3D Projectors

[lilshawn]

using a proper screen reduces the need for increased lumen output on the part of the projector...to the point where you can actually GAIN brightness. ideally you want zero gain to keep everything true,, but when using items like 3D glasses, you would want a slightly +gain screen to overcome the slight loss of the tint in the glasses.

[pbj]

How the hell you going to GAIN brightness?  That doesn't even make sense.

[ChadTower]

WTH?   AFAIK, no modern film was shown without a 2d version available.

This is very, very, very common.  I saw it happen all the time until maybe a year ago.  A theater would have 3 instances of the 3D version and none of the 2D version.  I used to look specifically for the 2D version to take my kids because I wasn't interested in paying an extra $15.  There are a lot of movies we didn't see in the theater, that we would have, because there was no 2D version being offered.

The fact that the studio made a 2D version available has no bearing on whether or not the theater actually put it on a screen.

[RandyT]

How the hell you going to GAIN brightness?  That doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, it doesn't really work that way.  A screen, or any material actually, can only reflect, store or absorb energy.  The "high gain" screens only reduce absorption, or redirect the incoming light directly back to the source (not much good for off axis projection), at the expense of dimmer off axis viewing angles.  In this sense, the word "gain" is a relative term.

*edit* For the sake of accuracy, materials can also "transmit" energy, but it's not really relevant to the discussion, unless it's a rear projection screen. 

[pbj]

Ah, so "gain" actually means "minimize loss."  Got it.   

[ChadTower]

Sort of the same way those clay pot single candle room heaters you see all over the "life hacks" websites actually heat up a room by creating more heat... right?   

[Xiaou2]

Well Randy, Ive looked over the Specs..  and I have to say Im highly doubtful of them. 

 The LCD tech even as recent as a 3 years back...  was always stating how great it was..  and yet there was a ton of visible evidence that they just didnt live up to their hype.  CRTs still produced faster images without any motion blur effect...  Colorspace was severely lacking in tones and accurate color portrayal...  so much so.. that I went back to my old CRTs for graphical work.

 Maybe there were some very high tech LCDs out there.. not in the reach of the mere public poor...   And if thats so.. then thats exactly what you bought.    A very high dollar projector, using LCD tech that was not planned to be put into typical displays and projectors on the mass scale..  until the industry put forth a stream of artificially created "intermediate steps"...  so that people would keep buying the newer models..    Meanwhile, always have been fully capable of producing a much higher level technology during that entire period... and could have been for that same exact price... due to mass scale up.

 So, your argument is that all the movie buffs are spending over $2000 on a projector.    Sorry, but I dont buy it.   Not everyone is going to be able to reach that deeply.

 Yet now that the tech is affordable..  more and more people Are in fact spending money on projectors... usually under a grand.

 As for your picture..  its really not that impressive.   The details seem blurry and lacking.  Maybe its the camera..  but I suspect other things are going on too.   I also didnt find the level of color transitions all that good...  and that contrast is dialed up way too high.. with blinding whites that overpower the surrounding colors.   Is it just that game?   I dont know.

 All I can say for certain.. is that the image looks the same brightness or less, with the glasses on... as my friends Optima.   And that the colors and details are far less sharp than what Ive seen as well.

 If its not so...  its darn close..  and its quite stunning to say the least.

 Id read that the newer projectors with the color wheels..  have far more color accuracy..  as well as are now utilizing a new framerate system to eliminate any flicker.   Not sure if thats what he has or not.  And Im just as surprised as anyone not to detect it in a film.. considering Im very sensitive to visuals.  Super-Aware of small nuances, details, and flaws.  IE - A very tough critic to please.

 I think your in for a shock..  if you head over to someones place that has one of these newer technology setups in place.


 As for your losses, Im sorry to hear..  but the reality is that Glasses Free 3D isnt a very good technology.   It just cant scale up and produce the same effects as with glasses based technology.    HMD's - not counting those... as thats basically a giant set of glasses.

 Anything Lenticular, will never really work well for a room full of people whom are in different positions.

