Auto-stereoscopic 3DTV (3D Without Glasses) - Going Backwards in Image Quality for the sake of Depth? (Part 2)

[Rodolfo]

The HDTV industry currently has consumer 3D panels and projectors that require 3D active shutter or passive glasses. 3D depth may be attractive but in one way or another they all sacrifice original resolution, luminance or image quality with new artifacts for the sake of displaying a 3D image.

Even 3D Blu-ray displayed with active shutter glasses looses luminance because only one eye is seeing the corresponding image at the time, in addition to the darkness created by the 3D glasses.

One recent review of a Panasonic plasma 3DTV...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2010/09/autostereoscopic-3dtv-3d-without-glasses-going-backwards-in-image-quality-for-the-sake-of-depth-part-2.php]Read Article[/url]

[terrypaullin]

Rudolfo - Congrats on a fine series of articles on the new magic elixir, 3D, although you and I might be the only (admitted) contrarians. Clearly the CE Industry is "all in". People who really care, should know the truth. 3D has a long way to go before it is ready for Prime Time, and while I have seen enough in our industry not to say it won't be good someday, for 2010, the industry labeled "Year of 3D", it may just be biggest consumer DUPE ever. CAVEAT EMPTOR folks. - Terry Paullin

[perfectinght]

You two are hardly the "only (admitted) contrarians," although certainly in the minority among published consumer market commentators. Most consumers don't consider image fidelity and reference picture quality to be a very high priority. That can also be said for far too many consumer AV writers and purveyors. The latest fad, considered 'cool' or new, gets the dominant media attention. Novelty or convenience seems to rule over excellence in my experience. What temporarily dazzles gets more notice than what genuinely inspires. H. L. Mencken got it right a long time ago when he wrote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

That said, every technological advancement has to start somewhere. Perhaps the income generated by clumsy early attempts will serve to advance refinements at a faster pace. I recall Joe Kane writing of the likely continuation of poor NTSC television product implementation into the HDTV era. Many of the same mistakes are made today in the age of HD. However, I don't recall anyone anticipating so rapid a shift into 1080p implementation in consumer video. For me, 3D is an entertaining novelty. I much prefer a well composed 2D motion picture experience. I'll still sell what buyers want, but at the same time I'll keep advocating/educating on behalf of better quality and image/sound fidelity. The fundamentals of quality viewing will satisfy more reliably than the ever changing whims of the market place.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

[BuddAdams]

I saw a 3D Samsung and was dazzled! Next went to our first of a series of 3D films and the loss in image quality was such a downer. I'm sure Blu-Ray shutter glasses are the only way to go as of now. The glassless systems described sound like utter lunacy: What an incredibly anti social devise! Your wife comes into the room and the image quality is halved! This is so stupid I cannot believe it. Maybe a 1024 fps TV could make it work, but that will be a while.

[Rodolfo]

Actually it would be more antisocial if the 3DTV would NOT adjust at all and always let only one person see 3D while the others see double images. Your wife would not be joining you with popcorn ever on that solo home theater; THAT is antisocial.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Richard]

...although you and I might be the only (admitted) contrarians.

Throw me in that list too!

The change to HD was a night and day revelation for most of us. Indeed, it would not have been successful otherwise.

In many ways we are a 2D species. Sure, we have 3D capability but with distance, our vision and sense of space reverts to 2D interpretation and that is part and parcel of the art and cinematography that presents us with pictures of our world. I am referring to 3D cues within any 2D image and elaboration would be an article itself.

It has been stated thousands of times by the first time HDTV owner viewing HD content; it looks 3D as if I am there; it looks real. Indeed, with proper screen brightness and good dynamic range that is the optical illusion of 2D HD.

2D HD allows for an active experience. You can look at the focal point of the image or at other areas. Your eyes maintain the same depth relationship and are never confused, yet due to 3D cues the optical illusion remains in full play.

Current 3D technology does not allow that and requires passive viewing to prevent eye strain or headaches; maintaining your focal point on the center of the action. 3D cues for a 2D image remain part and parcel of this system and if you try to bring those elements into focus, a natural 3D human response under the guise of a force fed 3D experience, you will suffer from eye strain and/or headaches. As Alan points out, from there 3D image performance just goes downhill yet I do think those are problems that will have solutions. Nonetheless, it is debatable if enough people care or even want to be aware to care.

This implementation of 3D is not natural because it does not allow the natural 3D language of our vision system to participate. I wonder often times if this will come back to bite those involved. We won't know the long term affects for a very long time.

What is clear is that all business parties involved want 3D to enhance their fiscal income and opportunity, and the primary objective sure appears to be about following the money, for without that 3D would serve no purpose. This financial juggernaut is being unleashed before us, whether we really want it or not, whether it really serves us or not.

From that angle, 3D implementation sure seems to be on the opposite side of HD implementation. HD was all about a vision of better images for the good of the world, and had to be pushed and pushed by relentless visionaries upon a world that did not care to take it on because the world could not be shown the money at the time.

[pmalter0]

Here is a post I wrote in another forum; I don't think I have to add anything other than inviting the doubters to my place for a drink:

"I spent much of the last weekend watching/listening/experiencing AIX Records 3-D BD Goldberg Variations. And now I am looking for proper words to describe it. First, every one of you who loves music must buy it. When you get it home, darken your TV room, place a chair 1 to 1 1/2 screen sizes from your set, pour a glass of Grand Marnier (or whatever your favorite libation is (or a joint, if you have one)) go to "chapter" number six(Variation # 4)(the whole disc is excellent, but six/seven is a great initial experience)-- and experience a whole new world. After you do that, you will fall on the floor laughing at anyone who says 3-D is not worth the cost/effort. Have you ever been a part of a jam session? What was the best live musical experience of your life? Well, you can now go there again in your own home. What is that experience worth? This is true virtual reality-- you experience it -- not watch it. This is not a new form of television -- this is a whole new world."