I heard about that. And now am confused. And if it's just like passive on 4K and 8K sets, what would be the advantage to have active 3D on those? Why would they even bother making active 3D 4K and 8K sets?
Is it true that even with 4K and 8K active 3D sets, the resolution still remains 1080p?
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 5K
Depends on the maker, some have passive others have active glasses. My Samsung 8550 has Active Glasses.
That's not what I asked. Somebody on AVSforum told me that even with 4K with active 3D the resolution on the 3D still remains 1080p (3840 x 1080p to be more specific). It would still be 4K 2160p on 2D images, I guess though.
http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-with-passive-3d-finally-a-good-use-for-all-those-pixels/
Now the article is on passive 3D delivering up to:
The issue of course is that there is not a 4k 3D streaming or Blu Ray out yet. So, we will not know for a while.
But would a 4K active 3D TV be 3840 x 2160p 3D resolution, or would it only be 3840 x 1080p 3D resolution???
There are no movies out in 4K 3D. There won't be until towards the end of 2015. Anything out now is 1920X1080 and would be scaled to however the TV handles 3D. Every manufacturer so far has handled things differently. Even Son'y 900A series handled 3D signals differently between the 55 and 65 inch sets of the same line. Slow down and wait for the specs to be released. Everything you've been asking about glassesless 3D, 4K 3D are 1 year or more out.
What I've heard is that Sony 4K projectors (VPL-VW600ES and possibly some TV sets too) were shown to downgrade the resolution to 1080p when in 3D mode. At least that was the case initially, and according to some reports that has been addressed with a firmware update. Don't know the details, but that's what I've heard.
I would guess that someone is speculating that the active glasses are limited to some vertical resolution. This is hooey as the frame rate is independent of the resolution. If the glasses can flash 24, 30 , 48 or 60 times a second, they're good to go for any conceivable resolution.
Ilya- I just bought a VPL VW665ES. I still don't have a 4K disk player but the Samsung is on order. If there is anything you would like me to check out, shoot me a PM. So far the upconvert on the 665 is amazing.
As for 4K 2D movies, many are using a 2K intermediate and then mastered to 4K. If you want true 4K with HDR, you have to verify the disk was mastered with a 4K intermediate.
Here is a site where you can start doing some research.
www.realorfake4k.com
3D active glasses has nothing to do with resolution or frame rate. The sync rate for active glasses is either 120 or 240 Hz. I believe DLP uses 144 Hz but I may be wrong on that. The faster the sync rate the less you see flicker from 60 Hz room lighting. Some people suffer badly with eye fatigue with active glasses flicker. A few can even trigger epileptic seizures. Most people can easily tolerate active 3D glasses so if you want high quality, active is the way to go.
The advantage of active glasses is viewing with no degradation of resolution as you get with Passive glasses panels. Passive projectors do not suffer resolution reduction, but they require much more powerful lighting and special silver screen.
I just had a flashback to ad in an old gentleman's magazine about one of the very early front projection TV systems with everyone trying to crowd into the sweet spot to view the image on an argent-colored "dish".
I can say this for a fact, I love the passive 3D on my 2160p OLED (1080p to each eye). This is great flat panel tech for 3D, period.
Obviously, you have a vested interest in thinking very highly your substantial investment.
Obviously, you have a vested interest in thinking very highly your substantial investment.
LOL, can you post anything that isn't ridiculous? Sure, I love passive 3D because my display cost a lot and I feel the need to justify it.
Keep on trolling, troll...
So OLED has personal attacks going for it?
Why not offer some objective justification for your claims of relative awesomeness? As has already been established regarding UHD, higher resolution doesn't appear to be enough.
Regardless of his dozens of TVs over the last couple of years, he has been one of the biggest naysayers of 3D. For him to like it is saying something.
I love my passive 3D LG monitor in my edit suite. It is excellent for editing since it is comfortable to view for very long periods of time without fatigue.
Aside from the reduced resolution as a result of the passive screen technology as compared to an active screen, I would say it doesn't really show up in a 55" or smaller monitor at normal viewing distances. The real disadvantage of a passive technology is the viewing angle is critical for good 3D convergence and lack of ghosts ( double images ). With active you have none of this critical viewing angle. For a solo viewing experience like I do in editing, I can optimize my viewing angle for best 3D, but for a home theater with several viewers, a Passive could be a problem. Also, I would not have a passive monitor larger than 55"
Interesting story- A relative bought a Vizio 46" Passive and complained to me the 3D was awful. I went to their home and immediately saw what the problem was. The TV was wall mounted high so the seated viewing was about 20° below the screen. Fortunately the wall mount they bought allowed the TV to tilt down. I angled the TV so their viewing was perpendicular to the screen and the 3D cleared right up. They were surprised this was such a simple fix, but the wife, being a really fussy home maker insisted the TV not be angled like that, so they just avoid 3D.
So why did they mount the TV so high? Well, they love to watch sports and invite guests over to watch the games. Most of the time the guests are walking around and not sitting so they wanted the TV high so people could see it while standing around. I respect everyone has their priorities. But many time these priorities are not friendly to the technology.