 And anything like those spinning holographic displays... while could be interesting for small game devices and novelties..  again will not scale up enough to be practical.. nor even close to the effect of good stereoscopic film / glasses.

 If you do have Any form of Stereoscopic display, I highly recommend seeing Preditor on it.  Its the original Arnie film converted.. and its probably the best 3d Ive seen to date.  Most especially in regards to live actors, as well as the conversion being so precise and detailed as to make you think they actually shot the film with Stereoscopic cameras from the start.

 (Gah... now I have to wonder if they actually Did plan ahead that far?!   heh )

[RandyT]

Well Randy, Ive looked over the Specs..  and I have to say Im highly doubtful of them. 

 The LCD tech even as recent as a 3 years back...  was always stating how great it was..  and yet there was a ton of visible evidence that they just didnt live up to their hype.  CRTs still produced faster images without any motion blur effect...  Colorspace was severely lacking in tones and accurate color portrayal...  so much so.. that I went back to my old CRTs for graphical work.

 Maybe there were some very high tech LCDs out there.. not in the reach of the mere public poor...   And if thats so.. then thats exactly what you bought.    A very high dollar projector, using LCD tech that was not planned to be put into typical displays and projectors on the mass scale..  until the industry put forth a stream of artificially created "intermediate steps"...  so that people would keep buying the newer models..    Meanwhile, always have been fully capable of producing a much higher level technology during that entire period... and could have been for that same exact price... due to mass scale up.

 So, your argument is that all the movie buffs are spending over $2000 on a projector.    Sorry, but I dont buy it.   Not everyone is going to be able to reach that deeply.

In a day when a large screen LCD or Plasma (my preference) costs around that same amount, it's not as much as you think.  $2000 is a "mid-grade" projector, with the high end costing ~4x as much.  The market for projectors is very diverse, with some caring more about image size and brightness than output quality, or price over installation convenience and "tweakability" of the image.  Many of the lower end models can only be on for 3 hours maximum, before the heat starts to severely degrade the longevity of the bulb, while others can be on all day, every day, with no harmful effects.  All of these features cost money, in the way of more advanced circuitry, specialized optics, mechanical assemblies, etc...  The folks who put the effort in to create a specialized space for home theater, actually use them often, and expect to be able to easily tune the installation to the space, as well as tune the image to the media type being displayed.  Many enthusiasts spend nearly as much on the screen as they do the projector.  This is a far cry from the folks who use a pull down screen and set up a portable unit on the coffee table for the occasional "movie night".  There's nothing wrong at all with doing that, but to expect the same level of cost and performance from the units most well suited to each of those two scenarios, isn't realistic.

The LCD's you are basing your biases on, are not what is inside an LCD projector.  There are three individual units, one for each color, which are factory aligned, and the output of each combined optically, much like the 3 CRT projectors of the past.  The more expensive units use more exotic lamps with spectral responses tuned to overcome any color deficiencies of the LCDs.  Weak red response is common with LCD projection, but some units, like one I am using, use a special lamp which is capable of more red output, resulting in vivid and deeply saturated reds.  Another issue with inexpensive LCD is the "screen door" artifacting, which is a result of the fine black lines between pixels.  These get blown up on large images and can be noticeable.  Again, the better units will have optical elements which eliminate this, and produce a smooth, "film-like" image.  Inexpensive units won't have the same level of hardware.  It's all about budget and expectations, just like any other display technology.

As for whether you believe the specs, that's really up to you.  But people who take this seriously enough to understand what those specs really mean, expect the units to perform exactly as advertised, while the average occasional use consumer will more readily accept specs which are inflated.  It's not uncommon at all for the lower end models to do testing with the units in a wildly inaccurate color mode, included only to boost the numbers in their paperwork.

As for your picture..  its really not that impressive.   The details seem blurry and lacking.  Maybe its the camera..  but I suspect other things are going on too.   I also didnt find the level of color transitions all that good...  and that contrast is dialed up way too high.. with blinding whites that overpower the surrounding colors.   Is it just that game?   I dont know.

