[airmyx]

On the CES videos, LG are keen to say that even though the screen resolution is halfed in 3D mode - this is not as much of an issue as you might first think.

Is this to say that most people will be viewing from a distance beyond the point where full HD is noticable? And therefore Full-HD is not something people have ever really needed...?

Or that the suggested viewing distance for optimum 3D appreciation is beyond the 2D Full-HD suggested viewing range for those with typical eyesight? Therefore full-HD is not recommended for 3D, FULL STOP...

Or are they just putting a positive spin on a technical limitation? Claiming that Full HD isn't really necessary sounds a bit cynical to me as surely when 4k2k panels are cheaper to make, LG will have no quarms about pushing them as "Full HD - Cinema 3D" displays and saying that they are an essential upgrade?

[guest]

Come on LG give some dates and prices...

Really looking forward to this TV to come out...want to see the 55"

[Monkfish]

Originally Posted by airmyx

Or are they just putting a positive spin on a technical limitation?

I wondered whether the two interlaced fields would combine in the brain to give the impression of full HD. However, if that were the case we would see a double image. But then we do see a double image in a stereoscopic view for everything that is not at our focal distance. Interlaced TV worked okay for years and that was always referred to as 625-lines of resolution, not 312-lines. Vision is a tricky subject.

As always, the proof of the pudding will be in the viewing.

[Jan Pogonowski]

Probably the best user friendly TV when it comes to 3D, but 2011 still lacks real 3D content.

[Monkfish]

Originally Posted by Jan Pogonowski

Probably the best user friendly TV when it comes to 3D, but 2011 still lacks real 3D content.

Widescreen, HD, it's always the way. Can't remember if the same was true when colour and stereo were introduced. I guess it was. I remember watching a load of B&W tv series and movies back in the 70s on our first colour tv.

[airmyx]

Originally Posted by Monkfish

I wondered whether the two interlaced fields would combine in the brain to give the impression of full HD. However, if that were the case we would see a double image. But then we do see a double image in a stereoscopic view for everything that is not at our focal distance. Interlaced TV worked okay for years and that was always referred to as 625-lines of resolution, not 312-lines. Vision is a tricky subject.

As always, the proof of the pudding will be in the viewing.

LG Cinema 3D is not interlaced though, its two full frames shown side by side...

With an interlaced picture you only lose resolution in areas of motion, with side-by-side 3D inside a 1080 frame you are only getting half HD in all circumstances.

Whilst the brain is still being presented with 1920x1080 pixels to process - 2 views of a scene from different angles will not present as much fine detail to the eye as a single, 2D frame at 1080p.

Any fine detail missed by the left eye frame will also be missed by the right...

[airmyx]

Sorry just to clarify my post above - I do recognise that the display is scanning the image in an interlaced way... just due to the fact that the broadcast source is half-hd this interlaced scan shouldn't give the same benefits that come with 2D interlaced broadcasts...

[Monkfish]

[QUOTE=this interlaced scan shouldn't give the same benefits that come with 2D interlaced broadcasts...[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify:

On a conventional TV the two interlaced fields are separated in time. In this way, any part of the image that is stationary will occupy the same place on the screen in both fields and therefore benefit from the full vertical resolution. Any part of the image that is in motion will occupy different positions in each field and therefore be comprised of only half the vertical resolution.

In an interlaced 3D scheme the two fields are not separated in time, but are separated in space (taken from slightly different positions). Therefore image quality is not dependent on motion (at least in this regard).

However, when we focus on an object in a 3D scene, our eyes do triangulate to centralize that object in both visual fields. Although that object will appear slightly differently in each visual field, I wonder if most of the object won't be perceived in higher detail due to the combination of two images in the visual cortex? In other words, the objects we focus on will be closer to full HD, everything else will not. Perhaps.

[airmyx]

I have trouble getting my head around any notion that the brain can be 'tricked' by half-hd just because the image provides two different perspectives. Surely any detail lost in the downscaling will more or less effect both frames equally. Fine detail truncated in one shot will still be lost by the other and the brain simply does not have enough to work with?

I imagine though that as half-hd is still better than SD and most people sit too far away to appreciate 1080 anyway - these displays could do well...

[Monkfish]

[QUOTE=Fine detail truncated in one shot will still be lost by the other and the brain simply does not have enough to work with?[/QUOTE]

True, but because the two images are taken from different positions, the fine detail lost in one won't be exactly the same as that lost in the other. That does open up the possibility that the brain might extract more detail simply because it does have two images. It's possible, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

[airmyx]

I can imagine there possibly being a very slight perceptable resolution benefit yes but if this effect exists than it should also happen the same way with 1080p and active shutter?

