4K Passive 3D TVs

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by loz, Sep 4, 2012.

  1. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    I note that the new wave of ultra-high definition 4K TVs being announced appear to be offering passive 3D, that promises to remove any lingering doubts about the performance of passive 3D

    Toshiba 55" to 84" 4K TV range
    Toshiba 84in 4K TV product preview - TV - Trusted Reviews

    Sony 84" 4K TV
    Sony KD-84X9005 84in 4K TV Review - Product Preview
     
  2. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    So does this mean LG have now lost their FPR manufacturing monopoly or have they in fact increased their lead even further by continuing to supply Toshiba - with Sony as a new customer in their ongoing passive bandwagon ?

    Did anyone ever lose interest :confused:
     
  3. Will21st

    Will21st
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Brighton
    Ratings:
    +310
    Maybe they did? I didn't,that's all I know! :)
     
  4. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    It was confirmed some time ago that LG were supplying Sony with passive 3D displays. Sony already have LG-based 42" sets on sale in China apparently.

    e.g.
    LG Supplying Passive 3D Technology to Sony and Panasonic

    And I can only assume that Sony's 84" model is using the same panel as LG's 84" as there can't exactly be many people making such beasts!

    Perhaps 4K is going to signal a wholesale switch to passive. No one AFAIK as so far demonstrated a 4K TV with active 3D - It may even be that the active switching of so many pixels is a problem, who knows?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  5. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    Yes; seems quite remarkable that LG are maintaining their manufacturing monopoly for 4K passive screens too

    I notice, reading your link, that the Samsung RealD Active system looks dead now. IMO this was a stupid concept from the outset since why would anyone think it a good idea to convert a true stereoscopic display system (2k or 4k passive) into a single channel system (with only one eye getting to see an image at any one time).
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  6. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    Except that with passive all 4k will give you from a 3d point of view is what active users have now due to the resolution drop that passive technology dictates
     
  7. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Sorry, but irrespective of any arguements about current passive vs active resolution, your statement is still incorrect.
     
  8. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    Would you care to explain?
     
  9. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    In terms of a broadcast standard then passive will deliver the maximum amount of 3D information it's possible to broadcast - which will always be more than an active system (given the same limitation in bandwidth).

    For example:

    For current HD bandwidth limitations that equates to:

    (540↔1080) x 1920

    For a true 4k HD transmission (whenever that might be possible) it becomes:

    (1080↔2160) x 3840

    (↔ = dynamic resolution variation with image content)

    If we keep the discussion to existing 3D blu-rays then the TV will almost certainly have an up-scaling capability which means that aside from the inherent advantages a true stereoscopic display provides, the image will also look sharper (for those determined to look close enough to see any difference) than current active technology can provide.
     
  10. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Because 4k doubles current full HD resolution in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. It is 3840x2160.

    Hence, even if you think passive is only half the current full HD vertical resolution (i.e. 1920x540 instead of 1920x1080) then 4K still doubles the horizontal resolution of passive the same as it would active.

    So even if the vertical resolution is still halved, a passive 4K set would still give you 3840x1080. i.e. 2x current active 3D Full HD
     
  11. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    Granted it will be much improved, but you are missing my point. It will still be an inferior experience to the full 3d 3840 by 2160 pictures that active 4k sets will give

    And let's not go down the upscale route here
     
  12. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    To recap, the fault seems to be you comparing current active to future passive. You need to compare future p to future a for your statements to have any relevancy
     
  13. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Your point was

    Now, you are moving the goal posts...

    Do active users have now full 3d 3840 by 2160?
     
  14. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    I most unfortunate turn of phrase when you consider the great majority of existing passive 2K users likely consider their present experience of 3D to be the superior variant (seem to remember LG came back with a figure like 80% although likely a little biased ;))

    In any 4k active vs passive showdown then any slight sharpness advantage that active might hold now is driven even further into insignificance. (as display resolution increases then the ability to discern any change in resolution diminishes)

    Remember too, this scenario assumes anyone bothers to make a 4K active system ( I think it would be cheap enough to do - but can't see it happening myself) and also assumes a new media standard prevails using the same frame-packed format as existing blu-rays (but 2160 x 3840). If such media isn't available then active tech has no advantage in sharpness at all - theoretical or otherwise - and if we're talking broadcast then passive already has the advantage anyway.


    From a purely theoretical viewpoint, you can keep increasing the resolution to levels way beyond anything our eyes can resolve and assuming you keep manufacturing 'super blu-rays' to match this super resolution (once again they would have to be in some form of alternate frame format to be relevant - which is not a given) then you could always say "it should look theoretically sharper on the active TV"

    If that was the point you were trying to make then I agree with you but it has no relevance to the real world.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  15. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    As you say we don't known yet. I do hope 4k active sets are made since otherwise there will be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays as there will be no tv available to view it in its native resolution.

    No doubt you know a 4k active projector is already available.

    It seems what we can agree on is the rather in unenlightening fact that future technology will be better than current :)
     
  16. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    That's actually an interesting point although it has little to do with resolution.

    Half the data on existing blu-rays is simply wasted on 2k passives (firmware dependant) and yet they still manage impressive 3D which basically proves this data isn't needed (although it is needed by active systems).

    I see no reason why future broadcast and media standards shouldn't converge and if that's the case then active tech and the blu-ray alternate frame formats could simply become a part of history.

    ...in which case there will indeed be no point in ever creating 3d 4k blu rays in the same form as we have today.... but instead develop a media format perfectly encoded for 4k passive sets.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2012
  17. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Samsung have been hawking around a prototype 70" 4K TV that uses active 3D for a couple of years now, and was at IFA again. The difference seems to be that whilst the likes of LG, Sony and Toshiba have announced actual availability for this year of their 84" passive 3D sets, the Samsung is still being shown as a prototype. Though clearly it proves it is possible.

    Note there is no resolution drop (theoretical or real) with 4K passive projection as there is no need for a filter over the display.
     
  18. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    So was that pure active or was it tied in with RealD development ?
     
  19. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    pass. Details I can find are scarce, other than it does use active shutter glasses.

    The issue for Samsung perhaps is finding other TV set manufacturers to share the 4K panel manufacturing costs with.

    If Sony and Toshiba are both using LG 4K panels and happy to accept the passive 3D that comes with them, then Samsung may struggle to produce active 4K panels economically.

    Though I would be surprised if in time we don't see a mix of active and passive 3d 4K displays as we do today. It is easy to understand why Sony and Toshiba would simply reuse LGs 84" passive panels as who else is making anything that size, and they are not going to make them themselves. And Samsung have nothing to offer either.

    But for more conventional sizes - say 50-60" 4K TVs for which there is bound to be a decent market, I can't imagine they will not have a choice of passive LG displays or active Samsung displays.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2012
  20. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    I'm inclined to disagree on that point loz. It's pointless to manufacture a product if you don't have a market for it - and who would ever buy a 4k active shutter system when a 4k passive system is already available - unless of course it was substantially cheaper.

    With 2k sets, active manufacturers were able to add 3D fairly cheaply to any existing 2D panel (I'd class that as the main advantage of active tech) and thereby make good in-roads (and profits) within the 3D market place. Remember too, LG were on the back foot during a good part of this period (and indeed still happy to profit from active sales)

    With LG having already invested in a production line for 4k 84" FPR screens then this time they are in an extremely dominant position from the outset - and we all know what volume production can do for unit pricing. :)
     
  21. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    Why would anyone buy a 4k active system? In order to view 4k 3d material which they can't view in the native resolution on a 4k passive system.

    Surely you can't struggle to see this?
     
  22. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    As explained previously passive 4k will deliver 2160 x 3840 in 2D and (>1080&#8596;<2160) x 3840 in 3D using pretty much the same bandwidth i.e. it doesn't do alternate frame format.

    Thus it can display 4k 3D material in just the same way that current 2k passives can display Full HD 3D material.

    When considering the double bandwidth provided by the the 3D blu-ray format then I agree this should give an active display a slight advantage in image sharpness. (it's nonsensical to compare resolution because you can't state what it is when viewed - but you can correctly state the bandwidth difference)

    However, I'd be very surprised if it's even possible to notice any difference at sensible viewing distances. Many people consider the difference's on 2k systems as an irrelevance, which few notice anyway, so what on earth do you expect their view to be when viewing a 4k system :rolleyes:

    Even assuming one might purchase a set based purely on a theoretical advantage alone - you seriously think they'd settle for all the negatives that go with that purchase. You'd be choosing a single channel display against a true stereoscopic one leading to an inferior viewing experience due to increased cross-talk, flicker and reduced brightness - not to mention the potential headaches that many suffer from.