 All I can say for certain.. is that the image looks the same brightness or less, with the glasses on... as my friends Optima.   And that the colors and details are far less sharp than what Ive seen as well.

It's a simple snapshot, taken without using a tripod or spending a lot of time tweaking camera settings.  Properly photographing a projected image is not a trivial task, and at the time, was only taken to show the scale, not the quality.  I'm guessing the square footage is also about 3-4 times that of your friend's setup, and that makes a huge difference.  The game also has intentionally washed out "bright daylight" camera effects, so that's what you see in the distance.

There are plenty of properly photographed examples of the projector on the web.   If you are really interested, here's an in-depth review with photos, which really illustrates how many factors are considered when selecting a projector.  For me, black levels and color saturation/accuracy were very important, having previously had a couple of units where this was not great.

As for your losses, Im sorry to hear..  but the reality is that Glasses Free 3D isnt a very good technology.   It just cant scale up and produce the same effects as with glasses based technology.    HMD's - not counting those... as thats basically a giant set of glasses.

 Anything Lenticular, will never really work well for a room full of people whom are in different positions.

The tech I worked on was not lenticular, but actual full sized polished optics.  It used similar technology to HMDs and flight simulators.  It was geared toward gaming machines and informational kiosks, so wide fields of view were not as important.  Initially, there was great enthusiasm, as the effect was excellent.  Without wearing glasses, a viewer could stand in front of the window and see solid or animated objects which appeared to be floating about a foot in front of it, in free space.  People were very interested and impressed by it, but without a useful function it was only a novelty.  If you've seen it a few times, the attraction wanes quickly.  Essentially, the same drawback associated with any current 3D display technology.  EightBySix summed up the limitations perfectly, when he wrote "I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D."  And due to the fact that the effect is created from 2D planes, it really can't in any useful sense.

[pbj]

Would you two please make out already?

 

[Malenko]

Would you two please make out already?

That explains your avatar. 

[ChadTower]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

[pbj]

[yotsuya]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

Me too, although it's more:

RT: Facts and data

X2: Anecdotes and Opinion

RT: Counter facts data

X2: More Ancedotes and Opinion

[pbj]

The inherent problem with 3D in the house is that most people do not simply stare at the screen the entire time a show is on.  Kind of hard to look at porn on my phone or fold laundry if I have to wear headgear.

[ChadTower]

Looks like a perfectly decent conversation to me.   

I am enjoying reading it.

Me too, although it's more:

RT: Facts and data

X2: Anecdotes and Opinion

RT: Counter facts data

X2: More Ancedotes and Opinion

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.  Consumers operate on feel and opinion while producers use specs and data.  It is the producer's job to make the consumers feel good.  I'm not saying Randy is a producer of 3D display tech but he does come from the producer's mindset given his occupation.

At the end of the day the producers who have created happy consumers are the producers that have succeeded.  The greatest hardware in the world will fail in the market if nobody enjoys using it. 

[Malenko]

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.

but X2 hasnt bought anything in 13 years ?

[ChadTower]

That is usually how consumer-producer conversations work.

but X2 hasnt bought anything in 13 years ?

Okay, add "users" in alongside "consumers".  And make the Producer less interested in the opinion of that specific user since that user does not buy anything.   

[pbj]

Guess those crazy checks don't go as far as you'd think.

[Hoopz]

He's going to start threatening people again. 

[ChadTower]

Nah, pbj rarely threatens anyone anymore.

[pbj]

I cannot recall ever threatening anyone ever but thanks, I guess.

 

[Vigo]

I think you might have threatened to post a selfie once or twice. 

[Xiaou2]

Sorry, but I should have realized Randy had a Mega$ projector.   Regardless..  as far as I can tell, he just hasnt seen the new varients out there.

 I looked over the reviews, and discovered a lot more about the new tech going into these.   But seeing is believing.    And while the 2d image
quality may not be as flawless as Randys..  it was Darn good to my critical eyes... especially for the price.

