstalk test.
On the other hand these people immediately see the enormous differences in :
-brightness
-flicker
-sometimes DLP RBE issues
-glasses weight
-glasses design
-cost of glasses and confidence that they can give them to their friends/children not worrying they'll break them.
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If you do a specific test content designed to show the issue you can make any time sequential display completely fall apart whereas time paralell displays would pass with flying colours, the exact same way crosstalk tests are designed to show crosstalk.
One day maybe you'll get shutter systems fast enough so that there won't be any difference between the two, but we're clearly not there yet.
As a side note :
I dropped my CRT for an LCD screen years ago, at a time when LCD were dim, had poor colour accuracy and ghosted like hell, I loved 3D and had Elsa 3D Revelators and still bought a monitor that couldn't run them.
The reason : weight and space on my desk.
Don't ask why people prefer inferior products, ask yourself what these inferior products do that your superior one does not.
It's not about blocking light, its about compensating for the loss , & you can't compensate for brightness loss using a white backlit LCD, it has no headroom.
Of course you can compensate for light losses : use stronger backlights, the headroom is huge.
It's not efficient, your display gets thicker and it creates a lot of heat but the option is there and manufacturers do use it.
Tritosine, I think you do not understand why people prefer a solution that seems inferior to you. Polarised has more crosstalk than a DLP projector with active shutter glasses : that is true.
The problem is that the difference is so small that most people don't see it unless you show them a crosstalk test.
On the other hand these people immediately see the enormous differences in :
-brightness
-flicker
-sometimes DLP RBE issues
-glasses weight
-glasses design
-cost of glasses and confidence that they can give them to their friends/children not worrying they'll break them.
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If you do a specific test content designed to show the issue you can make any time sequential display completely fall apart whereas time paralell displays would pass with flying colours, the exact same way crosstalk tests are designed to show crosstalk.
One day maybe you'll get shutter systems fast enough so that there won't be any difference between the two, but we're clearly not there yet.
As a side note :
I dropped my CRT for an LCD screen years ago, at a time when LCD were dim, had poor colour accuracy and ghosted like hell, I loved 3D and had Elsa 3D Revelators and still bought a monitor that couldn't run them.
The reason : weight and space on my desk.
Don't ask why people prefer inferior products, ask yourself what these inferior products do that your superior one does not.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
[quote]
Time Parallel vs Time sequential also affects it but most people don't see the difference because 3D content producers know about these issues and carefully avoid producing fast content for 3D. If[/quote]
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
If its about all the possibilities and technologies that are in dev or are mature and haven't been put to use yet, i'd say passive. Yet both technologies seem capable of equal picture quality. Yet if one lets more light through, you won't have to turn your brightness up, consuming more energy and possibly crushing the lowest black levels. In passive shows the lines, even in a 1080x2160 display, that might not work then.
These are just some of the comments i've recently come across.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/225218/active_3d_vs_passive_3d.html
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1296828189
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1305321
If its about all the possibilities and technologies that are in dev or are mature and haven't been put to use yet, i'd say passive. Yet both technologies seem capable of equal picture quality. Yet if one lets more light through, you won't have to turn your brightness up, consuming more energy and possibly crushing the lowest black levels. In passive shows the lines, even in a 1080x2160 display, that might not work then.
These are just some of the comments i've recently come across.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/225218/active_3d_vs_passive_3d.html
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1296828189
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1305321
46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530
its not lines , its called "fill factor" , or "screendoor" . With LCD, its bad to begin with.
its not lines , its called "fill factor" , or "screendoor" . With LCD, its bad to begin with.
check my blog - cybereality.com
So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
[/quote]
yes Z screen is interesting, but it has only one advantage over shutterglasses, the transitions between on/off are better, otherwise its the very same thing. I'd say for home use it won't worth the price premium, cause you can buy 4 samsung shutterglasses for less than 100 bucks now.
I think kicking the liquid crystal stuff out of the chain is much more interesting eg. MEMS display and MEMS glasses and eye tracking . Wow.
