Viewing distance, screen size, lens size considerations

[GoldChain]

So, I'm looking to dive into 3D for (mostly) movies and (some) gaming (PS3 for both). You may have already seen my discussion about displays, etc......

The learning now turns to glasses. I'm no stranger to the concept of the active shutterglasses as I'd use some 10+ years ago on my PC. It was very cool and worked like a charm with any Direct3D or OpenGL game. Nice!

So as I'm talking to someone, they said that you have to be careful with the glasses you pick, as the lens might not be wide enough (or could be too wide?!?!) for your screen and viewing distance. (how could the glasses lens be too wide? aside from letting you see outside of your TV set screen, which I don't see as a big deal.) For what it's worth, I'll likely get the 73" Mits and be ~11ft (~3.5m) from the screen.

I guess some of the old school glasses had a small square lens that could restrict the viewing angle from the eye's perspective. But aren't many of the newer IR and DLP link glasses like a full lens (like a full lens in sunglasses or something)? Like these:

http://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/uldlpliwi3dg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So aside from the "lens too small/wide" topic, I'd be open to feedback on the various brands of IR/DLP Link shades..... I read the thread that shows the response times of the glasses, but aside from indicating they all take about the same time to "open", I couldn't really get the implications of data with regard to actually choosing a brand of glasses to buy.

Obviously, if the $59 shades like I link to above work great, I'd opt for those over $150 ones (I'll be looking to get 4 pair, so even $75 lower cost would save me $300!). Even the Xpands are like $129 or something....

Again, any feedback would be welcome. It sucks there's no good place in a large metro area that's dedicated to and could let you try all of the different types of glasses with different displays, etc...... that'd rock. But otherwise, you're like me where you have to order online and hope what you get works well.

[edit]
I forgot to mention that one person in the family wears prescription glasses, so definitely wearing 3D glasses over prescription glasses is a consideration.

Thanks all!
GC

[cybereality]

Well I can certainly see how the 3D glasses could have too small a lens for certain sized screens (ie a 3D projector at close distance). However I am not sure how they could be too big. Isn't bigger always better? I know the old ELSA Revalators I used for the longest had a very small active area. This would reduce the overall FOV and peripheral vision. However, for use with a PC monitor, it was acceptable. I also had the Another Eye 2000's and those had a much wider and clearer picture than the ELSAs. It did make a difference, and I think the experience was greatly improved. In fact, the AE2000 glasses seemed even better than some modern glasses like the Panasonic ones (or at least on par). Unfortunately the AE2000 are wired and used a proprietary dongle, so they are basically useless for any modern solutions like 3D HDTVs (although if you were an enterprising engineer I bet you could get them to work on 120Hz PC monitors). The Panasonic glasses also have a wide lens and seem to accommodate a 55" screen at maybe 2 meters. Those aren't going to work on the Mitsubishi's but you can eyeball it from the pictures to compare to other glasses that do work (I'm talking about the ones with the open sides). The Mitsubishi glasses actually look pretty nice, but it doesn't seem like you can get them outside of the starter kit. Buying 2 starter kits at $400 each and trying to sell one adapter (you get maybe $100) would mean it would cost $600 for 4 glasses (you needed the $100 adapter anyway), or $150 a pop. You could also get 4 pair of those generic DLP-Link glasses at $60 a pop, or $240 for all four. I bet the best ones are the XPand X103s, but at $130 each it will be $520 for the set (although you could always get one pair of X103s for yourself and 3 pairs of the generics for others, although this is somewhat shady). If you want to go cheaper you could get the old ELSAs. A 4 pack w/ emitter will cost you $200 or $50 each ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0041H ... 3dprostore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Not the best quality, but I guess it could be acceptable. If you want to go *really* cheap you could get the original Another Eyes, a 4 pack with emitter will cost $130 or about $32 each: http://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/x3dprowi3dgl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . However these glasses are on the Geordi La Forge level of dorkiness and are not the most comfortable to use (I briefly owned them back in the day and exchanged them for the ELSAs). Personally, I would say go with the absolute best quality glasses no matter the price. Do you really want to drop $1500 on a TV and then compromise the experience to save a couple bucks on the glasses? You could also just buy one of each type of glasses, test them out on the TV, and then buy more for the ones with the best quality or bang-for-your-buck. You would probably not have much problem selling off the extra glasses at a loss (either here or at AVS), or you can always keep them around it case you have company. Then you could at least post some reviews, maybe take some photos of ghosting test images, etc. and post them here. It would be helpful to the community.

[GoldChain]

Thanks cyber. You bring up some good points. In general, I agree the majority of glasses won't be restrictive to the viewing angle, so I won't worry about that...

And you're also right, I don't want to drop $1500 on a display and ruin it by cheapening out on glasses. However, for almost my entire adult life, I've been the type of consumer that's driven by value; performance for the dollar. Which is why I believe the DLPs are the sweet spot (not that a pj could deliver the same value, but a pj wouldn't be a prime option for me right now). Likewise, I just want to find glasses that fit the need the best for the best price, which I can break down:

Fit the need:
* Provide shutterglass functionality (ideally with minimal ghosting, etc)
* Works with the display of choice: Mits DLP (so could be DLP Link or IR)
* Ideally has store-bought'n replaceable batteries (no proprietary batteries)
* Are comfortable to wear, and ideally fit comfortably over prescription eyewear

Regarding buying 2 starter kits ($800) then selling one of the converters, that would only get me $100 back, so that would be $700 for 4 pair or $175 each..... way too much. Just like cheapening out on glasses is bad, paying 1/2 the price of the display for glasses is bad too. Afterall, they're just freaking shutterglasses... not even close to a new technology, and not rocket science either (i.e. not complex nor using expensive parts).

I like your idea of getting one of each type (or at least 4 of them. haha) and try them and see. I'd like to get enough information (feedback, reading others' posts, etc) to weed our the "horrible/unacceptable" choices so I'm not wasting time/money, and go from there. I would have no issue getting multiple types and reporting back to the forums. Convincing the wife that it's worth it to do that and no doubt "throw some money away" in the process is another matter.

I'll be sure to keep y'all posted. Thanks again for your feedback cyber.

GC

[Fredz]

The $59 glasses you linked to look a lot like 3D Vision glasses, I wouldn't be surprised that they are in fact exactly the same, which would make a good buying choice then. I didn't read many comparison about shutter glasses, but I think that the first criterion would be to choose wide glasses and forget about Elsa, eDimensional, Another Eye, etc. for viewing on a wide TV.

Since you'll be buying a Mits I guess it does use DLP technology, in this case the ghosting should be quite minimal whatever the glasses you choose. So the second criterion should be comfort, more even so if you intend to have long sessions of 3D viewing (like movies for example). You can find several reviews comparing glasses comfort on the web.