 But where it really shined, was the 3d.   I cant stress this enough.. that I normally would be against lcd glasses in a typical setup... because Ive seen
some horrible flicker on various newer model tvs... and the depth was really poor.

 This however was Lightyears away from that experience.   He started out with the Imax count down animation.. and my Jaw hit the floor, and stayed there the entire time the projector was on.   It was on par with the Imax experience.   You will have to see it to believe it.

 Also, check the reviews.   It gets high marks for excellent black levels, and many high praises on its 3d abilities.

 If this mid-priced 3d projector is this good..  I can only imagine a 4k varient in a later date, using the same technology.

 Truly Incredible.
 

 And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.   To me, while a nice effect, doesnt count, because it wouldnt display full content properly.   Maybe you could show pics or a better explanation.

 According to one guys review.. he has 60 stereoscopic movies and climbing.   So content Is now finally available.   That was in fact a large problem with 3d.

 Windows sorely needs high level stereoscopic editing programs, such as a Stereoscopic drawing / photoshop...

[Malenko]

I cant stress this enough.

but I bet you'll try.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.

This makes me think you don't know what a plane or a dimension  is(or at least what one dimensional means).

[ChadTower]

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.

This makes me think you don't know what a plane or a dimension  is(or at least what one dimensional means).

Maybe dude's projector had vertical collapse? 

SPOT KILLER ISN'T WORKING!  TURN THE GAME OFF BEFORE IT BURNS THE TUBE!

[RandyT]

Sorry, but I should have realized Randy had a Mega$ projector.   Regardless..  as far as I can tell, he just hasnt seen the new varients out there.

*sigh*  I have.  But there are a lot of them now, so there's no way to see them all, any more than you could have seen the one I am using before calling it old junk.  And in case you didn't read fully what I wrote before, I don't have a "Mega$" projector.  I can't justify paying the cost of the good ones which you can only buy through pro installers.  I just chose the best "off the shelf" 2D projector my money could buy, which was considerably less than a 3D capable one of similar quality.  Just got sick of seeing grays where blacks should be, and off color skin tones.  But yes, the price has come down, and quality has improved quite a bit.  I actually paid more five years earlier for a projector which couldn't come close to the one I use now.  But quality improvements, due to technical advancement, scale across the entire price range, not just the low-end.  The unfortunate fact is that 3D is keeping costs high on new units with marginally better 2D quality, so consumers end up having to pay for 3D, whether they want it or not.  And, instead of manufacturers focusing their attention to useful technology which would allow for brighter images while maintaining color purity and true black levels, they can just crank the brightness on older technology for 3D and maintain the status quo for black levels, because they know that the glasses only allow ~40% transmission across the entire gamut. 

Also, check the reviews.   It gets high marks for excellent black levels, and many high praises on its 3d abilities.

I'd like to, but you never stated the model number, so it's hard to even know which one you are talking about.  I'm genuinely curious, because typically DLP has poorer black levels, but usually somewhat sharper images.  But even with all of the improvements in DLP, I am still seeing complaints about the rainbow effects "in the wild".  I probably won't consider DLP until the 3 chip variety become affordable, which should do away with the color wheel.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.   To me, while a nice effect, doesnt count, because it wouldnt display full content properly.   Maybe you could show pics or a better explanation.

2D pictures of of 3D stuff is pretty pointless.  But this system actually could do true 3D with an illuminated solid object as the source.  I.e. when you moved within the field of view, you could see behind things which blocked your view in the previous position.  For digital content, it was a projected floating plane, so "scenes" had to be created with multiple synchronized displays at different distances within the system.

The stereoscopic effect you like, is still not real 3D (similar to the digital content described above.)  It's more like 2.5D.  There is no volume, only 2D planes at varying distances from a fixed pupil which has no relation to the viewers' actual position.  It's very unnatural, and your brain knows this.  It's probably why some folks experience dizziness or migraines, as the brain is spending the entire time trying to reconcile what it's seeing.  I saw TRON in 3D at the theater, and could not enjoy it because of this.  I literally felt mentally exhausted when I walked out of the theater, and not in a good way.  When good 3D headgear is perfected, with head (or pupil) tracking with dynamically generated real-time content, based on the position of either of those things, then 3D will have progressed into something very cool and useful.  But this technology being used in films today is the same old tired stuff from decades ago.  I hate to use the coarse phrase of "putting lipstick on a pig" to describe it, but it's unfortunately all I can think of at the moment.

