3D TVs - are they necessary?

[scene]

Odd title, I know, but bear with me. I'm not referring to the question of whether or not 3D TV is necessary - obviously it isn't, but a lot of people - especially those working for Sky, Sony, Samsung, etc, would like to hope it is - but rather the question of whether it is actually necessary to have a TV specifically designed for 3D to display 3D. Are we being sold a line by the TV manufacturers desperate for us to buy new kit at premium prices?

What got me thinking was the line in this month's (April 2010) WHFSV in the article on "Why your next TV will be the best ever!" The line in question was:

"That's because 3D compatibility has to be engineered into a TV when it's first built: it can't be retrofitted using a set-top-box or other adaptor."

But that's not true is it? Why can't a 3D blu-ray player (or set-top-box) be engineered to send the sequential series of Left/Right images at 60Hz (say, giving a 30Hz effective refresh rate) to a TV and have the transmitter on-board to operate shuttered 3D-glasses - maybe if IR is used, with a cable and transmitter to put near the TV screen? OK, the TV would have to operate at 60Hz (say) and you wouldn't want any inter-frame interpolation (which would ruin the 3D effect) and it would have to have a fast refresh rate. So my KRP500A would be perfect. OK, there would need to be some calibration to ensure the shutter specs were synchronised with the screen, but I suspect this would be on per model basis and the numbers would soon be posted on the internet.

And that's the point. There are a lot of people out there who have high-end expensive kit, and/or home cinema installs where they don't want to splash out on a brand new screen (or projector) which could well be the single most expensive part of their set up, but still want 3D. They would definitely be in the market for a 3D enabling box or BD player that will allow them to use their existing kit and I can't see any technical reason why one couldn't be produced.

(And don't get me started on HDMI 1.4/1.4a

- new TV, amp and player - kerching.)

 

[Andrew Everard]

But how would the TV synch with the glasses, for a start...?

 

[Anonymous]

i think they could do it , but they obviously wont even attempt it , they want us all to upgrade ...

 

[scene]

Andrew Everard:But how would the TV synch with the glasses, for a start...?

Does the TV need to synch with the glasses? (For example) the TV is running at 60 fps (aka 60Hz). It is being fed an HD stream from the 3D box which consists of L/R/L/R frames - i.e. 30 fps Left-eye interwoven with 30 fps Right-eye. These are displayed at a steady 60Hz. All that is needed is that the putative 3D box sends out the signal to the 3D glasses at the right time. All that requires is an appropriate delay time to be entered. A calibration process could be performed by sending Right-only pictures (i.e. R/Blank/R/Blank) while the user was wearing the shuttered specs and getting the user to press a key on the 3D-box when they only saw the picture in the Right eye and no Left picture (Of a set of big words LEFT / RIGHT)... Or press a +/- key to adjust the delat time in ms until happy, after all the max delay would only ever be 1/30th of a second...

 

[scene]

maxflinn:i think they could do it , but they obviously wont even attempt it , they want us all to upgrade ...

But a non-TV manufacturing AV company might be interested... Now Pioneer don't make TVs any more do they, but they are an AV company and they'd make a lot of their old Kuro customers very happy...

 

[Andrew Everard]

Well all the TVs we've seen so far, apart from in demonstrations using the lower-res polarised system, require the specs to be connected wirelessly to the TV in order to synch.

 

[aliEnRIK]

I read somewhere that 120Hz tvs work fine but I think theyre only from America

I dont see why they couldnt make them work at 100Hz (Glasses specifically for 50Hz changes)

Thats said, im still not entirely sure how it all works and even if theres different standards

 

[Anonymous]

scene:
maxflinn:i think they could do it , but they obviously wont even attempt it , they want us all to upgrade ...

