3D TV converters
 

I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added to
the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

Seems the day of the gadget is dead.

Gary

--
This email is Private and Confidential
This e-mail has been virus checked by Mcafee Virus Scan.
Telephone calls may be recorded for quality assurance and security purposes.
Shopping -- get your hit @ www.asmailorder.co.uk www.asmailorder.com

3D TV converters
 

"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

Yes, if and only if you could find a TV without any fancy motion
compensation, interpolation for 120Hz or more display etc. etc. that so many
have now.


Seems the day of the gadget is dead.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

3D TV converters
 

"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Another possibility for might be a 3D converter for "side by side" 3D, with
special prismatic glasses that made your field of view converge without you
having to cross your eyes yourself. You would have to sit twice as close to
the screen, half the screen area would be wasted, and the resolution would
reduce to SD. But it would work, and it could be cheap.

The prism glasses would have to be carefully designed for a specific viewing
distance so as not to cross your vision too much, and be supplied with dire
warnings not to attempt to walk or do any other activity other than watching
3DTV while wearing them.

(You can produce a similar effect with one of those fresnel sheet magnifiers
from a stationery shop if you hold it right in front of your face.)

3D TV converters
 

In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Been there, done that and no, it doesn't!

I used a standard 50Hz video system to produce the stereo video system
that was used for a lot of the underwater footage during the raising of
The Mary Rose back in the early 80's. It was also used for stereo
vision on North Sea Oil submersibles. That system just put odd and even
fields to each eye, blanking the unused field, and there wasn't a hint
of flicker, let alone epileptic fits. Simple analogue switches operated
by field identification resulted in video which was easily recordable &
also broadcast compatible - as demonstrated by TVS when they broadcast
demo footage of this and other stereo systems around 1985/6. No reports
of epileptic fits or flicker problems were received - just complaints
from people who didn't get free filtered specs* in their TV Times that
week!

Its a funny old thing human visual perception - I was surprised myself
how easy it was to view with only 25Hz on each eye and how quickly you
became totally immersed in the footage. In those days colour cameras
were much lower resolution than equivalent B&W cameras, so we had one
system which used a colour camera and a high bandwidth B&W camera as a
stereo pair. Surprisingly, you perceived a full colour image at much
higher resolution than the colour camera can reproduce - along with
depth perception and, again, not a hint of flicker.

*The coloured glasses were only required for the demo broadcast - the
source system used circularly polarised filters on CRTs and matching
polarised glasses for viewing.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

3D TV converters
 

In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes
In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Been there, done that and no, it doesn't!

I used a standard 50Hz video system to produce the stereo video system
that was used for a lot of the underwater footage during the raising of
The Mary Rose back in the early 80's. It was also used for stereo
vision on North Sea Oil submersibles. That system just put odd and
even fields to each eye, blanking the unused field, and there wasn't a
hint of flicker, let alone epileptic fits. Simple analogue switches
operated by field identification resulted in video which was easily
recordable & also broadcast compatible - as demonstrated by TVS when
they broadcast demo footage of this and other stereo systems around
1985/6. No reports of epileptic fits or flicker problems were received
- just complaints from people who didn't get free filtered specs* in
their TV Times that week!

Its a funny old thing human visual perception - I was surprised myself
how easy it was to view with only 25Hz on each eye and how quickly you
became totally immersed in the footage. In those days colour cameras
were much lower resolution than equivalent B&W cameras, so we had one
system which used a colour camera and a high bandwidth B&W camera as a
stereo pair. Surprisingly, you perceived a full colour image at much
higher resolution than the colour camera can reproduce - along with
depth perception and, again, not a hint of flicker.

*The coloured glasses were only required for the demo broadcast - the
source system used circularly polarised filters on CRTs and matching
polarised glasses for viewing.

Speaking of human visual perception,

http://www.itproportal.com/portal/ne...x-million-brit
s-cant-see-3d/
--
Ian

3D TV converters
 

At 19:33:13 Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Stephen wrote:

Another possibility for might be a 3D converter for "side by side" 3D, with
special prismatic glasses that made your field of view converge without you
having to cross your eyes yourself.