[Xiaou2]

 Sorry, but Holography isnt 3d.   So you projected a realtime image change.  Whoopie.   Its still 'Flat' with Zero depth, no matter what angle you are viewing it at.

 Thats the problem with Holography.

 Movies would never work in Holography format.. because a movie is designed to tell a story from a certain perspective.  You cant have everyone seeing every different perspective... and expect it to work right.

 And even the generated content, in a holographic projection, is still flat.   So its pretty much Less than 2.5d.

 As for 3d being 2.5d..  thats really poor way of putting it.   You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

 The fact that it bothered you, was probably because your eyes are further or closer together than what it was filmed at.  A periscope like device make to adjust the focal distance, would probably change that for you.

 Else yes, its probably HMD for you...  and or custom realtime content.

[Malenko]

You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

No its not. That's the illusion of depth. Also, you do realize we live in a 4 dimensional (length, width, depth, time)  world? I know of the scientific intangible 5th through 10th dimensions, but lets not confuse X anymore than he already is.

[Vigo]

In which dimension do those walls of text start making sense? 

[pbj]

Alright, sorry, but I gotta step back into this.

If the movies can't covey more information than flat surfaces, and if 3D will never work because movies aren't filmed to be viewed at all angles, what's the point of using 3D to watch movies?

 

[yotsuya]

Alright, sorry, but I gotta step back into this.

If the movies can't covey more information than flat surfaces, and if 3D will never work because movies aren't filmed to be viewed at all angles, what's the point of using 3D to watch movies?

 

Appparently, it's a mechanism to make your jaw literally drop to the floor.

[pbj]

Man, I can remember when DVDs came out and it was all, "dude, I heard you can see INSIDE Elizabeth Berkley..." and then BluRays came out.... and I'm still waiting... so will I ever been able to see inside Ms Berkley?

Asking for a friend.

[ChadTower]

You are getting both left and right perspectives as you would see these images in true 3d reality from a fixed position.  Thats 3d.

No its not. That's the illusion of depth. Also, you do realize we live in a 4 dimensional (length, width, depth, time)  world? I know of the scientific intangible 5th through 10th dimensions, but lets not confuse X anymore than he already is.

A movie includes the dimension of time. 

[pbj]

Not if you pause it.

[Vigo]

So all the movies I ever watched were in 3D. That also means I watched some 4D movies as well. 

[Malenko]

A movie includes the dimension of time.

Yeah and what does that have to do with X2 not knowing there is a 4th dimension?

stop being a Debbie downer.

[Xiaou2]

 I know what Steroscopic 3d  and  Volumetric  3d  means.

 Im also well aware of the various dimensions, and the various Theories of...

 That really doesnt change the common terminology used to describe stereoscopic material.

 Furthermore, theres theories pointing out that our physical reality is an Illusion.

 
 Do you call your Stereo speakers,  "3d audio illusion devices" ?   Or  "2.5d Audio"  ?   As true volumetric sound cant exist from two speakers... even if it seems like it.

 In a Stereoscopic film, you have x,y, & z.   You can tell the distances of objects.   But more so.. you actually see more of the actual object in this format.

 I think there is this idea that 3d is nothing more than spacing two objects further apart from each other.. and with the eye swapping tech, it creates the depth based on the spacing between them.    That can be done.. such as seen with old flat 3d comic book style material.   However, thats NOT what happens with photographic / true  Stereoscopic 3D.

 Easy way to test this:

1)  Grab your TV Remote.  Hold it vertically in your left hand, in front of you about 6" maximum distance,  in the center of your body, with the buttons facing to the right.