But a non-TV manufacturing AV company might be interested... Now Pioneer don't make TVs any more do they, but they are an AV company and they'd make a lot of their old Kuro customers very happy...

its hard to see it , but i guess its possible , a 3d kuro , now theres a thought

 

[scene]

Andrew Everard:Well all the TVs we've seen so far, apart from in demonstrations using the lower-res polarised system, require the specs to be connected wirelessly to the TV in order to synch.

I know, and that makes a new "3D TV" necessary for 3D. How's it going to work with projectors? That's going to much closer to the 3D box sending out the synching signal model I've described. The point I'm making is that there is no technical reason why you need to upgrade your TV, it has been done by design. And the reason for that design is because the manufacturers need to sell us the TVs.

As I said in a reply to maxflinn, a non-TV producing AV company (a la Pioneer?) could buck the trend and produce this kind of box.

 

[Anonymous]

I've no idea whether or not your proposition is correct but I like your line of thought. There is a case to be answered here I think.

 

[Andrew Everard]

scene:And the reason for that design is because the manufacturers need to sell us the TVs....As I have been saying in blog pieces and on these forums for getting on for a year now.

 

[Anonymous]

Because it's the display that the glasses need to synch to, not the source.
There's a big difference. It's what's being displayed that's important, not where it's coming from.

Also the refresh rate needs to be a minimum of 120Hz as the image is displayed L/L/R/R per frame.
This requires a refresh time for LCD of 8.33ms.

I remember seeing some projection systems last year which had a triple burst sequence of LLL/RRR/LLL/RRR

I doubt the need to calibrate a system for a user would increase uptake of the technology. Most people have an issue calibrating an AV system.

 

[Anonymous]

hmm , the more i think about it , i see no reason (apart from the obvious one) why they couldnt have just made a 3d bluray player that would work with a normal tv ?? as scene said , how are they going to implement it on projectors ?? er , a 3d bluray player ....

 

[Anonymous]

maxflinn:hmm , the more i think about it , i see no reason (apart from the obvious one) why they couldnt have just made a 3d bluray player that would work with a normal tv ?? as scene said , how are they going to implement it on projectors ?? er , a 3d bluray player ....

You need a 3D projector. You need the technology in the piece of equipment that generates the image. i.e. the projector or display panel

 

[scene]

Gary Mardell:Because it's the display that the glasses need to synch to, not the source.
There's a big difference. It's what's being displayed that's important, not where it's coming from.

Also the refresh rate needs to be a minimum of 120Hz as the image is displayed L/L/R/R per frame.
This requires a refresh time for LCD of 8.33ms.

I remember seeing some projection systems last year which had a triple burst sequence of LLL/RRR/LLL/RRR

I doubt the need to calibrate a system for a user would increase uptake of the technology. Most people have an issue calibrating an AV system.

I agree on the calibration issue, but it wouldn't take much for a manufacturer to work out what the delays were for a given model of TV and allow for the TV model to be selected from a drop down. This list could be refreshed on a wi-fi enabled 3D-box with internet connectivity. This should be relatively simple to arrange.

As for the refresh rates. Is the display rate of 120Hz mandated in the specification, or is that just the way it has been implemented? I only ask, as what happens to the 24fps standard - does this go out of the window? With L/L/R/R are the L/L R/R pairs the same frames, or sequential frames??

 

[scene]

Gary Mardell:maxflinn:hmm , the more i think about it , i see no reason (apart from the obvious one) why they couldnt have just made a 3d bluray player that would work with a normal tv ?? as scene said , how are they going to implement it on projectors ?? er , a 3d bluray player ....

You need a 3D projector. You need the technology in the piece of equipment that generates the image. i.e. the projector or display panel

Gary - why do you need the technology in the projector or panel?

If you're using shuttered glasses, the pre-requisite is that each eye sees the appropriate image to generate the illusion of 3D. This just requires synchronisation with the image and, at the end of the day, all this requires is a delay of a certain number of ms (or microseconds) (modulo 2/RefreshRate) from when the source sends the image.

 

[Anonymous]

scene:
Gary Mardell:Because it's the display that the glasses need to synch to, not the source.
There's a big difference. It's what's being displayed that's important, not where it's coming from.

Also the refresh rate needs to be a minimum of 120Hz as the image is displayed L/L/R/R per frame.
This requires a refresh time for LCD of 8.33ms.

I remember seeing some projection systems last year which had a triple burst sequence of LLL/RRR/LLL/RRR

I doubt the need to calibrate a system for a user would increase uptake of the technology. Most people have an issue calibrating an AV system.

I agree on the calibration issue, but it wouldn't take much for a manufacturer to work out what the delays were for a given model of TV and allow for the TV model to be selected from a drop down. This list could be refreshed on a wi-fi enabled 3D-box with internet connectivity. This should be relatively simple to arrange.

As for the refresh rates. Is the display rate of 120Hz mandated in the specification, or is that just the way it has been implemented? I only ask, as what happens to the 24fps standard - does this go out of the window? With L/L/R/R are the L/L R/R pairs the same frames, or sequential frames??

The L/L/R/R is a double burst of the same frame for each L and R.
The triple burst system I saw worked on the same principle.

Not sure whether the 120Hz is spec or implementation. Will check.

My personal feeling would be that if the concept of a separate box was financially viable and would enable quick market penetration of the technology, then it would have been launched that way. Much as technologies have been in the past.

I think Mr E's blog post on 3D holds more than a grain of truth. brb

EDIT: 24fps in the film world requires that the film is run at 48fps to cater for the double images

 

[scene]

Andrew Everard:
scene:And the reason for that design is because the manufacturers need to sell us the TVs....As I have been saying in blog pieces and on these forums for getting on for a year now.

Yes, but the 3D thing has been presented as a seamless whole - 3D BD disk, 3D Blu Ray player, 3D TV / Projector. With HDMI 1.4a in the mix, this becomes 3D-compliant amp/receiver as well. Everybody's happy - well the studios are, the BD/TV/AV amp manufacturers are, even the HDMI cable manufacturers are.

However, if some manufacturer produced a "3D set top box" (for want of a better word) that had:
- An HDMI 1.4a in to receive 3D source + HD sound
- Two HDMI 1.3 outs - one to send the picture to the display panel / projector, one to send sound to the amp/receiver
- The wireless controller for the shuttered glasses (it would need to ship them at the £100-150 quoted)
- Wi-fi enabled so that it could download the latest list TV/Projector models and the implicit delay times required to synch glasses to screen

I think they could have a pretty decent sized market. I suspect they might also rain on a few people's parade

 

[Andrew Everard]

But then that assumes the players don't have some kind of handshaking only allowing them to output 3D when connected to a 3D display...

 

[scene]

Gary Mardell:My personal feeling would be that if the concept of a separate box was financially viable and would enable quick market penetration of the technology, then it would have been launched that way. Much as technologies have been in the past.

I think Mr E's blog post on 3D holds more than a grain of truth. brb

EDIT: 24fps in the film world requires that the film is run at 48fps to cater for the double images
I'm not sure about this point. The concept of the separate box might well have been financially viable, but it would have cut the legs out from under the TV sales of the same companies. If you go down the "separate box" route, you tend to end up with the technology folded into the source, not the display. And which one makes more money? A Blu-ray + 3D box sold at £200-500 (including two pairs of 3D-specs) or a 3D-enabled TV at £2000-2500? Remembering that TV sale margins were struggling last year and the manufacturers needed to increase sales - think Sony...

 

[Anonymous]

The SMPTE issued recommended for a stereoscopic 3D Home Master standard back in April 2009. Note the use of the word recommended. Getting hold of the actual spec would require SMPTE membership.

It would appear that there are number of other large industry bodies involved such as the CEA and the 3D@Home consortium. Each has their own investigating group etc.

This sounds awfully like there are no universally adopted standards and everyone's winging it.

I found a great quote from a press release on the 3D@Home site:

"To take a historical perspective on this, the thing we currently call 3D TV is in danger of being the mini-disk. For about six months, we all thought that the MD player would replace the CD player. Then somebody showed up with an iPod. The rest is history"

 

[Andrew Everard]

scene:and the manufacturers needed to increase
sales

And not just increase sales, but also encourage the mass-market to buy more premium-priced TVs rather than just the biggest screen with the lowest price.

They've tried making better-quality TVs and, as Pioneer showed, that doesn't work, so given that people only seem to want a 50in TV for £500, they're now trying to lure customers by offering a USP the budget TVs can't deliver.

Just as 3D was used as an attempt to hold off the incursions of TV half a century ago, and has again been employed to prop up dwindling cinemagoing in the face of movies on DVD, susbcription TV services and most recently Blu-ray, so now it's seen as a way to get us all spending more on consumer electronics.

Yes, I know it's a cynical view, but these companies are in business to make money and ensure their long-term future, however much they may flaunt their desire to bring us all a more fulfilling home entertainment experience.

 

[scene]

And I agree with all of this Andrew.

Hence my comment that all it would take is some non-TV making AV manufacturer to decide to go down the "3D Box" route - after all they would be in the business of making money and the sale of 3D boxes to all those with 2D TVs who don't want to upgrade them could be quite a money-spinner...

Queue Pioneer with a surprise 2010 announcement

 

[Anonymous]

scene:Gary Mardell:My personal feeling would be that if the concept of a separate box was financially viable and would enable quick market penetration of the technology, then it would have been launched that way. Much as technologies have been in the past.

I think Mr E's blog post on 3D holds more than a grain of truth. brb

EDIT: 24fps in the film world requires that the film is run at 48fps to cater for the double images
I'm not sure about this point. The concept of the separate box might well have been financially viable, but it would have cut the legs out from under the TV sales of the same companies. If you go down the "separate box" route, you tend to end up with the technology folded into the source, not the display. And which one makes more money? A Blu-ray + 3D box sold at £200-500 (including two pairs of 3D-specs) or a 3D-enabled TV at £2000-2500? Remembering that TV sale margins were struggling last year and the manufacturers needed to increase sales - think Sony...

Technologies like Teletext and Digital TV? Both of which ended up in the display.

The point here is that it's the video processing board of the display that needs the synchronisation. It's this that controls the output of the display panel, not what is sent from the source.

A separate box would need to bypass the video-controller of the display and as it's this that makes the key difference in display performance, it's unlikely that any manufacturer is going to allow 3rd party access to that technology. The only other option is reverse engineering of every board and panel combination out there on the market. Prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

 

[scene]

Gary Mardell:scene:Gary Mardell:My personal feeling would be that if the concept of a separate box was financially viable and would enable quick market penetration of the technology, then it would have been launched that way. Much as technologies have been in the past.

I think Mr E's blog post on 3D holds more than a grain of truth. brb

EDIT: 24fps in the film world requires that the film is run at 48fps to cater for the double images
I'm not sure about this point. The concept of the separate box might well have been financially viable, but it would have cut the legs out from under the TV sales of the same companies. If you go down the "separate box" route, you tend to end up with the technology folded into the source, not the display. And which one makes more money? A Blu-ray + 3D box sold at £200-500 (including two pairs of 3D-specs) or a 3D-enabled TV at £2000-2500? Remembering that TV sale margins were struggling last year and the manufacturers needed to increase sales - think Sony...

Technologies like Teletext and Digital TV? Both of which ended up in the display.

The point here is that it's the video processing board of the display that needs the synchronisation. It's this that controls the output of the display panel, not what is sent from the source.

A separate box would need to bypass the video-controller of the display and as it's this that makes the key difference in display performance, it's unlikely that any manufacturer is going to allow 3rd party access to that technology. The only other option is reverse engineering of every board and panel combination out there on the market. Prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

Good points, well made.