That’s really the question. Please , don’t say “It displays 3D images.” I get that. But why? I have a nearly top of the line 1080P plasma. How is the 3D-ready TV displaying the image that the 1080P plasma can’t? The actual display is ordinary 2D. The trick is in the glasses separating the 2D image into two distinct images for the brain to interpret as a 3D image. Why does the TV need to be special?
It needs a frame rate of 120 Hz minimum to display the images for both eyes alternately, and it needs a sync transmitter to synchronise the shutters of the 3D glasses. The 3D BD standard I was reading about doubles the number of frames per second in a video data stream to supply frames for both eyes; this almost doubles the data rate.
The 3D displays (“stereo” displays, actually) due out this year do not use polarization like the theatre displays; they show images for each eye alternately at a minimum of double frame speed (120 Hz), and rely on glasses with active shutters to allow only the appropriate images to reach each eye.
I think that there may be other display technologies waiting in the wings that don’t need glasses.
It probably uses active 3d glasses which require a signal from the TV to alternately blank each eye piece in time with the refresh rate of the TV. The TV displays alternating left and right images. Although your non-3d 1080P plasma can display the alternating images just as well as a 3d TV*, it has no way of controlling your 3d glasses and you won’t get any 3d effect.
*Edit: Not quite true, as Sunspace points out, a higher refresh rate is required.
Personally I’ll be waiting for the technology to mature before I fork out any money.
Phillips reports that they have it:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/
However, that resolution comes at a very stiff price, for the time being.
So, the glasses are not merely passive polarizers like I wore when I saw Avatar? The glasses must have some sort of electronics in them, then. So, after I’ve forked over for a 3D TV, I then have to fork over another amount for expensive glasses? Sounds like it may be a while before 3D comes to our house.
If your TV did use polarising glasses then the TV would still need to be able to send out polarised light for the different images which your 1080P plasma also can’t do.
I saw an ad for one in a magazine, and the small type said that the glasses were additional. One pair probably comes with the set, possibly two.
The active shutter glasses are about $15o bucks extra right now. Most TVs will probably come with starter kits of 2 glasses for cheap or free in order to get the ball rolling. Also you’ll need a source that can show 3D images, probably a new BD player, a new cable/satellite box and/or a game console that is able to update its firmware.
I’m curious to hear why all the companies are going with active shutter technologies for home use. They seem needlessly complex, expensive and might be slow to adopt. Is it likely that a new format war is on the horizon? Does active shutter have an advantage over polarization or are LED/LCD/Plasma TVs unable to display polarized images?
It would take a special screen to work with the polarized glasses. The image would have to be sliced line by line and displayed alternately which would cut the resolution in half. It would take a much higher resolution system to bring the same quality as 1080P. Since everything is now digital that would mean an increased data stream. Not sure where 120 or 240 Hz systems fit in with band width.
I’m not convinced that 3D movies are going to be the driving force behind 3D tv’s. They really don’t produce an artistic medium for scenery beyond the novelty of it. I think sporting events and computer games (mostly the latter) will dominate 3D.
There is at least one computer monitor, the iz3d, that uses polarized. But it’s grossly outnumbered by monitors that can simply render at 120hz and therefore be used with shutter glasses.
You forgot porn. Porn is the best riding crop used on the ass of the horse called Technological Progress.
There are some TVs out their that use passive polarization, but you’re right that most use shutter glasses. It’s a bit cheaper to implement a little plug on the back of the TV that synchronizes the shutter glasses to the TV’s refresh rate than it is to polarize the screen, (especially when they are pushing prismatic polarization, which makes slightly different colors of light go to different eyes, with the glasses having a filter to make up the difference.)
I’m not sure autostereographic displays are really designed for home use. I’ve yet to hear of any technology that does not cause eyestrain and headaches if you stare at it for too long.
Porn has traditionally pushed storage mediums. I’m not sure if people want to see a money shot in 3D. If it does open up the market we’ll end up with something called 3DDD.
I can’t see how bandwidth would be an issue. If the frame rate is doubled it’s the exact same effect as doubling the resolution. Twice the data is twice the data, whether it’s clipped in alternate frames or played side by side.