2)  Close your right eye.. and look at the details you can see.  You should see more of the rear (battery) side of the remote than the front (buttons).   Now open your left eye.. and close your right.  You should see more details of the front buttons, and very little of the rear battery side.

 Remember, that each eye is considered a Camera.   A 2d image from a camera would stay exactly the same.. even if you moved that flat photo a few inches over horizontally.  However..  you realize that by seeing more of the back with the left eye.. and more of the front with the right.. that you are in fact getting MORE information than with a flat 2d image.  A LOT more.   Your getting two very different images, taken from two very different perspectives.  Not merely the same object side over a little.   Depending on the details of the subjects viewed..  and the distances away from you.. will effect how great the impact is.

 Rurthermore.. its not like a bunch of paper cut outs..  all in various depths.   If your looking at a curved Jar from two different perspectives ..  you realize that you are also getting that surface of the jar to be presented in 3d space / depth, in a volumetric manor.

 If you projected a Holographic image into the middle of your room..   that doesnt mean it has any depth to it... because each eye still needs its own perspective.   A flat image has only one perspective.. even if its floating in space...
its just a flat image floating in space.

 In order to do full volumetric stereoscopy.. you would still need glasses.. and or use of true volumetric projection methods... which no consumer will ever see in the next +40 years..  if its even possible.   The amount of data would be staggering..  as it would be like 3d printing a full room worth of objects .. +60 times a second.

 And again..  this wouldnt work well for a full room of people.   A good example, is if you were watching a Magican perform.  From the front view.. it might be ok.  But walk too far to the side or behind him.. and you may see the way hes doing the trick.

 
 Finally...  Even Stereocopic HMD's are static 3d images, piped in accordance with your tracking hardware.  Its also an Illusion.   And its also a pair of glasses.  Even worse so.

 

A movie includes the dimension of time.

    Bravo.  And Thanks.   

 To be clear..  Time doesnt have to be at play, for Stereoscopic 3D to be of value.  Sitting in a perfectly still room, in a fixed position, .. with nothing else moving.. and you will still be seeing in 3d.

Appparently, it's a mechanism to make your jaw literally drop to the floor.

 Yes.  You got it!      Especially if its a hot little number, dancing across the screen...


 But I guess I can understand why some people dont get it.   Some may not be getting the depth that they should be getting.. due to their eye spacing.. or the material being shot with perspectives that do not match their typical eye perspectives.   Which makes me wonder how differently everyone sees the world, based upon this fact.

 If you normally dont experience a lot of depth perception in real life..  seeing a capture.. probably wouldnt change that.
And if people experience too great a depth effect.. I wonder if that leads to easy motion sickness and or similar issues.

 Randy, I wonder if you could try to create an adjustable set of glasses that use front surface mirrors... to see if you can change the 3d depth effect you experience?   

 FYI - Out of all the 3d Imax films Ive seen, the new Tron flick, was probably the worst 3d.  It was very flat to my eyes.  Avatar on Imax 3D engulfed you.  Avatar in RealD wasnt even close.  The Polar Express was pretty amazing too.. extended much further out of the screen.   But wow..  seeing the Preditor and a little bit of Keaunas new Ronin movie..   Was probably the best stereoscopic experience so far.

[eds1275]

If you watch a 13" tv, a 60" tv, LED, LCD, Plasma, projector, 3d, 2d... etc etc. After a few minutes, the novelty is lost and your vision narrows to whatever it is you are looking at.

3d does nothing for me but give me a headache after a few minutes. And it really doesn't help save a crappy story (AVATAR - a horrible mishmash of Fern Gully, Halo, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas...)

[yotsuya]

And it really doesn't help save a crappy story (AVATAR - a horrible mishmash of Fern Gully, Halo, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas...)

They played "Land of A Thousand Dances" in Avatar? Cool!

[Malenko]

Im also well aware of the various dimensions, and the various Theories of...

Evidence suggests otherwise.

And Randy, It sounds like your talking about a simple one dimensional plane thats suspended over a backdrop.