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

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.

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

(rainbow vs. brightness)

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.

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.

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.

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

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 :

http://www.sidchapters.org/texas/TX_Cha ... ORI%29.pdf

-> 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.

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 ?

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.

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.



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 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..........



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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.



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

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

Yep, I understand it can look a bit frightening.

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.

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'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.



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:

viewtopic.php?p=44117#p44117

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

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

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...

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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

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.

Agreed. I'm definitely not trying to fool myself into thinking it *is* Full HD 3D. (I'm not sure at this point I even know what is? the new Panasonic VT25s?). It's not that I'm maintaining that it *is* the same, just that it's close enough to most folks wouldn't notice.

To you point, I don't believe paying 300% for a marginal increase in quality (which might be "noticeable" if the 2 systems were side-by-side, but IMHO is virtually undetectable when simply watching the DLP system itself) is worth it. So for me and my dollar, DLP 3D would gives the best bang for the buck.

On a side note, I was hoping to hear something from TI/Mits from CES about a 1920x1080 DMD (which would make the DLP sets Full HD 3D, etc), and found this...

http://www.cepro.com/article/mitsubishi ... _at_ces/K5

What caught my eye was the "120Hz Sub-frame rate"....... which I would take to mean that it's using the same 960x1080 DMD with wobulation. I would think if they're gonna bust out a 1920x1080 DMD, a 92" beast would've been the perfect set to do it on!!

GC

So I finally did it. Today I ordered a WD-73C10. I looked around, read forums, downloaded manuals, etc, and aside from a cosmetic difference (i.e. the case is a little different.... more rounded bevel on the bottom on the 738), the C10 and 638 are exactly the same set. However most places want $300+ more for the 73638 compared to the 73C10. So be it.

Needless so say, I ordered the TV, the 3DA-1 converter, and 2 pairs of the UltraClear DLP Link glasses from Ultra 3D Heaven. So once I get everything, I'll report back my findings/opinions on those.

So, ZalmoxisX, thanks for your list of glasses. I've got quite a list that's impressive for the Mitsubishi and Samsungs........ nice they can do both IR and DLP Link. Here's the small list I'd compiled.

Vendor Model Type Price Standard Battery?
Viewsonic PGD-150 DLP-Link $99 Yes - CR2032 x 2
Xpand X102 DLP-Link $129 No
Xpand X103 IR $129 Yes - CR2032 x 2
NXG NXG-3DG IR $69 Yes - CR2032 x 1
UltraClear DLP-Link $59 Yes - CR2032 x 1
UltraClear IR $59 Yes - CR2032 x 1
Optoma BG-ZD101 DLP-Link $99 Yes - CR2032 x 2

I decided to do DLP Link (and save the $40 on the IR emitter and 1 more thing that could go bad). Given that you can't do DLP Link glasses and IR at the same time (well, let me be clear, you CAN use both at once, however, there's a (IMHO "very") slight discoloration seen by the IR glasses viewers when DLP Link is turned on), I wanted to start with 2 pair fo UltraClear, but when I get more, I'm going to explore the other ones. Since I'm limiting myself to DLP Link, That leaves 3 other brands (in this list) I could choose from. It's sad as I'd like to try the Xpand ones, but do NOT want to get something I can't just buy and change batteries. (I have enough crap with proprietary batteries to charge: cellphones, iPod, PS3 controllers, BlueTooth headset, etc).

So I'll be sure to post an update later when I get to try the UltraClears and once I decide which to try next.

GC

So I received the UltraClear glasses and 3DA-1 adapter today. Tomorrow I'll have the TV and we're a go!

The UC glasses seem comfortable, although the lenses tilt towards the ground some, which A) creates a reflection/glare on the inside if you have any lighting above you, and B) does make them ride low on prescription glasses. A co-worker tried them on over his glasses, which are more round and sit away from his eyes to begin with. I'm going to have my wife try the glasses as she has "the more modern, square, thinner from top to bottom" glasses and the UCs may fit better on those.

I'll update later.

GC

They still make new DLP TV's exclusively with wobulation type DigitalMicromirrorDevice. Latest incarnation is called xHD5 and quite old now. Contains almost as many mirrors as a 720p chip, but the 2D outcome supposed to be 1.4X better because of this subframe oversampling.
Breaking news on screen front meanwhile,
Hell yeah, I have the price of this rear projection material. Very very friendly price.

It's supposed to be way better than usual RPTV screens. In fact should be compared to the best of the front projection screens available. Ignores ambient light just like LCD screens. I think I get a 65" very soon

So.............. it's all said and done. I've received my 73" DLP set........ connected the PS3 and using UltraClear DLP Link glasses. IMHO, it looks fantastic. 3DBD look quite impressive on that large screen. Half-resolution checkerboard or whatever "half-resolution" discussions aside, the end result is a very nice looking, HD 3D experience that is on par with going to the theaters. Gaming is also smokin'. Again, aside from technical discussions of 720p@60 being converted to 1080p@60 checkerboard, etc, the end result is playing 3D games on the PS3 on the DLP is awesome.

This isn't saying that movies/gaming on, say the VT25 plasmas isn't better (perhaps crisper, sharper?), but for the price, the DLP sets and the quality 2D/3D experience they provide is unmatched.

As an aside, I do really like the UltraClear glasses. As others have noted, the earpieces are very flexible plastic, which lets them effortlessly conform to your head. My wife's can wear them over her prescription glasses, which have lenses that aren't as "tall" or "round" as some lenses. Like so:



Also, I let the boys (one is a couple of months shy of being 5, the other is around 3 1/2) watch MotorStorm 3D Rift, then some Despicable Me in 3D. They were a bit big, particularly on the 3.5 year old, however, we secured them with adjustable lanyard-style glasses holders (we bought for our sunglasses when we went white-water rafting this summer). Like these:



So that's a very cheap, comfortable way to adjust them for kids. It also gives some insurance against accidental drops, and little greasy fingers smudging the front lenses trying to push the glasses up on their noses. We're going to leave them on the glasses, even while in their bag... so they're always "ready to go".

I will be ordering 2 (maybe 3 since now I'm in "spending" mode) more pairs to have.... that way the family can have our own, with a spare set if there is a guest, etc.....

So far, quite happy with the rig........ could see how the 82" would be nice to have.

Thanks to everyone in the forum that gave input/feedback, and likes to talk about this stuff..... the MTBS forums have been a wonderful place to learn and I will, of course, continue visiting to talk, discuss, and argue about anything 3D.

GC

Sounds like you got a nice setup there. Should be more than enough for watching 3D movies and playing some games. The lanyards are also great to have. I use them on the VR920 and it helps a lot to keep everything secure on my face.

Thanks for the review GoldChain, nice to know that the 3D experience is very good on this setup. And happy 3D with your family...

So real quick: I'm enjoying the 73" DLP greatly! Watching a 2D blu-ray as I type this and it's so clean/clear.......

So to the point of the title of this thread. I use the THX/SMPTE viewing distance calculators, and decided to try the (I believe THX max recommended) viewing distance of 8.5'. Although my wife is going to "give it a try" before deciding (that she likely doesn't like it that close), I have no issues sitting 8.5' away from the 73" screen. It's very comfortable viewing and I feel I can really appreciate the full resolution of Blu-Rays and 1080p gaming.

As far as lens "size", with the UltraClears and I'm sure many of the others out there, this is a non-issue. Even at 8.5' from a 73" set, the UCs have no issue not "covering" the whole screen when wearing them.

I noticed when watching 3D BD or doing 3D gaming the image wasn't quite as sharp/crisp. I initially chalked it up to the wobulation and the fact that the checkerboard is used for stereo (i.e. half resolution). Still looked really good, and just last night a friend was like "The quality on this is awesome" while playing Wipeout HD in 3D. But as a test, I played a BD in 2D (Despicable Me) and simply put the glasses on (both in an off state, and again in an ON state with DLP enabled (which you can do regardless of if there is 3D content playing or not)) and found that the glasses themselves seem to cause the same slight drop in sharpness/detail whether in an on or off state. I know on HD camcorders, when I bought a wide-angle adapter, there were some lenses that were made to be able to resolve 1080 lines of resolution, and if you used a non-HD rated lens, you would get sub-par quality due to lowered resolution of the lens. So I'm wondering if anyone has done any resolution testing with the different glasses? I know most folks that have used the UltraClear glasses have said there's no difference between the Samsung/Mits glasses.... so are ALL LCD shutterglasses prone to a slight detail decrease? Just by the nature of the glasses? So IMHO, whatever quality/resolution IQ difference between half-resolution checkerboard and true 1080p 3D is masked by the glasses themselves.

