[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

No, if I look at my 59" active plasma at a close distance in terms of resolution and sharpness it looks the same. Slightly more plasma dithering is visible in the colour reproduction (probably due to the boosted brightness levels), but that's really about it.

So, just to clarify.

Did you first view an HD test card (normal 2D) and then hit the 2D->3D button (and also wear glasses of course) as I think this would equate to someone with a passive set viewing an HD test card and then simply putting the glasses on (you could also use 2D->3D but you don't actually need to do this with passive) ?

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

So, just to clarify.

Did you first view an HD test card (normal 2D) and then hit the 2D->3D button (and also wear glasses of course) as I think this would equate to someone with a passive set viewing an HD test card and then simply putting the glasses on (you could also use 2D->3D but you don't actually need to do this with passive) ?

Yes - I've tried both the 1080p "Full HD" test card and the BBC 1080p test card in both 2D and converted 3D. No loss in resolution as far as I can tell when viewed up close on my Samsung PS59D6900.

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

Yes - I've tried both the 1080p "Full HD" test card and the BBC 1080p test card in both 2D and converted 3D. No loss in resolution as far as I can tell when viewed up close on my Samsung PS59D6900.

Same on my ps59d550.

[ArmitageShanks]

Strangely enough, the "Full HD" test card that appears on these forums (Jason has posted it a few times) seems to completely defeat the 2D->3D conversion: it looks exactly the same in 3D as in 2D with almost no depth added! Maybe one or two pixels divergence between left and right near the top of the image, but it's viewable without glasses.

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

Strangely enough, the "Full HD" test card that appears on these forums (Jason has posted it a few times) seems to completely defeat the 2D->3D conversion: it looks exactly the same in 3D as in 2D with almost no depth added! Maybe one or two pixels divergence between left and right near the top of the image, but it's viewable without glasses.

i agree, i have tried one before which had left and right on for both eyes.

[Jason Shouler]

So how is that test card displayed then ?

Is it something you've got on a blu-ray as otherwise surely it must be in SBS or OU format.

[scottthehat]

the one of urs is a 2d and converts to 2d, the one i posted pics of is full 3d hd and doesnt give me any option like true full hd 3d does.

[ArmitageShanks]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

So how is that test card displayed then ?

Is it something you've got on a blu-ray as otherwise surely it must be in SBS or OU format.

It's just the 2D 1080p test card (as scottthehat has posted) on which I'm engaging the 2D->3D conversion. I think the conversion algorithm is either very good at recognising it as a 2D image (probably because the thin grid lines are perfectly parallel and not very thick). Or maybe it's completely baffled

Either way, there's no loss in resolution when a 3D mode is engaged on a 1080p image (all pixels are accounted for and the fine text is perfectly visible). The increased plasma dithering makes the very fine hash pattern a little less discernible than in 2D.

SBS and OU would obviously not render a 1920x1080 image.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

the one of urs is a 2d and converts to 2d, the one i posted pics of is full 3d hd and doesnt give me any option like true full hd 3d does.

Unless it's showing an image in the z-plane (not at the surface of the TV) then it will be exactly the same (which I thought you just said it was )

I just wondered what your source was, and if it's possible to upload it, as you've simply shown an image of your TV.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by ArmitageShanks

Either way, there's no loss in resolution when a 3D mode is engaged on a 1080p image (all pixels are accounted for and the fine text is perfectly visible). The increased plasma dithering makes the very fine hash pattern a little less discernible than in 2D.

SBS and OU would obviously not render a 1920x1080 image.

In fact passive can if OU is correctly encoded (as per the other thread on the subject).

Interestingly, your description of the grid lines (they're exactly 1 pixel wide) matches how they look on a passive set. It's a little bit of a cheat though since when viewing "Full HD" OU this way, if you close one eye then half the horizontal grid lines disappear

Of course, this may well raise discussions of when 2D can be 3D and when 3D is really 2D but all the same it does prove the set has the ability to resolve a single line (in 3D mode).

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

Unless it's showing an image in the z-plane (not at the surface of the TV) then it will be exactly the same (which I thought you just said it was )

I just wondered what your source was, and if it's possible to upload it, as you've simply shown an image of your TV.

All i have done is put on usb stick the one you posted is not true 3d 1080p where as the other one i have got is. I will find away of uploading for you to try.