Another thing to consider is light blocking, the Panasonic glasses are known to be quite bad in this regard since they are not closed on the side, which I've read is quite uncomfortable when there are external lights because of the reflections it creates.

You should also consider the size of the head of people which will wear these glasses. On all the tests I've read, adult glasses were always uncomfortable for children and sometimes for women too. I only know Samsung and Sony who produce models for children (resp. SSG-2200KR and TDG-BR50), you may have to search for other glasses makers in this regard.

I've read good things about the Samsung glasses (SSG-2200AR and SSG-2100AB) in relation to comfort, color fidelity or ghosting in quite all the reviews I've seen, but I don't know if they are compatible with Mits. They are among the cheapest too.

But the first thing would be of course to make a list of the glasses which are compatible with the TV you intend to purchase. The quality of the TV is more important than the one of the glasses.

[GoldChain]

But the first thing would be of course to make a list of the glasses which are compatible with the TV you intend to purchase. The quality of the TV is more important than the one of the glasses.

Yes. I am compiling a spreadsheet of the various glasses vendors/models/types (since I'm considering both IR and DLP-Link). I'm assuming any DLP-Link glasses will work, and similarly, I'm at least going to see if I can verify the various IRs work with the Mits.

Happy New Year!!

GC

[cybereality]

I bet those ultra-clear DLP-Link glasses are good enough. The price is certainly appealing. Of course its a more fun project to buy a bunch of different glasses and do a review, but I also don't want to be responsible for your marital problems when your wife finds out how much you've been spending on 3D equipment. So taking a gamble on the most attractive solution could be the best option. Its not like you can't buy new glasses a few months down the line, and who knows what new products will be available by the later this year.

[Fredz]

I've read a somewhat mixed review for a model of DLP-Link glasses (the Odyssey from Eyes3Shut) compared to the 3D Vision ones with DLP projectors.

They produce an heavy colorimetric shift with a blue tint to the image, a lower contrast and less deep blacks. The reviewer said it was caused by the DLP-Link flashes and that the glasses did attenuate this a bit. I don't know if it will be the case for all the models of DLP-Link glasses or with DLP TVs though.

The test is available here, but in French : http://www.hdfever.fr/2010/11/14/test-l ... cer-h5360/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GoldChain]

They produce an heavy colorimetric shift with a blue tint to the image, a lower contrast and less deep blacks. The reviewer said it was caused by the DLP-Link flashes and that the glasses did attenuate this a bit. I don't know if it will be the case for all the models of DLP-Link glasses or with DLP TVs though.

The test is available here, but in French : http://www.hdfever.fr/2010/11/14/test-l ... cer-h5360/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That was one of my concerns, in general, was black levels, how much light was blocked by each type, and any potential color shifts (which I understand is more of a DLP link thing?).

I'll check out that link........ Good thing je parle un peu de Français!!

GC

[GoldChain]

Found this thread over at AVS regarding the Ultra-Clear glasses. (From what I've read so far someone has used them specifically with the Mits 73" and said their more comfortable and just as good as the standard Mits/Samsung glasses..... that's good!!)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1285791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the specific post about the Mits, and seems to be getting in the meat of the posts where folks were ordering them and trying them out.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre ... st19488668" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[edit]
Here's a link to a discussion specifically about the UltraClear DLP-link version:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1296909" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GC

[cybereality]

Sounds like a good review to me, I guess those ultra-clear ones are the best bet then.

[Likay]

"Ultraclear" glasses has to be a myth if they're still using lc's and polarizers unless using an lcd-screen (which has other problems btw...). A polarizer in the line of sight means a max theoretical lightthroughput of 45%. They can of course be as good as other shutters.

[cybereality]

"Ultraclear" glasses has to be a myth if they're still using lc's and polarizers unless using an lcd-screen (which has other problems btw...). A polarizer in the line of sight means a max theoretical lightthroughput of 45%. They can of course be as good as other shutters.

Not necessarily true. I think I've tried maybe 5 or 6 different types of shutter glasses and they all had different properties in terms of light throughput. So far, I still think the Another Eye 2000 were the best, much more clear than the ELSA glasses or even e-dimensional. Check some of the images from this old thread:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 689#p10689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Likay]

I did say max theorethical throughput of 45% . Of course most shutters will be below this. I didn't have image clarity (which indeed also can vary widely between different fabrics) in mind when writing though.

[GoldChain]

As close as I can be without having and trying them myself, I think the UCs are the best value kicking out there. I've read pages and pages of feedback from folks (literally most of it in the last week) buying and getting them, one huge thread on the IR and one big thread on the DLP-Link, and the consensus is that they are every bit as good as the Mits, Samsung, Xpand, etc.... Folks are ordering them like hotcakes.

Now it appears Mits, Samsung, UltraClear, Xpand, ViewSonic, etc all use the same frequency of IR for the IR ones, so if you're using a different vendor display/IR emitter, then be careful that they work.

The ViewSonic's (DLP-Link) seem to be the ONLY one that let's your "flip" the stereo images, which really has no function unless you want to use your DLP-Link glassess AND IR glasses at the same time, as their triggering is apparently setup opposite. (i.e. without the ability to switch the stereo on the DLP glasses, the DLP would be reverse stereo when also doing IR).

Also, it appears the UltraClear glasses are much more comfortable than most of the other brands as they have soft, rubbery earpieces, not hard plastic ones. Also, the reports of wearing them over prescription eyewear seem to be a mixed bag. Finally, many folks report using them for their kids with no issues, one person even saying, using a rubber band around the back of the ear pieces, his 3 year old was able to use them.

I'm going to try to finalize my list to purchase, and verify everything's good with the comptroller (i.e the wife, who happens to be a CPA... so money doesn't just "disappear" in our house )

I'll post back eventually once I get my gear and get everything setup over the next few weeks.

Thanks to all!
GC

[Fredz]

That sounds like a good choice, I'm quite impressed by the many favorable reviews especially considering the low price of these glasses.

I would be a bit more reserved about comfort for children by reading the AVS forum, but you could always buy the Samsung model for kids later if needed anyway.

The DLP Link version doesn't seem to be as good as the IR one for DLP TVs as you may have seen, some people mentionned some rainbowing when displaying scenes with white or low colors (blue sky for example).

[GoldChain]

The DLP Link version doesn't seem to be as good as the IR one for DLP TVs as you may have seen, some people mentionned some rainbowing when displaying scenes with white or low colors (blue sky for example).