Aside from the reduced resolution as a result of the passive screen technology as compared to an active screen, I would say it doesn't really show up in a 55" or smaller monitor at normal viewing distances. The real disadvantage of a passive technology is the viewing angle is critical for good 3D convergence and lack of ghosts ( double images ). With active you have none of this critical viewing angle. For a solo viewing experience like I do in editing, I can optimize my viewing angle for best 3D, but for a home theater with several viewers, a Passive could be a problem. Also, I would not have a passive monitor larger than 55"
Interesting story- A relative bought a Vizio 46" Passive and complained to me the 3D was awful. I went to their home and immediately saw what the problem was. The TV was wall mounted high so the seated viewing was about 20° below the screen. Fortunately the wall mount they bought allowed the TV to tilt down. I angled the TV so their viewing was perpendicular to the screen and the 3D cleared right up. They were surprised this was such a simple fix, but the wife, being a really fussy home maker insisted the TV not be angled like that, so they just avoid 3D.
So why did they mount the TV so high? Well, they love to watch sports and invite guests over to watch the games. Most of the time the guests are walking around and not sitting so they wanted the TV high so people could see it while standing around. I respect everyone has their priorities. But many time these priorities are not friendly to the technology.
I missed this somehow, but you summed me up. I was NOT a fan on the plasma's, but I have found myself to prefer 3D even over UHD on the LG OLED. Passive 1080p to each eye is outstanding on the 2160p display and would have probably done more to suck people in.
I watched all of Gods of Egypt in UHD and some in 3D when I grabbed that version, as a test. Id just rather watch the 3D and I found the same on The Martian. So, I sold my UHD player and 5 discs today on AVS... My OLED does not offer a lot of HDR calibration options and I prefer the 2D/3D cal'd mode better. I'll just wait until I buy tv #13 to give it a shot again
It sucks Batman v Superman 3D edition is not the Director's Cut. I guess I'll be watching 2D for that one...
gadgetfreek-
I understand that your LG has both Dolby Vision and HDR10 ( the HDR standard ) Supposedly DV is now available on Netflix and HDR10 on Marco Polo on Netflix. How do they compare?
I watched the 2D Blu Ray of Gods of Egypt in Sony upscale last night and the image was fantastic. The 3D disk in the box was cracked so I'll need to wait for a replacement. I can't imagine the 4K version of Gods of Egypt looking better since it is supposed to be a 2K upconvert for the 4K release anyway. Curious as to whether it is worth buying vs. the 2K BR I have now.
Until things shake out with the standards for UHD I don't plan on buying any more UHD disks unless they are true 4K all the way and UHD10. You are probably wise to get rid of your player now and wait for one that has Dolby Vision capability.
I understand that your LG has both Dolby Vision and HDR10 ( the HDR standard ) Supposedly DV is now available on Netflix and HDR10 on Marco Polo on Netflix. How do they compare?
I watched the 2D Blu Ray of Gods of Egypt in Sony upscale last night and the image was fantastic. The 3D disk in the box was cracked so I'll need to wait for a replacement. I can't imagine the 4K version of Gods of Egypt looking better since it is supposed to be a 2K upconvert for the 4K release anyway. Curious as to whether it is worth buying vs. the 2K BR I have now.
Until things shake out with the standards for UHD I don't plan on buying any more UHD disks unless they are true 4K all the way and UHD10. You are probably wise to get rid of your player now and wait for one that has Dolby Vision capability.
Don, my OLED model was released in Sept 2016 and had to get an HDR10 SW update in Fall 2016. It does not have DV, the 2016 models that are selling now do.
To be honest, as a plasma guy, 2D and 3D blu-ray look so good on this thing I just don't find myself that concerned about UHD after trying it out. Looking at the 2016 models which are much more accurate in HDR mode, and offer more calibration control, I think the 17's and 18 models will have DV and HDR sorted out a little better. The big issue is they all have color gamut issues in HDR mode. The OLED MSRP has not come down any from last year any, so I don't see myself spending that kinda $$$ unless it is every other year. For the time being I am going to focus my disc spending back on 3D. Now that I have figured out how to get 3D titles that companies like Disney refuse to release in the US, I'll be able to get more.
To be honest, as a plasma guy, 2D and 3D blu-ray look so good on this thing I just don't find myself that concerned about UHD after trying it out. Looking at the 2016 models which are much more accurate in HDR mode, and offer more calibration control, I think the 17's and 18 models will have DV and HDR sorted out a little better. The big issue is they all have color gamut issues in HDR mode. The OLED MSRP has not come down any from last year any, so I don't see myself spending that kinda $$$ unless it is every other year. For the time being I am going to focus my disc spending back on 3D. Now that I have figured out how to get 3D titles that companies like Disney refuse to release in the US, I'll be able to get more.
but is now 2017 i must know when u put a 3d bluray to a active shutter 4k 3d tv what resolution do u get 3840x2160p or 3840x1080p or something els cus passive does 3840x1080p cus gets cut down so one would think a active tv get the 2160p or does it just get 3840x1080p like passive plz help