[ArmitageShanks]

Jason, I was using the 2D image you posted here:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/3d-tv...-3d-set-3.html

and simply enabling the 2D->3D conversion. The Samsung's algorithms surprisingly rendered it as a flat 2D image (i.e. almost the same image was being delivered to both eyes). I just thought it was interesting and revealing about how the conversion algorithm worked. The BBC 1080p 2D test card however gets some depth added to it using the standard "bottom is closer than the top" conversion.

I haven't tried a true 1080p 3D test card but I wouldn't expect it to lose any resolution either. 3D blu-rays certainly look as crisp as their 2D counterparts, although I think it might be tricky to switch between 2D and 3D on the fly.

[scottthehat]

jason this is the 3d version.
Download SamyGO from SourceForge.net
when you download it you will only see it has the l on untill its in 3d then you get l and r.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

All i have done is put on usb stick the one you posted is not true 3d 1080p where as the other one i have got is. I will find away of uploading for you to try.

As you have an active TV then it's only possible to view "3D 1080p" via a blu-ray player (some very advanced media players can also playback ISOs directly though.)

You can however, use 2D->3D conversion (as AS describes above) to do much the same thing using the Full HD jpg I've provided - or any other true 1920 x 1080 image for that matter.

If you can upload it then I'll check it out

EDIT: I see you have - thanks

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

jason this is the 3d version.
Download SamyGO from SourceForge.net
when you download it you will only see it has the l on untill its in 3d then you get l and r.

I understand now Scott.

That .mpo does indeed display both left and right still image in 1920 x 1080.

It's not really 3D though since both images are identical (apart from the "L" and "R") so in effect it's identical to viewing the .jpg I uploaded on a passive TV whilst wearing the polarizers.

Viewing this .mpo on your Samsung simply saves you having to use the conversion button.

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

I understand now Scott.

That .mpo does indeed display both left and right still image in 1920 x 1080.

It's not really 3D though since both images are identical (apart from the "L" and "R") so in effect it's identical to viewing the .jpg I uploaded on a passive TV whilst wearing the polarizers.

Viewing this .mpo on your Samsung simply saves you having to use the conversion button.

is that what it is, so does it dispal on a passive tv when 3d is active does it display both images together or do you just see the left image.

[Jason Shouler]

Originally Posted by scottthehat

is that what it is, so does it dispal on a passive tv when 3d is active does it display both images together or do you just see the left image.

I haven't got much that knows what an .mpo is.

Neither my LG or Samsung (surprisingly) knows what it is.

However my Panasonic player was able to display it just like your image shows with the "L" and "R" only being visible to each respective eye. What I found interesting was the image was degraded compared to the Full HD version mentioned earlier (and also in the thread I mentioned previously - post #9). This would seem to be a limitation of the Panasonic player (or just possibly in the .mpo standard itself as I could still see the image degradation when I converted it to a .jpg)

Anyway, thanks for the link as this is something I wasn't aware of

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Jason Shouler

I haven't got much that knows what an .mpo is.

Neither my LG or Samsung (surprisingly) knows what it is.

However my Panasonic player was able to display it just like your image shows with the "L" and "R" only being visible to each respective eye. What I found interesting was the image was degraded compared to the Full HD version mentioned earlier (and also in the thread I mentioned previously - post #9). This would seem to be a limitation of the Panasonic player (or just possibly in the .mpo standard itself as I could still see the image degradation when I converted it to a .jpg)

Anyway, thanks for the link as this is something I wasn't aware of

my tv plays it alright my panasonic and ps3 wont reconise my usb as its formated for ntfs and not fat so i can get bigger than 4gb files on.

as for the quality of it it looks the same which other way i display it.

[Banana Rama]

active 3d is bad for your vision to be honest, i don't think anyone should be viewing it for long periods, no matter how great it is, passive 3d is much less strain so is the sensible choice even tho the resolution is less, i don't think the resolution being less in passive is really a big deal, if you want the full resolution all you have to do is switch off the 3d and take off your glasses...........

[scottthehat]

Originally Posted by Banana Rama

active 3d is bad for your vision to be honest, i don't think anyone should be viewing it for long periods, no matter how great it is, passive 3d is much less strain so is the sensible choice even tho the resolution is less, i don't think the resolution being less in passive is really a big deal, if you want the full resolution all you have to do is switch off the 3d and take off your glasses...........

Where does it say active is bad for your eyes. I think you will find that it says you should take regular breaks when watching any sort of tv as it can damage your eyes.
How is passive less strain.