Although I did see the mention of the rainbowing, (not the typical DLP rainbowing from the color wheel, but a rainbowing caused by the combination of the polarized glasses and the plastic of the screen), I also saw folks saying this was the case with either the DLP-Link or the IR, as the polarization/plastic combination doesn't change with IR-vs-DLP-Link (which would make sense; i.e. they the exact same glasses, just one with an IR sensor that toggles the glasses, and one that's got a sensor that detects in the light from the screen.).

I do tend to agree that any adult-sized glasses might not fit well on children. I figure if I pick up the UCs, I can try them for the kids, and if they don't like or it don't work, then spend the money on the kids ones (although I don't know they make a kids glasses for DLP-Link.... I thought it was IR only the ones I recall seeing).

I'll play it by ear. =)

GC

[relaxman]

well, when using dlp link with projectors, the white segment of the colorwheel is not
used anymore for video, just for the sync, so maybe this cause the more rainbow, and the
darker picture viewed even with naked eye.

[tritosine5G]

rainbow should be in fact much less. Bad trade-off, I would want brightness instead.

(rainbow vs. brightness)

[Fredz]

Also, it appears the UltraClear glasses are much more comfortable than most of the other brands as they have soft, rubbery earpieces, not hard plastic ones.

On the AVS forum one guy said "they do not have interchangeable nosepieces (they are hard plastic)", but he and many other people still did find them more comfortable than most other glasses. The guy also said that buying a couple eyeglass nose piece cushions from the drugstore could made them even better.

Although I did see the mention of the rainbowing (...) I also saw folks saying this was the case with either the DLP-Link or the IR, as the polarization/plastic combination doesn't change with IR-vs-DLP-Link

That's not what I've read, some people said that the angle of polarization was different for IR glasses because they were designed to support LCD displays which have a particular angle of polarization. Glasses manufacturers didn't do it for DLP Link glasses because they were designed for DLP projectors for which the angle of polarization has no effect, but the problem seem to really exist because of the polarization angle of the plastic screen on top of DLP TVs (only with rear projection it seems though). One poster also said that the DLP Link version made the screen black when rotated 45 degrees left and the IR version made it black when rotated 90 degrees left.

I do tend to agree that any adult-sized glasses might not fit well on children. I figure if I pick up the UCs, I can try them for the kids, and if they don't like or it don't work, then spend the money on the kids ones (although I don't know they make a kids glasses for DLP-Link.... I thought it was IR only the ones I recall seeing).

Yes I think kid models only exist for IR models, but I thought you decided to choose IR glasses instead of DLP Link ones because they seem to suffer from quite a lot of problems, rainbowing as we said, but also sync problems when there is not a dark environment. A guy even said that the blacks and contrasts were not as good as his Mits and Viewsonic glasses but he said he was not sure he didn't incorrectly receive the IR model.

But with the IR model you should still verify that you won't need an additional emitter if your TV doesn't include one and that you can disable the DLP Link mode on the TV (only available on 2010 apparently) to not get washed out colors.

well, when using dlp link with projectors, the white segment of the colorwheel is not used anymore for video, just for the sync, so maybe this cause the more rainbow, and the darker picture viewed even with naked eye.

We were talking about rainbowing with DLP TVs not about the rainbow effect with DLP projectors.

[Fredz]

rainbow should be in fact much less. Bad trade-off, I would want brightness instead. (rainbow vs. brightness)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, do you say that the rainbowing is not that important ? Look at this picture on the Samsung HLT6187S TV viewed through the Ultra-Clear DLP Link glasses turned off :

[tritosine5G]

http://www.sidchapters.org/texas/TX_Cha ... ORI%29.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-> RGB+black sequence is used to cure "color breakup"

i dont see it at all , so I would like RGBWY.

RGB,black,RGB,black color sequence = less rainbow than RGBWY , RGBWY

laser + 1 DLP would have no color break up at all,
because

1. you can cycle RGB rapidly
2. you don't have to sustain it at all, but pulse it like a CRT

these functions both reduce color breakup . LED DLP is running at 900hz , you can try running laser DLP at 9000hz if you like.

[Fredz]

But what are you talking about tritosine ? It doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing. The rainbowing is only caused by the polarisation of the plastic screen in this case, not by the display technology itself.

Why do you always hijack threads like this by saying things that don't make any sense, can't you just only read a topic without posting when you don't have anything valuable to say ?

[tritosine5G]

sorry I only saw relaxman's post , not yours .

Maybe its valuable for him, if he has 2x 120hz time parallel projectors, the audience probably sees less color breakup at the cost of some brightness.

[GoldChain]

Also, it appears the UltraClear glasses are much more comfortable than most of the other brands as they have soft, rubbery earpieces, not hard plastic ones.

On the AVS forum one guy said "they do not have interchangeable nosepieces (they are hard plastic)", but he and many other people still did find them more comfortable than most other glasses. The guy also said that buying a couple eyeglass nose piece cushions from the drugstore could made them even better.

Right..... he said no interchangeable nose pieces. But what I'd referred to was "earpieces".... the parts of the glasses from the lens back over the ears. Folks said those were the softer, rubbery kind that were more comfortable.

Although I did see the mention of the rainbowing (...) I also saw folks saying this was the case with either the DLP-Link or the IR, as the polarization/plastic combination doesn't change with IR-vs-DLP-Link

That's not what I've read, some people said that the angle of polarization was different for IR glasses because they were designed to support LCD displays which have a particular angle of polarization. Glasses manufacturers didn't do it for DLP Link glasses because they were designed for DLP projectors for which the angle of polarization has no effect, but the problem seem to really exist because of the polarization angle of the plastic screen on top of DLP TVs (only with rear projection it seems though). One poster also said that the DLP Link version made the screen black when rotated 45 degrees left and the IR version made it black when rotated 90 degrees left.

Hmmm... perhaps I missed the part about the rotating 45/90 degrees, etc..... Strange as I can't see the plastic screen (which is what creates the rainbox effect with the polarized glasses) being different from LCD to DLP. But I'm no expert, so live and learn, eh? =)

I do tend to agree that any adult-sized glasses might not fit well on children. I figure if I pick up the UCs, I can try them for the kids, and if they don't like or it don't work, then spend the money on the kids ones (although I don't know they make a kids glasses for DLP-Link.... I thought it was IR only the ones I recall seeing).

Yes I think kid models only exist for IR models, but I thought you decided to choose IR glasses instead of DLP Link ones because they seem to suffer from quite a lot of problems, rainbowing as we said, but also sync problems when there is not a dark environment. A guy even said that the blacks and contrasts were not as good as his Mits and Viewsonic glasses but he said he was not sure he didn't incorrectly receive the IR model.

I think at one point when first posting, I probably said something about sticking with IR as to not be tied to DLP for a display...... I've waffled back and forth on this.... Honestly, once I get a display (at this point 99% chance it'll be DLP), the next time I "upgrade", 3D will likely not require glasses at all, so getting DLP-Link glasses and being "tied to DLP" isn't really a big deal.... I would prefer to keep everything 1 technology tho.... All IR or all DLP-Link. I came away from my reading that, with a DLP TV, using DLP-Link just saved you from having to buy one more component (the IR emitter) and there was no quality difference..........

But with the IR model you should still verify that you won't need an additional emitter if your TV doesn't include one and that you can disable the DLP Link mode on the TV (only available on 2010 apparently) to not get washed out colors.

So what's the scoop with the washed out colors? I saw mention of it, but then most folks had said (about various glasses) that they did a good job blocking the signal from the DLP-Link. I know it does a pulse or something, but is it a flash of white? How does that work when the screen is white? I haven't educated myself very well on the specifics of the DLP-Link communications.

GC

[Fredz]

Right..... he said no interchangeable nose pieces. But what I'd referred to was "earpieces".... the parts of the glasses from the lens back over the ears. Folks said those were the softer, rubbery kind that were more comfortable.

Ah sorry, I mismatched "earpieces" with nose pieces, you are right about the temple arms being made of soft plastic.

Hmmm... perhaps I missed the part about the rotating 45/90 degrees, etc..... Strange as I can't see the plastic screen (which is what creates the rainbox effect with the polarized glasses) being different from LCD to DLP. But I'm no expert, so live and learn, eh? =)

It was said in the #97 post in the topic dedicated to the Ultra-Clear DLP Link glasses on AVS.

I'm not sure LCD screens do have a plastic screen in front since there is normaly a polarizing filter on top of the display. If there is one, they still should give it a particular polarisation angle to not conflict with the polarized filters inside the screen. Plastic screens for rear-projection shouldn't be subjects to such constraints because the output light is not polarized, so they shouldn't need a screen with a specific polarization angle.

Honestly, once I get a display (at this point 99% chance it'll be DLP), the next time I "upgrade", 3D will likely not require glasses at all, so getting DLP-Link glasses and being "tied to DLP" isn't really a big deal.... I would prefer to keep everything 1 technology tho.... All IR or all DLP-Link. I came away from my reading that, with a DLP TV, using DLP-Link just saved you from having to buy one more component (the IR emitter) and there was no quality difference..........

Yes the choice is quite difficult because there'll always be a compromise to be made, for now as you said it's just a matter of going all IR or all DLP Link. If you want to buy a 73" Mitsubishi 3DTV as you said, you'll need the emitter if you choose a 2010 model (WD-73838, WD-73738 or WD-73638).

For the emitter you have several solution, the first one being the 3DC-1000 starter kit but it's very pricey (>$300) and includes several other useless things : 2 pairs of Samsung glasses, an adapter box that you won't need because you can update the 2010 Mits for HDMI 1.4 compatibility by flashing them, a remote and some cables and lame converted 3D videos.

Another solution would be to buy only the adapter (SSG-2100ME/ZA) but it seems quite difficult to find it since it's no longer referenced on the Mitsubishi site. It was sold for $48.20 when it was available, so not expensive at all. It's still available on ebay for $129.88 or on Tru 3D for $99 but you can maybe find it at a lower cost elsewhere.

You can also buy the 3DFS-50 emitter from 3DFlightSim at $119.95, it's still quite expensive but it is said to produce a stronger IR signal than the official adapter from Mitsubishi.

Lastly, you can also try this VESA 3D emitter that can be found for only $12.95 on 3D Heaven. Compatibility with Mitsubishi TVs must still be confirmed, but in the Q11 of their 3D FAQ it's said that most separate synchronization emitters (IR or others) are designed to use a VESA jack and are compatible with the Mitsubishi TV. You'd also have to verify that it is powerful enough for 3D TVs though as it was designed for PCs and a somewhat lower viewing distance.

So what's the scoop with the washed out colors? I saw mention of it, but then most folks had said (about various glasses) that they did a good job blocking the signal from the DLP-Link. I know it does a pulse or something, but is it a flash of white? How does that work when the screen is white? I haven't educated myself very well on the specifics of the DLP-Link communications.

I don't know how good is the filtering of the white flashes sent between each frame with DLP TVs, but with DLP projectors the quality is not as good as with IR glasses as was said in the review about the Odyssey DLP Link glasses.

And I think this mecanism of white flashs is also the reason why having external light coming from a window can make the glasses loose sync. I guess a white image wouldn't be enough to activate the glasses though because that would render this technology pretty useless.

These white flashes are also the reason why looking at a screen in DLP Link mode washes out the colors when using IR glasses, so your TV should be able to disable DLP Link mode in this case (which is the case with the Mits from 2010).

[GoldChain]

Yes the choice is quite difficult because there'll always be a compromise to be made, for now as you said it's just a matter of going all IR or all DLP Link. If you want to buy a 73" Mitsubishi 3DTV as you said, you'll need the emitter if you choose a 2010 model (WD-73838, WD-73738 or WD-73638).

For the emitter you have several solution, the first one being the 3DC-1000 starter kit but it's very pricey (>$300) and includes several other useless things : 2 pairs of Samsung glasses, an adapter box that you won't need because you can update the 2010 Mits for HDMI 1.4 compatibility by flashing them, a remote and some cables and lame converted 3D videos.

Another solution would be to buy only the adapter (SSG-2100ME/ZA) but it seems quite difficult to find it since it's no longer referenced on the Mitsubishi site. It was sold for $48.20 when it was available, so not expensive at all. It's still available on ebay for $129.88 or on Tru 3D for $99 but you can maybe find it at a lower cost elsewhere.

You can also buy the 3DFS-50 emitter from 3DFlightSim at $119.95, it's still quite expensive but it is said to produce a stronger IR signal than the official adapter from Mitsubishi.

Lastly, you can also try this VESA 3D emitter that can be found for only $12.95 on 3D Heaven. Compatibility with Mitsubishi TVs must still be confirmed, but in the Q11 of their 3D FAQ it's said that most separate synchronization emitters (IR or others) are designed to use a VESA jack and are compatible with the Mitsubishi TV. You'd also have to verify that it is powerful enough for 3D TVs though as it was designed for PCs and a somewhat lower viewing distance.

All of this quoted above is reason enough for me to stick with DLP-Link. Seriously tho, it just seems much easier to use something built-in. Regarding the adapter box "that I won't need", I will need it (for the 73638). The firmware update that will allow the sets to be HDMI 1.4a 3D compliant (convert all of the 3D formats in that standard over to checkerboard without needing the external converter, the 3DA-1) is only for the 738s and 838s... So for the 73638, I'd still need it.... which is fine as it's still not worth paying $600+ more for the 738 instead of getting the 638 + $100 for the external box.

