3DTV
» >
»
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
I was thinking about my rather recent purchase of an IPTV. I was thinking I'd rather get a 3DTV but for one, the price wasn't cheap enough nor was the size small enough (~37"). Today, I got the idea that the IPTV could be updated to support 3D but then realized there has to be some hardware difference between a 2D and 3DTV. I googled, but came up with nothing. One search I did with the words "3DTV Hardware" returned a promising result, but was nothing but disappointment, I won't go into detail.

So, I've given up the possibility of "3D" on my standard 2D IPTV.

Does anyone know the hardware differences (or a source to start with) between a 2D and 3DTV. They have got to be different as the TV needs to process two video streams.


There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
Depends on the type of 3D: alternate-frame or autostereoscopic. I don't think there are any floor-ready models for the latter so you're probably dealing with the former.

If it's the former, the TV's primary difference is that it will have a transmitter built into it that communicates with the special glasses you wear. Alternate-frame 3D is just 48fps video composed of alternating "left eye" and "right eye" versions of the same frame. The glasses you wear rapidly switches which eye sees in tandem with the display of the frames (hence why the TV needs to communicate with the glasses).

If it's the latter, the TV's primary difference is probably fairly major. Not sure what exact method 3DTVs will be using but I will say I highly doubt it'd be parallax barrier technology like the 3DS uses.

I don't think there are any 3D(-ready) TVs that resort to polarization exploitation.
On EFNet IRC: Whenever | Nick: Su-Hime | Channels: #Cemetech, #UnSS
TI-83+/84+ Projects
Yumé 2: Rika's Story - 25% Complete; Will finish to coincide with Y:tED
PC Projects
Yumé: The Eternal Dreams - rewriting environment system again
TIBiC/GO - 1%; compiling list of commands

"Alenda lux ubi orta libertas" - Let learning be cherished where liberty has arisen.
"Aut viam inveniam aut faciam" - Either I shall find a way, or I shall make one. - Hannibal
KeithJohansen wrote:
If it's the former, the TV's primary difference is that it will have a transmitter built into it that communicates with the special glasses you wear. Alternate-frame 3D is just 48fps video composed of alternating "left eye" and "right eye" versions of the same frame. The glasses you wear rapidly switches which eye sees in tandem with the display of the frames (hence why the TV needs to communicate with the glasses).
I completely forgot about that. Wow. No joke.

Quote:
Su-Chan reads comicMAN's post, smacks him
[01:39am] comicMAN: o.o
[01:39am] comicMAN: For my stupidity Very Happy
[01:39am] Su-Chan: For your sounding like a smartarse
[01:41am] comicMAN: Oh
[01:41am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] I do?
[01:41am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] I didn't say much :X
[01:42am] Su-Chan: You bolded "TV's primary difference" and then posted "I completely forgot about that. Wow. "
[01:42am] Su-Chan: how does that NOT sound like a sarcastic or smartarse response?
[01:43am] comicMAN: I have no idea
[01:43am] comicMAN: But I'll fix it?
[01:43am] Su-Chan: were you being serious with that post?
[01:43am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] With my response?
[01:43am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] Yes
[01:43am] Su-Chan: You seriously forgot about that?
[01:43am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] Yup
[01:43am] Su-Chan: ._.
[01:44am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] You're talking to a blonde
[01:44am] Su-Chan: I retcon my smack to be for your stupid
[01:44am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] And, I see where you are coming from now
[01:44am] saxjax: (C) [comicIDIOT] I'll edit

._.

There is another take to 3D by Toshiba, doesn't require glasses and is different than Nintendo's method. However, the "transmitting" hardware-aspect is the least of the problems my TV would have to overcome.


There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
KeithJohansen wrote:
Alternate-frame 3D is just 48fps video composed of alternating "left eye" and "right eye" versions of the same frame. The glasses you wear rapidly switches which eye sees in tandem with the display of the frames (hence why the TV needs to communicate with the glasses).
48Hz is hardly "rapid". Smile The old Sega Master System refreshed at the CRT TV at 60Hz and that was headache-inducingly flickery (even worse for those of us in PAL regions where the refresh rate is 50Hz). 100Hz is vaguely bearable though I find 120Hz is the real minimum.

For the glasses to be synchronised with what's on the screen the TV has to have good control over the timing of the video signal. In the days of yore people would use CRTs, which pass a the input signal directly to the display hardware, making a passthrough adaptor for your glasses easy. LCDs tend to insert an arbitrary delay between the time they receive the signal and the time they display it (worse, usually, in TVs to computer monitors) which tends to not be noticeable to viewers (apart from rhythm game players) but is sufficient to throw off 3D glasses. Dedicated 3D TVs will be designed to maintain high timing accuracy between the screen and glasses; plain 2D ones won't, usually.

That said, there are other stereoscopic display formats. Alternate line (or row-interleaved) is very popular and alternates left and right eye views on the scanlines of the screen. This is what I use on my PC with a DIY shutter glasses adaptor and is supported by most 3D software (including PowerDVD for 3D Blu-ray). A variation on the technique is the column-interleaved format (where left and right eye views appear on alternate columns) - I believe some autostereoscopic 3D LCD panels use this format. Chequerboard interleaving (where left and right eye views appear on alternate pixels) is another one used with passive displays.
Stepping back from the technology details for a second, ComicIDIOT, I think that the availability of 3D media (not even touching the issue of whether it's worth the cost of the equipment and the media) will be sufficiently scarce for quite some time to make it not generally worthwhile.
That may be the case, but YouTube supplies 3D videos and many games can be played in 3D (either through native support, third-party modifications or driver hacks). For video, PowerDVD can even add 3D to 2D content in a terribly unconvincing fashion. Smile
Benryves, that's some useful information. I suppose then this isn't something that would pass along a bluetooth connection (as it is there is audio lag, even at +3/Max Lip Syncing on my TV).

KermMartian wrote:
Stepping back from the technology details for a second, ComicIDIOT, I think that the availability of 3D media (not even touching the issue of whether it's worth the cost of the equipment and the media) will be sufficiently scarce for quite some time to make it not generally worthwhile.
I've been seeing more and more movies released in 3D. I've almost been tempted to buy a bundle (BD3D, BD, DVD & Digital Copy) just so I have a 3D movie if I ever get a compatible TV.


There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
3DTV
»
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 1 of 1
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement