I don't know why they went with that choice of glasses. I would have thought they would have used one of the other 3d technologies that didn't require 'active' glasses.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Unless they're actually projecting two images and can take advantage of polarizing filters (which is how "passive" glasses work) this wouldn't be possible. A single LCD, plasma, or tube display can't create images seen independently by each eye, so they have to use half the fields in a given frame for one eye and half with the other and have the glasses only allow through the correct fields to each eye at a specific time. You could use two calibrated projectors to get passive 3d, but most people can't use those in as many places or applications as they could use a regular television.
Yeah, well I wasn't real anxious to go 3D in my livingroom anyway.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Unless they're actually projecting two images and can take advantage of polarizing filters (which is how "passive" glasses work) this wouldn't be possible. A single LCD, plasma, or tube display can't create images seen independently by each eye, so they have to use half the fields in a given frame for one eye and half with the other and have the glasses only allow through the correct fields to each eye at a specific time.
Blu-ray 3D is apparently native 1080p, so there are no interlaced fields. I gather that the combined frame rate is twice as high as standard Blu-ray, so each eye can still be delivered full 1080p images at 24 or 30 frames per second. (But the general sense of your statement holds true.)
Blu-ray 3D is apparently native 1080p, so there are no interlaced fields. I gather that the combined frame rate is twice as high as standard Blu-ray, so each eye can still be delivered full 1080p images at 24 or 30 frames per second. (But the general sense of your statement holds true.)
Interlaced in this case isn't the same interlacing used for 1080i, which is displaying only half the resolution each frame. With two 'stereo 3D' 30 fps 1080p sources, you can output a 60 fps stream that is interlacing both stereo fields WITH EACH OTHER so each interlaced frame is full 1080 res (unlike 1080i). With the doubled amount of frames used to display the half of each stereo field that wasn't displayed the previous frame, it yields what mostly looks like 30 fps 1080p in 3-D (more accurately, EACH EYE sees a 1080i movie, but 'combined' in your mind it should look closer to a 1080p movie). So both of you are right :-)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Blu-ray 3D is apparently native 1080p, so there are no interlaced fields. I gather that the combined frame rate is twice as high as standard Blu-ray, so each eye can still be delivered full 1080p images at 24 or 30 frames per second. (But the general sense of your statement holds true.)Interlaced in this case isn't the same interlacing used for 1080i, which is displaying only half the resolution each frame. With two 'stereo 3D' 30 fps 1080p sources, you can output a 60 fps stream that is interlacing both stereo fields WITH EACH OTHER so each interlaced frame is full 1080 res (unlike 1080i). With the doubled amount of frames used to display the half of each stereo field that wasn't displayed the previous frame, it yields what mostly looks like 30 fps 1080p in 3-D (more accurately, EACH EYE sees a 1080i movie, but 'combined' in your mind it should look closer to a 1080p movie). So both of you are right :-)
Okay... so previously, "fields" were either the even lines or the odd lines of an interlaced "frame". You're saying that the new spec has changed the terminology so that what was previously known as a "frame" is now known as a "stereo field"? That's... annoying.
Ugg... Too complicated, I probably used 'stereo field' in that way when I shouldn't have... Basically that terminology is unrelated to interlaced/progressive video, but relates to the basic concept of achieving 3-D effect thru independent projection to each eye, like those old 3-d viewmaster things. Here it is minus that confusing wording:
Interlaced in this case isn't the same interlacing used for 1080i, which is displaying only half the resolution (odd/even fields) each update (60 Hz). With two left/right 'stereo 3D' 30 fps 1080p sources, you can output a 60 fps 1080p stream that is interlacing both left/right source frames WITH EACH OTHER so each 60 Hz update is full 1080p res (unlike 1080i). The doubled (60 vs. 30 Hz) amount of outputted frames allows you to display the half of each left/right source frame that wasn't displayed the previous 'tick', which should yield what mostly looks like 30 fps 1080p in 3-D (more accurately, EACH EYE sees a 1080i movie) because the continually displayed resolution is full 1080p. Even though that resolution is 'split' between your eyes, your brain should combine it to look mostly like 1080p, because 100% of the information from both 1080p sources is being displayed. So both of you are right :-)
If there's some other way to display 3-D, i.e. for each pixel to emit BOTH left/right images SIMULTANEOUSLY (with different polarization), then it WOULD just be a straight-up non-interlaced 1080p image.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If there's some other way to display 3-D, i.e. for each pixel to emit BOTH left/right images SIMULTANEOUSLY (with different polarization), then it WOULD just be a straight-up non-interlaced 1080p image.
I don't think that a single pixel can produce more than one thing at a time. That's what makes it a pixel—being the smallest possible element of a larger image. If it could produce two colors it would be two pixels. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. But again, this is splitting hairs over semantics and not discussion of the new technology itself. Given the rate at which tech evolves, I wouldn't be surprised if we have much more sophisticated and affordable 3d options in home viewing within the next five years, especially if movies like Avatar keep raising audiences' expectations of what a movie experience should represent.