I don't know how good is the filtering of the white flashes sent between each frame with DLP TVs, but with DLP projectors the quality is not as good as with IR glasses as was said in the review about the Odyssey DLP Link glasses.

These white flashes are also the reason why looking at a screen in DLP Link mode washes out the colors when using IR glasses, so your TV should be able to disable DLP Link mode in this case (which is the case with the Mits from 2010).

So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, when folks talk about washed out colors when using DLP-Link, they likely talking about it being washed out from using IR glasses on a DLP-Link enabled system? (as opposed to having washed out colors using DLP-Link glasses)........ Ah.... this post @ AVS clarifies the washed out thing....... it is when using IR glasses on a DLP-Link enabled system......

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre ... st19063181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems we're all on the same page, eh? (I'm still not happy there's no firmware update for the 638s to eliminate the converter box!)

GC

[Fredz]

All of this quoted above is reason enough for me to stick with DLP-Link. Seriously tho, it just seems much easier to use something built-in.

Yep, I understand it can look a bit frightening.

Regarding the adapter box "that I won't need", I will need it (for the 73638). The firmware update that will allow the sets to be HDMI 1.4a 3D compliant (convert all of the 3D formats in that standard over to checkerboard without needing the external converter, the 3DA-1) is only for the 738s and 838s... So for the 73638, I'd still need it....

Ah yes, sorry, I incorrectly thought that all the 2010 models were compatible with this update.

If you choose the 638 model you should be aware that you won't have a full resolution image when viewing Blu-Ray 3D or using a PS3. The adapter converts HDMI 1.4 to the checkerboard format which is only half resolution and shows artifacts for lines or small texts. I'm not sure buying a 1080p TV would be the wisest choice in this case, a full resolution 1080p or a 720p TV could be a better solution.

Seems we're all on the same page, eh? (I'm still not happy there's no firmware update for the 638s to eliminate the converter box!)

Yes the problem of washed out colors doesn't appear as badly when using DLP Link glasses, but as I said previously there is still an alteration of the image quality because the glasses wont' be able to completely filter the white flashes.

So you'll still have a lower contrast, less deeper blacks and a colorimetric shift when using DLP Link glasses instead of IR glasses. And if you intend to watch your TV with DLP glasses you must do it in a dark room to be sure to not have synchronization problems, and you'll probably suffer from rainbowing (see previous image) since Mits seem to be rear-projection TVs. That's why I posted all these frightening links about the IR emitter, if you can find it at its real price you would avoid all these potential problems for less than the cost of a pair of glasses ($48.20).

As I said before it's all a matter of compromise, buying an IR emitter and IR glasses to have the best image possible, or buying DLP Link glasses without any additionnal accessories, and have an image that's not guaranted to be as good and only viewable in the dark.

[GoldChain]

If you choose the 638 model you should be aware that you won't have a full resolution image when viewing Blu-Ray 3D or using a PS3. The adapter converts HDMI 1.4 to the checkerboard format which is only half resolution and shows artifacts for lines or small texts. I'm not sure buying a 1080p TV would be the wisest choice in this case, a full resolution 1080p or a 720p TV could be a better solution.

It's my understanding that the 738/838 models are also dependent on the checkerboard for 3D display (i.e. "half resolution"). The only thing the firmware update does is allow the processor inside the 738/838 to do the conversion from the 1.4a 3D formats to checkerboard. (This would make sense as the checkerboard requirement is driven by the DLP chip/technology itself, and updating firmware on the 738/838 isn't going to change the DLP chip. ). But I'll dig around AVS and online to see if I can confirm/deny this assertion. It would be good to know if the 738/838 can provide full rez 1080p 3D, but I don't believe it can.

Seems we're all on the same page, eh? (I'm still not happy there's no firmware update for the 638s to eliminate the converter box!)

Yes the problem of washed out colors doesn't appear as badly when using DLP Link glasses, but as I said previously there is still an alteration of the image quality because the glasses wont' be able to completely filter the white flashes.

So you'll still have a lower contrast, less deeper blacks and a colorimetric shift when using DLP Link glasses instead of IR glasses. And if you intend to watch your TV with DLP glasses you must do it in a dark room to be sure to not have synchronization problems, and you'll probably suffer from rainbowing (see previous image) since Mits seem to be rear-projection TVs. That's why I posted all these frightening links about the IR emitter, if you can find it at its real price you would avoid all these potential problems for less than the cost of a pair of glasses ($48.20).

As I said before it's all a matter of compromise, buying an IR emitter and IR glasses to have the best image possible, or buying DLP Link glasses without any additionnal accessories, and have an image that's not guaranted to be as good and only viewable in the dark.

It might be worth it, since DLP link can be disabled in the 2010 sets, to get the IR emitter and a set of IR UltraClears and a set of the DLP-Link UltraClears and just do the comparison myself.......... then just return the glasses I don't like.

<soapbox> (and this isn't aimed at you Fredz, you just reminded me to do my rant with your post )
As a side note, I hate when folks refer to checkerboard as "half resolution". Yes, I know it's technically true that half of the 1080p frame for each eye is "discarded" so they can interleave them together. But 2 things about that:

A) I've been watching my 53" HD RPTV for 6 years now.... it's 1080i and looks fantasic. Some would call 1080i "half resolution" compared to 1080p, but 1080i certainly looks incredible on its own. (and recall 720p is half the resolution of 1080p, so I wouldn't consider a 720p "full resolution" display/projector a "step up" from using 1080p checkerboard format).

B) I've done some testing on my own and compared an original 1920x1080 image to one that I've performed the the checkerboard method to (i.e. discard the pixels in a checkerboard, and recreate the "missing" pixels by averaging the 4 pixels around it (above, below, left, right). You can see some of the results I've posted here:

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 117#p44117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I found about this is that checkerboard image is incredibly close to the original (considering 1/2 of the information was discarded). Areas of constant or even gradient color is reproduced extremely well if not exactly. Areas of high contrast (i.e. light/dark edges next to each other) is where it is most evident, and even then it's not obvious. In these examples using images from recent 3D animations the overall result to the image (if you open both the original and the checkerboard image in 2 windows and flip between them quickly, which is the ONLY way the checkerboard effect is even perceptible) is that the checkerboard image is softened ever so slightly (which makes sense because softening operations do some averaging of color information from surrounding pixels). Given the fact that at full resolution, you have to flip between the original and checkerboard to just detect a difference, I cannot see how anyone would be able to detect the difference with frames whizzing by at 30/60fps.

