Out of curiosity what makes a 3D capable TV... well, 3D capable?

[SunnyD]

I noticed that the current buzz in TV is 3D. I also recall back when 3D was starting, the only thing that was ever mention was that it had to be 120Hz.

So what differentiates now a TV versus a 3D capable TV?

(Shopping for TV's soon, so I'm curious)

 

[queequeg99]

I noticed that the current buzz in TV is 3D. I also recall back when 3D was starting, the only thing that was ever mention was that it had to be 120Hz.

So what differentiates now a TV versus a 3D capable TV?

(Shopping for TV's soon, so I'm curious)

As you note, a 120Hz refresh rate is the minimum required. Note that if you get this minimum, you are getting a refresh rate of just 60Hz per eye. So if you like the smoothness of a 120Hz set in 2d, you might not be happy with a 120Hz in 3d. Set manufacturers are coming out with 240Hz sets (to enable 120Hz per eye). As always, view these things in person before buying so you know what you're getting yourself into.

Also, I've seen an HDMI 1.4 requirement as well. Note that this shouldn't apply to the cables you use (which, at this point, should not mention numerical HDMI standards at all). Any High Speed HDMI cable should work (with or without ethernet capabilities). So you might not have to get new cables (depending on the length of the run and the quality of your current cables). But transmission and receiving devices are different than cables and I'm not sure what 3D-specific functionality HDMI 1.4 offer for such devices (just that the HDMI.org site indicates that this standard specifies some standard 3D display formats of some type).

 

[her209]

Been wondering that myself.

 

[HeXen]

As you note, a 120Hz refresh rate is the minimum required. Note that if you get this minimum, you are getting a refresh rate of just 60Hz per eye. So if you like the smoothness of a 120Hz set in 2d, you might not be happy with a 120Hz in 3d. Set manufacturers are coming out with 240Hz sets (to enable 120Hz per eye). As always, view these things in person before buying so you know what you're getting yourself into.

seems to depend on the panel moresoe than anything else. i don't think 240hz is a true 120hz per eye though, no more than a 60hz tv with 120hz "motionflow". in reality its still 60hz per eye, just fast scenes look smoother....they have so much marketing bs going on in those things, its impossible to tell whats really what anymore. reminds me of those 40000000000:1 contrast ratio's. lol

 

[SunnyD]

So basically it sounds to me like any 120Hz panel would be 3d capable. Good to know.

 

[smitbret]

So basically it sounds to me like any 120Hz panel would be 3d capable. Good to know.

No, any 3D capable panel will be at least 120Hz, but not every 120Hz tv will be 3D capable.

 

[SunnyD]

No, any 3D capable panel will be at least 120Hz, but not every 120Hz tv will be 3D capable.

Explain then.

 

[queequeg99]

Explain then.

I suppose it is possible to find sets that support 120Hz rates but which aren't HDMI 1.4 compliant.

Here is a link to the hdmi.org site that provides a little more insight into how the 1.4 standard and 3d are related:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/3d.aspx

 

[HeXen]

my tv says 120hz...but its actually 60hz

 

[Ross Ridge]

Explain then.

It needs to be able accept a 3D format input and then display it synchronized it with the 3D glasses. (Or with passive glasses, it needs to have special polarizing filters in the display.)

A 120 HZ TV without 3D support just interpolates 60 HZ video into 120 HZ. Most don't accept 120 HZ inputs, let alone any kind of 3D input.

 

[Tegeril]

A 120 HZ TV without 3D support just interpolates 60 HZ video into 120 HZ. Most don't accept 120 HZ inputs, let alone any kind of 3D input.

This. The two crucial things you need are:

1. Can your TV's panel refresh at 120Hz or higher?
2. Can your TV process a signal at 120Hz or higher?

Most of the early 120/240Hz TVs could only accept a 60Hz signal (or 59 or 30 or 29, 24, etc) and interpolate frames up to 120 or 240.

Beyond that is specific handling for certain devices, HDMI 1.4, etc.

 

[bigsnyder]

I don't remember the source, but not all 3D is equal. Some modes (I'm assuming inferior) will function with HDMI 1.3 interconnects, however whether this works with any HDMI 1.3 TV is unknown. Your best source would be avsforum.com. Lots of discussion on this very subject.

 

[0roo0roo]

expensive glasses :awe:

but srsly, faster response and higher brightness.
some lcds kinda are slow until they heat up apparently, making them even worse for 3d.

 

[BD2003]

This. The two crucial things you need are:

1. Can your TV's panel refresh at 120Hz or higher?
2. Can your TV process a signal at 120Hz or higher?

Most of the early 120/240Hz TVs could only accept a 60Hz signal (or 59 or 30 or 29, 24, etc) and interpolate frames up to 120 or 240.

Beyond that is specific handling for certain devices, HDMI 1.4, etc.

120hz is the absolute bare minimum you'd need, but AFAIK all 3D LCDs are 240hz. In order to prevent flicker, the shutter glasses switch eyes twice per frame. So each eye sees each frame twice. Furthermore, unless the panel has a sufficient response time, there will be a lot of crosstalk because the pixels can't react fast enough. This is why 3D LCDs are limited to the really high end now, because while 120hz might be the theoretical minimum, the realistic minimum is a high quality, fast response panel, 240hz or more.

Plasma is a different story of course. Much better suited to 3D.

 

[Emulex]

huh?
you can do 3D many ways:

frame interlacing: running at half frame rate. this causes alot of flicker but is doable. green/red glasses - yup you can do that too.

why would you run 120hz for a 24p movie?

hdmi 1.4 lets you transmit a full 1080p screen twice at the same time which older hdmi isn't capable of - so they would send half a screen at a time (left/right or up/down) to get half resolution 3dtv - honestly most people wouldn't notice the difference but both halves are being sent at one time and the screen switches it at the appropriate rate to get the best effect.

however the phosphor or GTG response time is critical with those active shutter glasses or you get nasty ghosting. I think this in itself is the most important factor with current gen.