Anyway sorry for rambling again! I seem to do that a lot!

BTW, if anyone is interested...... I picked up the WD-73C10 (same as the 73638 with a difference bezel style) for $1299 shipped. Yesterday a co-worker was at a local Ultimate Electronics store, and they had the WD-73638 for $999 and the WD-73738 for $1199!! I was a little miffed that I could've gotten it for $300 cheaper had I waited a week, but you never know. I love the quality of the set, so no regrets. Things always get cheaper... it just happened to be the week after I got mine.

GC

Not all glasses are created equal. Some are more clear than others.

Which I would assume to be the case. I'd like to try some other brands to see if they're any clearer, but frankly if you have to pay $200 for a pair that are just marginally better as far as IQ, then I'm not sure it's worth it when considering I'm buying for 4 people (not including any guests )

And not having any experience with other shutterglasses (except for brief uses in stores and such), I was kind of commenting out loud that a given BD looked a clear and sharp in 3D as it did in 2D when viewed through the glasses..... in which case all of the hyperbole about 1/2 resolution checkerboard is essentially made moot.

GC

I wonder if the result would be the same with IR shutter glasses instead of DLP shutter glasses. As I said previously, people on AVS reported that the image had some problems (rainbowing) with these DLP glasses (in on or off state) and DLPs TV because of polarization.

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with this, but still, I've never heard complaints about other type of shutter glasses with DLP TVs and now there are two identified problems with DLP Link glasses on this type of TVs. It could be a good idea to find a pair of IR glasses for testing.

Interestingly enough, I'd read about the rainbowing, and IIRC it was the IR glasses that were experiencing that issue (something about polarization of the glasses and the DLP screen surface)? I was aware of this, and have been watching for it..... closely, and I can honestly say I haven't experienced or see any rainbow effects off of the screen w/these glasses.... If I do, I'll be the first to make a post about it because I know that's floating around out there...

I'd like to try some IR, but not sure if I want to dump another $40+ into an emitter just to test some glasses. The sad thing is, even if I did test some IRs, it's likely be the UltraClear that I would start with as they're $59! If I knew someone that had some IRs (and emitter) that I could try on here, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I guess I could always buy some @ BestBuy and return them when done. haha!

GC

No, this effect was due to the DLP Link glasses, that's why I told you several times that you should still consider IR glasses instead of DLP Link.

I don't think you specifically need the Ultra-Clear IR glasses, as I said previously all the IR glasses seem to have the same polarization, which is different from DLP Link glasses. You could simply ask the guy who sold you the TV if he can lend you a pair of Sony/Pana/Samsung/etc. glasses. Considering you bought a $1200 TV from him, I suppose he won't mind...

I gotcha......... I don't think I can borrow a pair of IR glasses from TigerDirect.com

So, as a side note, I'm wondering: Why in the world would they use a different polarization for IR -vs- DLP Link.... let's face it, the primary difference in the glasses is what sensor is on there to receive the sync signal. Strange they would use a polarization on DLP link glasses that is specifically going to cause this rainbow effect when used on DLP screens! While the IR glasses don't cause this effect? That makes no sense.......

Needless to say, I still haven't seen that effect..... and I'm watching for it...... any time there are a light screen/background, I'm looking at the edges, the middle, I'm tilting my head around...... nada...... but I'll keep looking and report back!

GC

Ah, sorry about that, I thought you bought it in a "real" store.

I already explained why, read the AVS forum to have a more complete explanation.

From what I've read it's more evident when there is external light from the sun in the room. If you don't see any rainbowing in these conditions then it's really good news. And it would also mean that the polarization of the glasses is not responsible for the image quality degradation you are experiencing.