Checkerboard is CLEARLY more superior than top/bottom, side-by-side, or interlaced techniques, as all 3 of these others discard entire "lines" of information (horiz or vert) which means you can't recreate the discarded data with as much detail. IMHO the checkerboard technique for packing stereo images into a single image was genius.
</soapbox>

GC

[Fredz]

It's my understanding that the 738/838 models are also dependent on the checkerboard for 3D display (i.e. "half resolution"). The only thing the firmware update does is allow the processor inside the 738/838 to do the conversion from the 1.4a 3D formats to checkerboard. (This would make sense as the checkerboard requirement is driven by the DLP chip/technology itself, and updating firmware on the 738/838 isn't going to change the DLP chip. ). But I'll dig around AVS and online to see if I can confirm/deny this assertion. It would be good to know if the 738/838 can provide full rez 1080p 3D, but I don't believe it can.

Duh, I thought 1080p TV models from 2010 would at least support a full 1080p resolution per eye in 3D, but that's not the case apparently. Just have a look at this post :
http://72.9.159.100/avs-vb/showpost.php ... count=1157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So HDMI 1.4 frame packing input with the 738 and 838 models and the firmware update still gives the best results, but it's down-converted to 1024x1024 (1,048,576 pixels) which seem to be the best resolution these sets can produce. That's pretty much close to full res 720p on Plasma and LCD TVs (921,600 pixels). How can Mitsubishi advertise their sets as 1080p then ? That's really beyond me...

In checkerboard (with the 638 model) it's even worse as the signal is also down-converted which gives only an effective 1024x764 resolution per eye (782,336 pixels) that I guess is even reduced because of the checkerboard format. Yes that's even lower than the XGA 1024x768 resolution (786,432 pixels) ! Way to go for Full HD...

It might be worth it, since DLP link can be disabled in the 2010 sets, to get the IR emitter and a set of IR UltraClears and a set of the DLP-Link UltraClears and just do the comparison myself.......... then just return the glasses I don't like.

That would be a good test to do indeed. And a nice future review for this site.

(and this isn't aimed at you Fredz, you just reminded me to do my rant with your post )

No offense taken, I did already read your post and some by other people about checkerboard and the fact that it looks better than full res 720p. Since I don't have the equipement to verify this, I took these reviews for granted till now.

Nonetheless, even if the perceived resolution seem to be very good with checkerboard, it still produces artefacts that I'm not sure I would tolerate (blurryness, lines and small texts).

And taking into account the info in the first part of my message, I'm now really doubtful about the real quality of these DLP TVs. Buying a 1080p 3D TV to get a resolution worse than 1024x768 does now seem like a total waste of money to me. Still I'm quite happy to have participated to this thread, now I know which 3D TV I won't buy next year. But your mileage may vary...

[GoldChain]

Duh, I thought 1080p TV models from 2010 would at least support a full 1080p resolution per eye in 3D, but that's not the case apparently. Just have a look at this post :
http://72.9.159.100/avs-vb/showpost.php ... count=1157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So HDMI 1.4 frame packing input with the 738 and 838 models and the firmware update still gives the best results, but it's down-converted to 1024x1024 (1,048,576 pixels) which seem to be the best resolution these sets can produce. That's pretty much close to full res 720p on Plasma and LCD TVs (921,600 pixels). How can Mitsubishi advertise their sets as 1080p then ? That's really beyond me...

In checkerboard (with the 638 model) it's even worse as the signal is also down-converted which gives only an effective 1024x764 resolution per eye (782,336 pixels) that I guess is even reduced because of the checkerboard format. Yes that's even lower than the XGA 1024x768 resolution (786,432 pixels) ! Way to go for Full HD...

I would be VERY wary of believing that 1024x1024 assertion, much less playing the numbers game he lays out. It makes no sense. I can only find 2 pages on the entire internet even mentioning 1024x1024 in conjunction with Mits DLP TVs... one is the post you linked to, and another is the same guy in AVS forum pasting his other post!!!

Until I see something documenting this as fact, I won't believe this. I've seen the 73" and 82" DLPs and they produce too good of a picture to be 1024x1024.... period.

GC

[GoldChain]

So, I kinda went crazy on AVS forums, but more folks were talking more BS about checkerboard 3D (saying stuff like "it's 960x540 resolution", which is total nonsense).... Here's a link if you care to read it.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthre ... st19758869" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, I did discover and wanted to report back that the DLP chips in the current DLP sets are definitely not 1024x1024. They are 960x1080 that use wobulation at 120Hz to achieve 1920x1080p @ 60Hz. So, when in 3D mode, it can display 1920x1080p frames at 30fps for each eye.

You have to be careful with crazy folks (like me ) running around in these forums acting like they know everything. Seriously tho, that guy talking 1024x1024 must've been talking an old school LCD/Plasma or projector display........ something...... because these sets definitely aren't 1024x1024.

GC

[cybereality]

Well this is the first I have heard the number 1024x1024 in regards to the RP DLPs, but this is about what I assumed. I mean, no matter how you cut it, you are losing resolution. I had assumed it was the equivalent of 960x1080 but I guess you could also think of it as 1920x540.

960x1080 or 1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels per eye
1024x1024 = 1,048,576 pixels per eye

So, in fact, this 1024x1024 number may be marginally better than the reality of the situation.

However full-resolution 720P is "only" 921,600 pixels of detail per eye, so these DLP RPs are still better than that by a little bit. Especially when you consider that even the most expensive HDMI 1.4 "FullHD" 3D TV can still only do 720P60 for gaming, its not like you are losing much. In fact, if its just for gaming I would almost rather go with the DLP. You get slightly more resolution than 720P (plus the checkerboard upscaling should help make this look even better). If you have Nvidia card you can use the HDMI 1.4 (with adapter) but then you can also use IZ3D and DDD drivers in checkerboard mode. With straight HDMI 1.4 you can't use all drivers, you need to pick either the green side or red side. YouTube3D, Phereo and other online 3D sharing sites support checkerboard, NOT HDMI 1.4. The Mitsubishi also supports standards based glasses, like the VESA 3-pin and DLP-Link. So you should always be able to find glasses for cheaper than other sets (which lock you into one single model and then gouge on the price). And ghosting is supposedly very low. Plus the DLPs are cheap as hell. Get one now, keep it for a couple years and then upgrade when they have the *real* 1080P60, 240Hz 3D TVs, passive-polarized full-resolution, 4K, or whatever else they are going to come up with. I'm sure it will be fine. Maybe not the best quality that exists, but its the all-around best value out there.

[Fredz]

I've sent a private message to the guy, I'll keep you informed when I've more info about his sources.

[GoldChain]

Well this is the first I have heard the number 1024x1024 in regards to the RP DLPs, but this is about what I assumed. I mean, no matter how you cut it, you are losing resolution. I had assumed it was the equivalent of 960x1080 but I guess you could also think of it as 1920x540.

960x1080 or 1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels per eye
1024x1024 = 1,048,576 pixels per eye

So, in fact, this 1024x1024 number may be marginally better than the reality of the situation.

Plus the DLPs are cheap as hell. Get one now, keep it for a couple years and then upgrade when they have the *real* 1080P60, 240Hz 3D TVs, passive-polarized full-resolution, 4K, or whatever else they are going to come up with. I'm sure it will be fine. Maybe not the best quality that exists, but its the all-around best value out there.

I'd be very careful of trying to simply boil everything down to a resolution calculation. Just like the 1080p snobs try to dog on 1080i, the fact is, to the eye 1080i delivers 1920x1080 pixels of unique image data 30 times per second, just like 1080p does. 1080i is just "drawn" differently. Folks want to try to play the resolution numbers game and claim that 1080i = 540p, but this is a bad analogy as it's not. From a "here's how much data/image is delivered each second", 1080i = 1080p. Period. Folks that make the mistake of equating 1080i with 540p because of their failure to understand persistence of vision. CRTs were so fast at drawing the screen, it could draw the whole screen 30 times per second, it just did it every other line at a time, but because of persistence of vision, it appears as a single frame in our mind (this doesn't address interlacing artifacts when converting interlaced content to progressive for display, etc).

Same is true here with the DLP @ 960x1080p. IMHO, it's a mistake to jump to a conclusion that it's somehow inferior or "half" resolution. It's NOT. They use a 960x1080 chip that paints 2 separate pictures 120/sec. Because of persistence of vision, those two images come together as a single frame. So the DLP technology is delivering 1920x1080 images 60 times/sec. So the DLP isn't marginally better than 1024x1024 or 720p, it's definitely better (twice as good).

Alot of this is like "using the force" too...... at the end of the day, let your eyes tell you what's real. I've seen 1080i (watched it for years), and plenty of 1080p flat displays (LCD, plasma, etc). IMHO, 1080p is overhyped and was another way to sell another round of technologies (technologies like LCD an Plasma that are truly neither interlaced or progressive displays in the real sense of what those words mean from their origins in display technology). Folks can keep their 42" LCD 1080p. I'll choose my 53" 1080i set. Same in this case. I've seen these large DLP sets, and nitpicking numbers aside, these things look fantastic. I've seen the $4000 65" VT25. They look fantastic also. Better? It might be a tad, but definitely not enough to pay almost 3 times the price for a smaller screen.

It's all good........ I just would recommend watching out for the pixel calculation thing.... there's times it doesn't always tell the full story.

GC

[GoldChain]

Hey Cyber..... I was thinking about things and my post while I was driving in to work....

First off, I wanted to make sure that you didn't mistake my post as being mean or hateful. Sometimes text messages can lose the tone of the writer (or imply a different tone). I really enjoy this type of discussion and it helps me keep things straight and learn, which is the whole point. I guess I should use emoticons more.

Secondly, just thinking this through out loud...... my comment about 1080i and 1080p being the same needs qualification.

From a content perspective, there is 1080i@60fields/sec and 1080p@30 frames/sec. For those that would claim 1080i is half resolution of equivalent of 540p, this is incorrect. As a matter of fact, if you take 30 1920x1080 progressive frames, you can display this exactly on a 1080i@60 display. It's only when you try to display content recorded in 1080i on a 1080p monitor that you run into deinterlacing issues, motion compensators, etc..... And if anything, recording content in 1080i and displaying it on a 1080i display gives smoother motion because you're actually providing new motion information 60 times/sec (as opposed to 30 frames of progressive only updates the image (therefore any motion in the images) 30 times/sec).

Now, from a display perspective, a 1080p display that can truly refresh the whole screen 60 times/sec is clearly double the information as a 1080i@60 or 1080p@30. Any HD content that is delivered to the home is either 720p@60frames, 1080i@60fields, 1080p@30frames, or 1080p@24frames. So, outside of pulldowns or 3D, 1080i@60 or 1080p@30 should be sufficient for displaying any commercially available content. Many displays now have 120Hz/240Hz refresh....... because there's no content that can use it (nay, no device I know of on the market right now can accept anything higher than 1080p@60 for input), the only real uses for this is A) 3D (to deliver 60fps/eye, which I think the newest Plasmas can do?), B) better pulldown from 24p, and 3) the marketing gimmick of frame interpolation. When you consider pull-downs, then a true 120Hz 1080p capable display using a 5:5 pulldown would yield a judder-less conversion from 24fps, but I don't know how many 120Hz/240Hz 1080p displays actually support a 5:5 pulldown. (to truly get that judderless experience in 3D, you'd need 240Hz, which although displays "advertise" 240Hz, I seriously doubt any of them can display real 1080p stereo video with a 5:5 pulldown.)

Also, thinking about interlaced, and wobulation, I realized that wobulation for existing 960x1080 DLP chips (which as I understand it is pretty much all DLP sets out there,l perhaps that will change to 1920x1080 DLP chips @ CES this week?) is an exact clone of the concept of interlacing. Interlacing does it line by line, where wobulation does it odd checkerboard by even checkerboard. IMHO, not only is this analogous, but for the same reason that 1080i@60 is equal to (IMHO, superior to) 1080p@30 from a "amount of pixels displayed" perspective, a DLP display doing wobulation (I'll call it 1080w@120) is equivalent to 1080p@60 from a "amount of pixels displayed" perspective.

Whew........... thanks for letting me dump my brain for a bit!

I'm leaning towards plunking down the cash for the 73" DLP and some glasses and calling it good until the next round of 3D tech hits, but I want to find a local place to see it myself before plunging. We'll see what I can find.

GC

[Fredz]

The guy at AVS answered to my private message and said that although he thought the DLP chip used in the 2010 Mitsubishi TVs was 1024x1024, it has been confirmed to him that it is in fact 960x1080 and that is uses wobulation to produce a 1920x1080 picture.

So I apologize for having been so peremptory towards Mits TVs when in fact it seems there sets are really capable of producing real 1920x1080 images.

Now I still didn't find any confirmation about wether the 738 and 838 models are really capable of producing a full res 1080p image in 3D with the firmware update or if the 638 can do it with the adapter.

Anyway as you say the best thing would surely be to see the display in "real" before making a decision. That's also the recommandation of a reviewer of the 638 on amazon where he also said you should have a dark room for best image.

[GoldChain]

The guy at AVS answered to my private message and said that although he thought the DLP chip used in the 2010 Mitsubishi TVs was 1024x1024, it has been confirmed to him that it is in fact 960x1080 and that is uses wobulation to produce a 1920x1080 picture.

So I apologize for having been so peremptory towards Mits TVs when in fact it seems there sets are really capable of producing real 1920x1080 images.

Now I still didn't find any confirmation about wether the 738 and 838 models are really capable of producing a full res 1080p image in 3D with the firmware update or if the 638 can do it with the adapter.

Anyway as you say the best thing would surely be to see the display in "real" before making a decision. That's also the recommandation of a reviewer of the 638 on amazon where he also said you should have a dark room for best image.

It's all good buddy!!

So a couple of things to cover in this post......

Quickly, I'm in the same boat..... I'd like to know the exact effects of this firmware update on the display. I can't see what a firmware update would do to change the (what I call) 1080w60 (960x1080 wobulated @ 120Hz to produce 1920x1080@60). I would think a 1920x1080 chip is the only way to make it happen.......

So it turns out the Ultimate Electronics close to my work has a 65" DLP (65738) setup w/the 3D kit rig (i.e. using IR and the IR shades from the Mits kit). They were not using a converter as they were using the Panny 3D BD player that outputs checkerboard natively. It was in the brighter part of the show room (which I agree any RPTV looks better in a darker room), but it still looked fantasic. Any doubt about buying this technology for 3D home cinema is gone. Hands down the best experience for the price.

Some observations (keeping in mind this was the IR emitter and glasses from the Mits kit)

* It took around 3 seconds for the glasses to lose sync when I covered the IR sensor with my finger. This was consistent at 3 seconds.
* It was definiltey sub-second (1/4 of a second if I had to guess) for it to regain sync when I removed my finger.

I had the guy use the remote to turn on DLP Link (even tho we had IR glasses). We toggled DLP Link on/off multiple times and I could see a change in the colors when turning it on (which I should, and in theory the DLP link glasses hide the DLP sync flash, so that color change should be imperceptible when using DLP link glasses). Having said that, the term I would use for the color change is far from "washed out" (that I've heard used in the forums before). The color change was slight, and if you didn't see the "original" version, you wouldn't even notice DLP link was turned on when using IR glasses.

So when "using the force" and my eyes, I cannot find ANY reason not to love and buy a DLP display to use for 3D home cinema. I'm 98% ready to get this set and go for it...... I just want to A) nail down exactly what the firmware update does on the 738/838 and B) see if CES has any announcements of a set with a 1920x1080 DLP chip (which would drive down the costs of the current 960x1080 sets even more!!).

GC

[Fredz]

Nice you could test it.

Didn't they have DLP Link glasses so you could see if rainbowing is really present on these sets and to compare the quality with IR glasses ?

And did you ask the vendor if you can buy the IR emitter without buying the entire pack ? Did they give you its actual price ?

I can't see what a firmware update would do to change the (what I call) 1080w60 (960x1080 wobulated @ 120Hz to produce 1920x1080@60). I would think a 1920x1080 chip is the only way to make it happen.......

I guess the firmware update would allow the TV to decode the full 1920x1080 frames to convert them to 960x1080 wobulated ones. In fact it would work exactly like it must do for 1920x1080 2D images but in 3D, so it would produce native resolution in 3D for the display.

With an adapter the conversion would be done from 1920x1080 to checkerboard before the signal enters the TV, so the TV converts a downgraded signal (checkerboard in 1358x764 I guess from AVS posts) to its native resolution, which is not optimal.

Speculations only at this point but it sounds quite logical to me.

[GoldChain]

Nice you could test it.

Didn't they have DLP Link glasses so you could see if rainbowing is really present on these sets and to compare the quality with IR glasses ?

And did you ask the vendor if you can buy the IR emitter without buying the entire pack ? Did they give you its actual price ?

I can't see what a firmware update would do to change the (what I call) 1080w60 (960x1080 wobulated @ 120Hz to produce 1920x1080@60). I would think a 1920x1080 chip is the only way to make it happen.......

I guess the firmware update would allow the TV to decode the full 1920x1080 frames to convert them to 960x1080 wobulated ones. In fact it would work exactly like it must do for 1920x1080 2D images but in 3D, so it would produce native resolution in 3D for the display.

With an adapter the conversion would be done from 1920x1080 to checkerboard before the signal enters the TV, so the TV converts a downgraded signal (checkerboard in 1358x764 I guess from AVS posts) to its native resolution, which is not optimal.

Speculations only at this point but it sounds quite logical to me.

So, I said "DLP Link" to the sales guy and you would have thought I just told him I was an alien (I had to show him where to turn on DLP link in the menu!!). So I didn't press the issue. I figured I'd just deal with what they had to make observations around that.... He mentioned the IR was part of the pack and didn't offer up any info as to "You can buy just the IR for this much $$"....... I figure most folks buying from those places are going to just say "Yeah, give us what we need for 3D" so they sell them a TV and a starter pack......

Yeah...... I was going to speculate as to what the firmware would/could do..... dunno if it's just upping the HDMI interfaces or what....... My original assumption was that it simply does the same conversion from <pick a 1.4a HDMI spec> to checkerboard as the external box, just internally. But yes, that would be nice if it could take the full 1080p and decode.... keeping in mind that's L/R buried in there somewhere..... Here are the formats again:

For movie content (like Blu-ray 3D)
- Frame Packing: 1080p @23.98/24Hz

For game content (like PS3)
- Frame Packing: 720p @50 or 59.94/60Hz

For broadcast content (like 3D TV)
- Side-by-Side Horizontal: 1080i @50 or 59.94/60Hz
- Top-and-Bottom: 720p @ 50 or 59.94/60Hz or 1080p @23.97/24Hz

Since the side-by-side and top-bottom are already "resolution compromised" I wouldn't consider those true full 1080p. Only the frame-packing formats would be.... those require 2x the bandwidth per frame as they simply send the full L and R frames through (almost like frame sequential?). So when it says 1080P @24Hz, that's 24 L and 24R frames per second (essentially the bandwidth of what you might call 1080p@48). So perhaps the firmware update allows those sets to handle the 2x bandwidth requirement and do as you said, not have to go through checkerboarding before display.

GC

[cybereality]

Well I primarily use a non-full HD interleaved display (1680x525 in 3D) or sometimes the VR920, which is only 640x480. Hell, even my Vuzix Wrap 310 looks alright for iPod video and its just 428 x 240. I don't think you need ridiculous resolution just to have an enjoyable experience. But it is foolish to trick yourself into thinking there is not a difference. Whether you will notice that difference in your experience is another matter, and subject to debate. And, of course, price-to-performance is always a concern. So paying 300% the price and only getting a marginal increase in quality may not be a good proposition. But at the end of the day interlaced is, in fact, technically half the resolution but I agree that its not necessarily half the quality. I am not trying to convince you to not buy the Mitsu. I think it is a great product and was very close to buying one myself (and I'd still consider it if I run into any money anytime soon). I just wouldn't consider it "FullHD 3D". Thats all.