3D with active shutter really sucks. LG has passive shutter LCD tech already. i'd wait.

read the warning label on a 3D box of active shutter glasses - its worse than a smoking warning. so much so that LG recommends against using them and they still sell them.

reminds me of the jerk - the glasses holder he invented. i suspect class-action will be coming.

i was born a poor.. (lol)

 

[BD2003]

huh?
you can do 3D many ways:

frame interlacing: running at half frame rate. this causes alot of flicker but is doable. green/red glasses - yup you can do that too.

why would you run 120hz for a 24p movie?

hdmi 1.4 lets you transmit a full 1080p screen twice at the same time which older hdmi isn't capable of - so they would send half a screen at a time (left/right or up/down) to get half resolution 3dtv - honestly most people wouldn't notice the difference but both halves are being sent at one time and the screen switches it at the appropriate rate to get the best effect.

however the phosphor or GTG response time is critical with those active shutter glasses or you get nasty ghosting. I think this in itself is the most important factor with current gen.

3D with active shutter really sucks. LG has passive shutter LCD tech already. i'd wait.

read the warning label on a 3D box of active shutter glasses - its worse than a smoking warning. so much so that LG recommends against using them and they still sell them.

reminds me of the jerk - the glasses holder he invented. i suspect class-action will be coming.

i was born a poor.. (lol)

Active shutter works very well on plasma. Not so much on LCD.

 

[camera3d]

I read here the Plasma is best for 3D, but what about LED TV?

 

[BD2003]

I read here the Plasma is best for 3D, but what about LED TV?

Led is just a type of backlighting use on higher end LCDs. It has a number of advantages over fluorescent backlighting, but none of them help with 3D. If 3d is a primary concern at all, plasma is your only realistic choice for flat panel. DLP can be good for projection as well.

 

[HeXen]

i don't think Plasma's have very good life spans though. They use more energy too i think. i have one and it gets very hot, i hear they may only last 3-5 years...i'm sure it depends. mine is 2 yrs old and doesnt look any better to me than LCD but its not 3d of course.

 

[0roo0roo]

I read here the Plasma is best for 3D, but what about LED TV?

The backlight wasn't the issue, lcd panel is slow. led is nothing more than the light behind the panel which is the actual technology that matters. if the pixels don't move fast enough you get a mess, and even now it seems that if they aren't warmed up they perform even worse. it doesn't matter in 2d, a bit of blur is not easily noticable, but the requirements of showing two separate different frames in quick succession is far harder a task than bluring one image smoothly into another like with standard 2d.

i don't think Plasma's have very good life spans though. They use more energy too i think. i have one and it gets very hot, i hear they may only last 3-5 years...i'm sure it depends. mine is 2 yrs old and doesnt look any better to me than LCD but its not 3d of course.

um no, you get your information from 10 years ago? standard lifespan of plasmas is long enough that it is non factor. You are talking 17+ years, by the time it breaks based ont he life span estimates it will be worth less than nothing. modern plasmas also use far less power than before as wel, you are about a dozen generations of plasmas out of date.

 

[sdifox]

do not buy 3DTV yet, it is still maturing. Word is naked eye 3D will be out soon.

 

[HeXen]

um no, you get your information from 10 years ago? standard lifespan of plasmas is long enough that it is non factor. You are talking 17+ years, by the time it breaks based ont he life span estimates it will be worth less than nothing. modern plasmas also use far less power than before as wel, you are about a dozen generations of plasmas out of date.

well i looked it up, but sounds like life is more like 7 yrs. not 17+. Both still have advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.cnet.com.au/plasma-vs-lcd-which-is-right-for-you-240036500.htm

LCD has the edge over plasma in several other key areas. LCDs tend to have higher native resolution than plasmas of similar size, which means more pixels on a screen.
LCDs also tend to consume less power than plasma screens, with some of the newer "Eco" LCD panels able to use half of the power than equivalent plasmas, with the trade-off being lower brightness.
In terms of bulk, LCDs are also generally lighter than similar-sized plasmas, making it easier to move around or wall mount. This is because LCDs use plastic in their screen make-up whereas plasmas tend to use glass.
LCD pundits point to the belief that LCDs have a longer lifespan than plasma screens. This may have been true of earlier plasma models, which would lose half of their brightness after more than 20,000 hours of viewing. However, many plasmas available on the market today quote a lifespan of about 60,000 hours, which is the same as LCD. This means they will last for almost seven years

 

[Emulex]

LG has new technology this year for LCD (oddly not plasma) to get rid of active shutter. trust me passive shutter is 1000000x better.

 

[BD2003]

LG has new technology this year for LCD (oddly not plasma) to get rid of active shutter. trust me passive shutter is 1000000x better.

How is losing half the resolution 1000000x better?

 

[queequeg99]

well i looked it up, but sounds like life is more like 7 yrs. not 17+. Both still have advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.cnet.com.au/plasma-vs-lcd-which-is-right-for-you-240036500.htm

Given that the lifetime estimates in that CNET article are based on non-stop usage (i.e. not turning to set off for 7 years), it is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of owners will replace a TV made with either technology for a variety of other reasons long before screen dimming becomes a problem (e.g. the set breaks for some unexpected reason, something newer and shinier has come on the market, etc.).

I have a job that takes up about ten hours of each weekday (including commuting) and I sleep about 8 hours a day. Assuming I have no contact with my wife and kids (pretty easy since I will have given up showering as well) and order all my food delivered (no time for grocery shopping), that leaves me with 62 hours a week to watch TV (or a little over 18 years).