[airmyx]

I don't actually think 3D makes 1080p any less valuable - just if you ask untrained members of the public to give their opinions they are likely to be "wowed" by the stereoscopic effect and think its 'good enough' even if not being presented in 1080p. Couple that with the fact that many of their test booths will probably be having users view the screens from distances beyond the 1080p range and that should also lead them to think that most people don't consider the extra resolution a requirement.

[Monkfish]

[QUOTE=just if you ask untrained members of the public to give their opinions they are likely to be "wowed" by the stereoscopic effect and think its 'good enough' even if not being presented in 1080p.[/QUOTE]

Nod. As far as the public are concerned, an oversaturated squashed image seems more than acceptable to them... after all, that's what most seemed quite content to watch for years, until their friendly TV guy happened along and adjusted the TV correctly and showed them how to manage a 4:3 image on their new 16:9 set.

I must admit, I had a TV once that developed a fault in its horizontal scan circuit and caused a dramatic pin-cushion image distortion. I could have fixed it myself, but didn't bother because I wanted a new TV anyway. So we decided to put up with that hideously distorted image for a few days until we could sort out a replacement. Well, a few days turned into a few weeks, and then a few months. I think we ended up watching that knackered TV for almost a year before deciding on a replacement. Funny how you get used to things.

[Solidstate]

I don't think we should all be so sniffy and superior about "untrained members of the public". LG should be applauded for making a passive TV. It is only half resolution in 3D due to current technical limitations. In a couple of years when 4K panels become affordable then there will no doubt be full-HD passive sets available.
If you don't like their current passive 3D range then get an active one,if you don't like 3D then get a normal HD TV and if you don't like LG's offerings then get a different manufacturer's TV.

I'm currently watching a 720p projector and have viewed 3D 720p SBS videos on it using an NVidia 3D system and found them to be very enjoyable on a 96" screen. Perhaps we shouldn't be so concerned about what a TV doesn't do and concentrate on what it can do. As far as I can see, this may well be the only 55" TV that can do 3D without ghosting or flickering, and that's exactly what I want. As long as it is a good HD tv for the other 99.?% of time when I won't be viewing a 3D source, then this could well be the set for me. I will be awaiting the first reviews with interest.

[mattk69]

Originally Posted by Solidstate

As far as I can see, this may well be the only 55" TV that can do 3D without ghosting or flickering, and that's exactly what I want. As long as it is a good HD tv for the other 99.?% of time when I won't be viewing a 3D source, then this could well be the set for me. I will be awaiting the first reviews with interest.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there as 3d viewing will only be limited and most of the time it will be used as a 2d set. So if LG can get the 2d hd pic spot on then i think they may be onto a winner here. For me personally it sounds perfect as i will only be using it for sky 3d and a bit of xbox 360 in 3d here and there and as you can use your cheap cinema specs i definateley think they could be on to a winner. I think people are becoming obsessed with the whole 1080p thing again. But surely it just comes down to demoing the tvs when they come out. But for me if these tvs have no crosstalk or flickering whilst watching 3d then im sure that will be a massive advantage over full hd active flicky vision sets

[Monkfish]

I don't think we should all be so sniffy and superior about "untrained members of the public". LG should be applauded for making a passive TV. It is only half resolution in 3D due to current technical limitations.

Are you accusing us of being sniffy about the public or LG's new TV?

I'm certainly sniffy about the public because I've spent the last 30 years of my life dealing with them, and trust me, as far as picture quality is concerned you'd think most of them were blind! Those of us subscribed to this forum are probably a-typical in our appreciation of modern technology.

As far as LG's new passive range is concerned, I'm certainly not sniffy. I'm looking forward to it with eager anticipation. This 3D scheme is probably the best we'll have for quite some time.

[sinistro]

I think this set might be what I am looking for but we have seen specs only but it looks sofar very interesting as I am looking for a 55'' set and so I am waiting for some reviews on these and the prices of them as this last small detail has some importance also

[Oarue]

Originally Posted by airmyx

Is this to say that most people will be viewing from a distance beyond the point where full HD is noticable? And therefore Full-HD is not something people have ever really needed...?

Or that the suggested viewing distance for optimum 3D appreciation is beyond the 2D Full-HD suggested viewing range for those with typical eyesight? Therefore full-HD is not recommended for 3D

The current 47 inch LG passive TV that I saw in Curry's had a very impressive picture quality in 3D with obviously no cross talk. When switched to 3D it does state that you have to be over 2 meters away for it to work.

Which leads me to my question:

What is the viewing distance were you can not tell if something is in full HD?

[J4CK DANIELS]

Originally Posted by Oarue

What is the viewing distance were you can not tell if something is in full HD?

I still can't see the difference between 1080i and 1080p no matter how close I am!!!

[airmyx]

Originally Posted by Oarue

When switched to 3D it does state that you have to be over 2 meters away for it to work.

Which leads me to my question:

What is the viewing distance were you can not tell if something is in full HD?

Everyone's vision will vary but someone with reference 20/20 vision would begin to 'lose out' on 1080p resolution if sat further away than 6.3ft from a 47" screen.

At this screen size, THX recommend a viewing distance of 5.1ft and state an absolute maximum of 7.4ft.

Given these figures I'd expect most people would be pushing it to see much of a benefits from 1080p at distances over 2m.

Originally Posted by Hyperboy

I still can't see the difference between 1080i and 1080p no matter how close I am!!!

On relatively still images, 1080p and 1080i should look about the same and the difference will be harder to tell apart from a casual view.

720p stands out like a sore thumb @ 1080p viewing distance though as the resolution just isn't there.

720p is the new Standard Def

[sinistro]

As I am going to use my ps3 for 3D content for the moment and the ps3 cant reproduce 1080p 3D anyway the combo of this set and the ps3 will be just fine for me.

But all depends on the price for a 55''

[panman40]

Originally Posted by sinistro

As I am going to use my ps3 for 3D content for the moment and the ps3 cant reproduce 1080p 3D anyway the combo of this set and the ps3 will be just fine for me.

But all depends on the price for a 55''

What you guys reckon on a release date for the LW then ?

I maybe looking at one of these as a replacement for my PX990 as the 3D is very poor

[J4CK DANIELS]

Originally Posted by Monkfish

The image passes through a "patterned retarder" or more precisely a horizontally striped quarter-wave retarder, which produces a right-handed circular polarization on the even lines and a left-handed polarization on the odd lines.
Naturally, LG doesn't like to talk about the halving of vertical resolution in 3D mode.

So, simply, if Sky broadcasted in top/bottom instead of side by side this wouldn't be an issue? it seems to me if you take 1920x1080 and sky halve it to 960x1080 and THEN LG halve it AGAIN to 960x540 thats quite a bit of difference? having said that, i've seen 3D in both top/bottom and side by side of the SAME content and I couldn't tell the difference!?
if this is the case then why don't Sky broadcast sport (16:9) in top/bottom and movies in Side By Side (if in cinemascope)!!?

(this, on top of the fact that Sky broadcast in 1080i of course!!! giving even LESS 'resolution'!!)

[sinistro]

Originally Posted by panman40

What you guys reckon on a release date for the LW then ?

I maybe looking at one of these as a replacement for my PX990 as the 3D is very poor

I seen may as release date so lets hope that its true.

There are 2 models very similar, LW5600 and the LW6500, with the difference in specs of 100Hz for the 5600 and 200 Hz for the 6500 though I dont know if there are any more differences between these two. Both have may as release date.

[panman40]

Originally Posted by sinistro

I seen may as release date so lets hope that its true.

There are 2 models very similar, LW5600 and the LW6500, with the difference in specs of 100Hz for the 5600 and 200 Hz for the 6500 though I dont know if there are any more differences between these two. Both have may as release date.

I hope so, I see the UK spec model is called LW650T,

I guess 200hz is genuine and not the 600hz interpolation tripe?.

Any ideas if there will be any of this type of Motion proccessing on these and if it can be turned off ?
Cheers

[sinistro]

I heard that we have to wait till 15 of February to get any prices for the 2011 LG models.





Would love to hear if a 55'' is in the reach before my pocket hits bottom.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by panman40

What you guys reckon on a release date for the LW then ?

I maybe looking at one of these as a replacement for my PX990 as the 3D is very poor

I'm tracking you like a hawk over the coming months

[panman40]

Originally Posted by Pred4tor

I'm tracking you like a hawk over the coming months

[fredgee]

This is starting to sound really good just hope the price isnt too much... check out this link:

First experiences with LG’s Cinema 3D TVs - FlatpanelsHD

[Hades]

A very interesting read indeed. I thought all the new TV's were passive, but it would appear its just the LED ones. The new PZ950 is active according to that link.

Is there not some 'don't touch with a barge pole' for edge lit LED, or have I got it wrong?

Also for a more pleasing picture, is plasma not better?

I must admit I like the sound of passive more than the active 3D.

The plasmas are supposed to be out March/April with the LED in May.