Actually with OLED you'd want MEMS glasses too , LC is too lossy and on/off transition is not good.
So you get a passive image but at full-resolution. This is the next step for 3D displays and will probably be really big in the next 2-3 years.
yes Z screen is interesting, but it has only one advantage over shutterglasses, the transitions between on/off are better, otherwise its the very same thing. I'd say for home use it won't worth the price premium, cause you can buy 4 samsung shutterglasses for less than 100 bucks now.
I think kicking the liquid crystal stuff out of the chain is much more interesting eg. MEMS display and MEMS glasses and eye tracking . Wow.
Actually with OLED you'd want MEMS glasses too , LC is too lossy and on/off transition is not good.
Btw: mems shutterglasses is a myth, there's difference between transparency and transparancy and can be described as the difference between a transparent glasswindow (desired for shutters) and a matte bathroomwindow (forgive my lack of desire to find the correct words but i think you understand...).
The ultimate 3d-solution is one that doesn't require glasses, are independant where you sit, no crosstalk and sacrifices compared to 2d-viewing. I bet other finds more properties but the point is we're not there yet.
Btw: mems shutterglasses is a myth, there's difference between transparency and transparancy and can be described as the difference between a transparent glasswindow (desired for shutters) and a matte bathroomwindow (forgive my lack of desire to find the correct words but i think you understand...).
The ultimate 3d-solution is one that doesn't require glasses, are independant where you sit, no crosstalk and sacrifices compared to 2d-viewing. I bet other finds more properties but the point is we're not there yet.
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
[/quote]
Are you using 3DTV Play or 3D Vision? If 3D Vision, what 3D mode? Framepacking? checkerboard? something else?
I moved from active samsung 3dtv to Lg polerized 3dtv and i'll not be going back anytime soon, but then the sammy i had was total garbage due to xtalk so i cant say which is best, all i know is that the ld950 polerized is much better than what i had last.
I would'nt rule out active though as i'll buy the best that i can afford which could be either.
Are you using 3DTV Play or 3D Vision? If 3D Vision, what 3D mode? Framepacking? checkerboard? something else?
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
[/quote]
What you are seeing isn't companies telling "passive is the future", what you are seeing are companies trying to promote their own products. When LG was still promoting it's active shutter displays, they said "active is the future", then when they started producing both active and passive they were saying "we want to give consumers the choice, they'll choose what they think is better".
I'm not telling you to use passive displays. Active has the best quality/price and the best picture quality. If that's your priority, go for active.
All I'm saying is that in the real world, you're not alone and other people may have other priorities, so don't dismiss passive technologies.
no , backlight bleed would be bad, only way to do this is local dimming, and they are doing it right now, LG wants to do local dimming with white OLED!
...solves nothing but brightness.
All I see Is some desperate companies trying to gain foothold and talk stuff like " passive is the future!" , even that prototype LCOS laser display company " other displays are child's play!" and they are succesful supplanting these ideas. I can't beleive someone's telling me I should use 1930's technology ( polarized glasses)
-Maybe their stuff is childs play compared to a TMOS display with TMOS glasses + eye tracking.
I don't want passive glasses because ergonomics, thats is really, really not top priority, its no priority at all. I want eye tracking+ feedback!
I'm a gamer and I never saw stereo falling apart with DLP, and I tried a few things. & you know , next generation displays can shutter very fast, and if we get better shutters than LC, also the dynamic properties will be muchh better.
What you are seeing isn't companies telling "passive is the future", what you are seeing are companies trying to promote their own products. When LG was still promoting it's active shutter displays, they said "active is the future", then when they started producing both active and passive they were saying "we want to give consumers the choice, they'll choose what they think is better".
I'm not telling you to use passive displays. Active has the best quality/price and the best picture quality. If that's your priority, go for active.
All I'm saying is that in the real world, you're not alone and other people may have other priorities, so don't dismiss passive technologies.
Passive 3D forever
110" DIY dual-projection system
2x Epson EH-TW3500 (1080p) + Linear Polarizers (SPAR)
XtremScreen Daylight 2.0
VNS Geobox501 signal converter