The cross-eyed method doesn't work with the side-by-side 3D demos now
being broadcast on Eurobird 9E (3DsatTV and 3DV) and Astra 23.5E, since
these use the "parallel" format whereby the left and right halves of the
screen are intended for the left and right eyes. Going cross-eyed does,
however, work with the "crossed" nvidia 3D format.

You would have to sit twice as close to
the screen, half the screen area would be wasted, and the resolution would
reduce to SD. But it would work, and it could be cheap.

Yes, it does work and it's cheap. I've been using mirrors rather than
prisms with satisfactory results - but you do need to sit closer to the
screen to get the full effect.

The prism glasses would have to be carefully designed for a specific viewing
distance so as not to cross your vision too much, and be supplied with dire
warnings not to attempt to walk or do any other activity other than watching
3DTV while wearing them.

No crossing of the eyes is necessary. Mirror angles can be tweaked to
suit the viewing distance, and the eyes will adjust to a certain extent.
With my head-mounted mirror system, some caution is needed when moving
around the room...

A more immersive 3D effect is likely to be obtained with miniature
screens (OLED on silicon) built into 3D visors with suitable optics.
I can get the effect with a 5-inch LCD using lenses but the resolution
is hopeless.

--
John Legon

3D TV converters
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes
In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be
added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync
when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external
converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz
which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean
intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Been there, done that and no, it doesn't!

I used a standard 50Hz video system to produce the stereo video system
that was used for a lot of the underwater footage during the raising of
The Mary Rose back in the early 80's. It was also used for stereo vision
on North Sea Oil submersibles. That system just put odd and even fields
to each eye, blanking the unused field, and there wasn't a hint of
flicker, let alone epileptic fits. Simple analogue switches operated by
field identification resulted in video which was easily recordable & also
broadcast compatible - as demonstrated by TVS when they broadcast demo
footage of this and other stereo systems around 1985/6. No reports of
epileptic fits or flicker problems were received - just complaints from
people who didn't get free filtered specs* in their TV Times that week!

Its a funny old thing human visual perception - I was surprised myself how
easy it was to view with only 25Hz on each eye and how quickly you became
totally immersed in the footage. In those days colour cameras were much
lower resolution than equivalent B&W cameras, so we had one system which
used a colour camera and a high bandwidth B&W camera as a stereo pair.
Surprisingly, you perceived a full colour image at much higher resolution
than the colour camera can reproduce - along with depth perception and,
again, not a hint of flicker.

*The coloured glasses were only required for the demo broadcast - the
source system used circularly polarised filters on CRTs and matching
polarised glasses for viewing.

Speaking of human visual perception,

http://www.itproportal.com/portal/ne...x-million-brit
s-cant-see-3d/
--

I can't see 3d -- I have a lazy eye.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

3D TV converters
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes
In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be
added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync
when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external
converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz
which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean
intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Film runs at 24 Hz so it is totally feasible to run at 25 Hz faster would be
better but maybe that would be another pot to sync at a higher frequency

Most HD TVs have a 'PC' input with multisync so a box could do the
injection on this port. at a higher frequency.

Gary

3D TV converters
 

In article AAf%[email protected], Gary
writes

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes
In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be
added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the
sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external
converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50
Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean
intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Film runs at 24 Hz so it is totally feasible to run at 25 Hz

Film runs at 24 frames per second, but it is projected at either 48 or
72 flicks* per second depending on the projector mechanism specifically
to avoid "intolerable flicker" at 24Hz.

* Each frame of film is exposed in the gate by two or three flashes from
the projector lamp.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

3D TV converters
 

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article AAf%[email protected], Gary
writes

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes
In article Dj2%[email protected], Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be
added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync
when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI
input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external
converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz
which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean
intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Film runs at 24 Hz so it is totally feasible to run at 25 Hz

Film runs at 24 frames per second, but it is projected at either 48 or 72
flicks* per second depending on the projector mechanism specifically to
avoid "intolerable flicker" at 24Hz.

* Each frame of film is exposed in the gate by two or three flashes from
the projector lamp.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
replying)

I thought that was only when it was run on a telecine to convert to TV ?