    These are not just my comments but are repeated on the review sites at the start of this thread.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2012
  23. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    It seems rather myopic :))) to consider only one factor of the viewing experience - theoretical ultimate resolution - as the be all and end all of what makes one system "better" than another.
     
  24. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    I give up. You guys consistently choose to misunderstand. If you won't notice the difference in reduction then fine, go with what you think is best.

    As you know from my previous posts I have both active and passive sets and side by side the difference is very noticeable. You don't want to accept that, but that's your choice.

    I cannot see why anyone would pay, let's face it what will initially be substantial costs for a 4k set and yet not have the highest quality 3d available
     
  25. dazza3

    dazza3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    757
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    However Jasons quote of 'half the data on blu ray is wasted on current passives' sic is a quote we can use time and again whenever anyone asks 'can my passive display full hd 3d'
     
  26. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    Well I give up too.

    Is resolution the only important factor in the viewing experience? Is not brightness a factor, flickering, etc, etc,

    My daughter wont even watch 3D on our active display as she says the glasses are too heavy and keep slipping down her nose.

    Resolution is kinda irrelevant to her viewing experience don't you think?

    And no, I don't "choose to misunderstand" as I haven't suggested anywhere that their isn't a resolution drop in passive. Rather, I am considering the viewing experience as a whole, which if I am going to sit in front of a film for two hours is rather important to me, than just looking at one aspect of it - resolution - and then ignoring any other factors as if they dont matter.

    Frankly, the main problem with passive isn't the resolution, but the low quality and conformity of the LED/LCD panels in comparison to Plasma (which are all active) with light bleeding, low contrast, dirty screen effect, etc - all of which can be much more distracting than any percieved drop in resolution. I am happy with the 42" Panasonic passive set we have in the family room, but PQ wise, much happier with the 50" Panasonic plasma in the lounge. But if I watch Avatar 3D on either of them, I can't see much difference resolution wise, but I don't go looking for it either...
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2012
  27. Jason Shouler

    Jason Shouler
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,135
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    POOLE
    Ratings:
    +162
    So what's the relationship between those two quotes - do you just think you know or do you really know.?

    Passive can be defined as Full HD for no other reason that when defined as a display device it can be shown to display 1080 unique lines of information in 3D mode.

    To give examples of sets which can't be so defined:

    1. Any set that has less than 1080 display lines
    2. Samsung series 6 LCDs can't due a firmware issue.
    The quote concerning bandwidth simply address how passive generates a 3D image and conveys how economical the passive system is in it's use of data.

    You should note that there is NO correlation between the two statements in a 'resolution' context.

    However, given that fact that when playing a 3D blu-ray active uses twice the data then it must be accepted that IT IS capable of producing a sharper image. This I've never disputed but I do tend to take exception to people using the term "lower resolution" which I consider very ambiguous (do they mean 'half'* or do they mean something else - and if so what exactly ?)

    * it's very easy to prove if can't be 'half'


    dazza3, I personally would find your comments about your two sets very interesting especially when it comes down to specific viewing experiences (e.g. how much 3D do you watch?) but I tend to find your posts almost intentionally provocative a lot of the time - sometimes to the point when I wonder if you might work for Samsung ;)


    In truth, all of us are just after a bit of friendly discussion. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2012
  28. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    We are likely to be waiting a long time until we would be able to see full bandwidth 4K 3D active in the home.
    It is difficult enough perceiving how they will even enable 4K 2D in the home for for some time given the storage requirements for a 4K film.

    But there are good reasons why manufacturers are now producing 4K passive 3D displays.

    http://www.techradar.com/news/television/tv/why-4k-isnt-ready-to-replace-hd-1065703

    Even Sony it seems are looking at 4K as a way of "avoiding the requirement for active shutter glasses" as a key selling point.
     
  29. Scooby2000

    Scooby2000
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,549
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Ratings:
    +2,469
    Wow guys, a lot of interesting wording going on my brains doing back flips.
    I agree fully with this last paragraph, the main issue for me with passive is its LCD only and I for one will be hoping plasma can hang in there long enough to be 4k.
    Then the time it will take to have storage for true 4K 3D both tech will likely be dead lol.

    Sorry was just passing and had to post.:)
     
  30. loz

    loz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    13,062
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,787
    You can buy a 4K Panasonic Plasma now if you want one.
    Panasonic TH-152UX1 3D Plasma Display - 3D Plasma Television

    Small matter of £380,000 though...
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice