iZ3D + DLP - Checkerboard or Shutterglasses?

[Sjonnie]

Right now I have a Zalman Trimon 22", which I really like (except for the driverproblems I am experiencing at the moment).

If I would like to improve my 3d-experience even more, I'd need a higher resolution (Trimon is 1680*525/eye).

So my question is: Why do Samsung DLP tv's need the checkerboard driver, can't they deliver 60Hz per eye on full resolution? (with the shutterglass-driver from iZ3D)

1920*1080 per eye would be awesome!

[chrisdfw]

Due to that most common HDMI not supporting enough bandwidth to support double the data going across the cable they had to cut it in half by doing the checkerboard pattern. This limitation may be overcome with the newer HDMI standards but don't expect 3d to catch up for awhile.

[Sjonnie]

Hmm, too bad
Then I'll stick to my awesome 3d-monitor
I do hope Nvidia's drivers will work again soon, had problems since 180.43. However, for the moment I'll be fine with the fantastic iZ3D drivers

[CraziFuzzy]

Due to that most common HDMI not supporting enough bandwidth to support double the data going across the cable they had to cut it in half by doing the checkerboard pattern. This limitation may be overcome with the newer HDMI standards but don't expect 3d to catch up for awhile.

This is not entirely true. The checkerboard method is actually a function of how the 1080 DLP chip is designed. Because of the need for hinges and support electronics on the DMD, the layout works best if they actually use a checkerboard pattern of pixels. The 1080 DLP DMD actually only has half of the image's mirrors (all the 'black' checkerboard squares, for instance). There is then a separate 'wobulation' mirror that wobbles back and forth at 120Hz, shifting the image left and right by one pixel width. In essence, the DLP is alsways working in this 2-checkerboard mode. The 3D 'feature' of the sets is basically just adding a jack for the glasses, that makes them blink in sync with this wobulation. The picture is also focused slightly soft, such that the pixels are actually drawn slightly larger than 1 pixel in width, so this results in the pixels slightly overlapping, so that when using 3D glasses, you don't really see the checkerboard pattern.

There are some other great benefits to the way this system works. You could, if designed for it, use it to actually playback 120Hz video, by interleaving 2 frames into a checkerboard pattern (first frame as stereo left, second as stereo right). The 120Hz wobulation also allows the set to properly display 24Hz video without stutter. (the sets actually will function in 1080p/24 mode, which actually displays each frame for 5 'wobbles' each, instead of 3 frames of one, 2 frames of another on a 60Hz display)

So, to answer your question, the sets cannot actually display a full 1920x1080 image per eye. However, in practice, it is VERY close.

[chrisdfw]

If they do checkerboard because of the DLP chip wobulation instead of HDMI bandwidth limitations, then why is my Samsung Plasma also limited to using the checkerboard pattern for 3d?

According to the DLP whitepaper they did checkerboard patterns due to HDMI bandwidth limitations:

http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducin ... epaper.pdf

[Sjonnie]

Then I don't see the benefit of an expensive DLP-tv, the Zalman gives fantastic 3d, but it's just like 2d-gaming: 1680x1050 is more beautiful than 1024x768. I understand that you don't see the checkerpattern, but it's the resolution that matters for me.
The size of a DLP-tv doesn't impress me, because I would put a screen with double the width at double the distance so that the viewing angle would be the same.

[Welder]

We are glad you are having luck with our drivers,

Oh, and just in-case you did not know, the iZ3D Monitor has full resolution of 1680x1050 in 3d, or 2d.

[Sjonnie]

Just in-case you did not know, the iZ3D Monitor has full resolution of 1680x1050 in 3d, or 2d.

I wanted to buy the iZ3D, but there were no Dutch shops that sold them. Also I didn't like the fact that the brightness wasn't the same for both eyes.

[Neil]

It's not brightness. The brightness is very much equal.

There is a color tinge difference in the left eye, and in some color situations, the ghosting is a bit more pronounced in the non-dominant eye.

I think it's only an issue if you play with just one eye open at a time.

Regards,
Neil

[Sjonnie]

It's not brightness. The brightness is very much equal.

There is a color tinge difference in the left eye, and in some color situations, the ghosting is a bit more pronounced in the non-dominant eye.

You're right, that was what I meant. (My English isn't that good )

But I would certainly have bought the iZ3D if they were sold in stores in The Netherlands. (Didn't want to ship such an expensive item from the other side of the world.)

[Neil]

I'm sure you will find a solution that works well for you. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating one solution over another - I just wanted to set your expectations.

What is DLP availability like in your area? DLP solutions offer the best driver flexibility because they will work with both NVIDIA and iZ3D software solutions.

Regards,
Neil

[CraziFuzzy]

In all actuality, the effective resolution of the two screens is not that different. The total pixel count on the iz3d is only about 14% more than the DLP, and this difference is virtually nullified by the checker boarding on the DLP increasing the apparent resolution. The perfect color/brightness between the two eyes also improves the stereo effect. It is also in a native HD resolution, which is more likely to come into play once HD3D movies become available. It is more suited do multiple viewers, with its larger size and longer viewing distance.

Also don't let it slip by that, for the money, it is one of the best televisions available.

[CraziFuzzy]

If they do checkerboard because of the DLP chip wobulation instead of HDMI bandwidth limitations, then why is my Samsung Plasma also limited to using the checkerboard pattern for 3d?

According to the DLP whitepaper they did checkerboard patterns due to HDMI bandwidth limitations:

http://www.dlp.com/downloads/Introducin ... epaper.pdf

I believe the main reason for the checkerboarding still lies in point 3 of that whitepaper (the reduced cost). The other points were more of an afterthought/marketing.

The Plasmas maintain the same input format for cross platform compatability. Also, since they pretty much had to split the image for display/refresh reasons, it makes more sense to split it via checkerboard than interlacing, as the checkerboard maintains a lot more visual detail.

[martinlandau]

Welder: the iZ3D Monitor has full resolution of 1680x1050 in 3d

I still am not totally understanding how this works, if you have 1680x1050 pixels, and you display 2 images, there has to be information loss somewhere right? The DLP solution loses some information, but because of the checkerboarding it is lost in a way where the viewer doesn't perceive a large resolution loss in the vertical or the horizontal. Can someone explain in a clear, dumb downed way how IZ3D keeps full resolution? I have heard bits and pieces here and there but I still don't get it. I understand when using 2 projectors and passive polarized glasses you are doubling the resolution effectively, how does that translate to the iz3d monitor solutoin and passive polarized glasses. Then how much information is lost from Iz3d versus DLP checkerboard given the same pixel constraints - say 1680x1050?

Neil: It's not brightness. The brightness is very much equal. There is a color tinge difference in the left eye, and in some color situations, the ghosting is a bit more pronounced in the non-dominant eye.

I thought it was brightness too when first using the monitor, but do see very noticeable color differences between my 2 eyes when using the monitor and polarized glasses. Over the years I frequently have closed my left eye and only used my right eye when in front of my monitor for 30 hours a day just doing 2d regular work - less headaches and eyestrain I suppose - I haven't read any science articles lately about that but I wonder if over several decades it greatly affects the nueral pathways in the brain and visual cortex instead of using both eyes - I know I have read that if kids got too much S3D it could alter their depth perception and their visual cortex could develop improperly (something I don't see talked about much around here). So maybe this is really only a big concern for developing brains. However I did start doing this at a very young age, maybe 8 or 10 years old if my memory is correct. Over time I have noticed certain colors are perceived differently from each eye now. It seems I see much more red from my right eye and much more blue from my left eye, so if IZ3d is writing algorithms that assume equal color perception in each eye it won't be optimized for my eyeballs that have color differences will it? Or am I just seeing things? Also what studies have been done on the average human showing how much difference in color between the eyeballs you can induce before the brain has to work hard to interpolate all that differing information? I got headaches and eyestrain fairly quickly with crt and shutter, and even imax and shutter, I could go a a little longer with z800, but iz3d and realD I seem to be able to watch 3d for much longer.

Sjonnie: But I would certainly have bought the iZ3D if they were sold in stores in The Netherlands. (Didn't want to ship such an expensive item from the other side of the world.)

Sjonnie I told some Iz3d people here that they need to reduce by 1 inch the size of their shipping box, it saves almost 100 dollars using the US postal system ground rate, perhaps similar maths are used by international shipping companies. I am no shipping box engineer but looking at thier shipping box it seems with a little strategic placing of the foam pieces you can reduce the size of the box and not greatly alter the protection.

crazifuzzy: In all actuality, the effective resolution of the two screens is not that different. The total pixel count on the iz3d is only about 14% more than the DLP,

So you are saying IZ3d at 1680x1050 is 14% more effective perceived resolution than a 1920x1080 dlp checkerboard?

The perfect color/brightness between the two eyes also improves the stereo effect.

The stereo effect is important, but reducing headaches/eyestrain for long sessions is the most important thing to me and I would think everyone else. I have not tried a shuttering LCD type solution, but shuttering and CRT was just too painfaul - perhaps I will have to buy dlp and test. You talk about the pefect color/brightness between the 2 eyes, is this a certainty on every human being? I can close my left eye right now and the world in front of me gets a red tint from looking through my right eye, if I close my right eye and look through my left I get a bluish tint and things seem brighter (and I haven't looked at s3d in almost a week), so for me to get equal balance wouldn't there have to be some kind of test for this and then an adjustment in the colors projected for each eye? Perhaps I just spend too much time in front of the screen under the flourescent lights and need to get outside more. I have noticed this difference in color has gotten more pronounced for my eyes over the years.

[chrisdfw]

I believe the main reason for the checkerboarding still lies in point 3 of that whitepaper (the reduced cost). The other points were more of an afterthought/marketing.

The Plasmas maintain the same input format for cross platform compatability. Also, since they pretty much had to split the image for display/refresh reasons, it makes more sense to split it via checkerboard than interlacing, as the checkerboard maintains a lot more visual detail.

The "reduced cost" is because it would take 2 seperate HDMI inputs to handle a seperate left and right view since the bandwidth of HDMI cannot handle that much information for two complete 1080p frames.

As for the visual detail benefits of checkerboarding, it makes text hard to read. There is also a more noticeable "stair step" issue with diagnal lines.

It amazes me that after 8+ years of 3d gaming we still don't have a ghost free, flicker free, 1024X768 or better solution on a large screen or projector. My 1024X768 DLP projector is still the closest I have gotten at the cost of playing at 85hz and seeing a little flicker on bright white objects.

[chrisdfw]

I still am not totally understanding how this works, if you have 1680x1050 pixels, and you display 2 images, there has to be information loss somewhere right? The DLP solution loses some information, but because of the checkerboarding it is lost in a way where the viewer doesn't perceive a large resolution loss in the vertical or the horizontal. Can someone explain in a clear, dumb downed way how IZ3D keeps full resolution? I have heard bits and pieces here and there but I still don't get it. I understand when using 2 projectors and passive polarized glasses you are doubling the resolution effectively, how does that translate to the iz3d monitor solutoin and passive polarized glasses. Then how much information is lost from Iz3d versus DLP checkerboard given the same pixel constraints - say 1680x1050?

I believe the IZ3D uses two 1680X1050 LCD panels sandwiched together using polarizing so each eye only sees one of the two panels.

[Sjonnie]

Of course we shouldn't forget that 2 times 1680x525 gives more details than 1 time.

Indeed, imho very stupid of iZ3D to have unnecessary high shipping costs. Although I'm not entirely sure if that was the main reason for me to not get it from 5000 miles, I also didn't want to take the risk that I would have to send it back there if there would be a problem with my monitor.


DLP-tv's aren't available here. But I just want to know for when they finally arrive here.

And Martin Landau, I can't remember I ever got a headache or whatever from viewing at my Zalman, but I think it's different for each single individu.

[Welder]

Our shipping costs are not effected by the 1 inch size difference. We pay a custom discounted price. So it should be much cheaper than if you tried to go to UPS' site and typed in the addresses manually. Also, depending on how long ago you checked, about 4 months or so ago, our shipping rate for international was reduced by about 50%

Also, as far as how we have full resolution, the explanation above regarding dual LCD's is correct. We have 2 LCD's so each eye gets a full image. We purposely went this route, because we wanted to preserve resolution, and not have any cuts in the resolution, or visible lines. If you only have 1 LCD, you have half resolution because it must generate 2 images on 1 screen. But when you have 2 screens, then it is not an issue.

[CraziFuzzy]

Actually, I believe the HDMI 1.3 spec does have enough bandwidth for 2 full 1080p images. It is able to display 2560*1600*75@24-bit (307,200,000px/sec), which is more bandwidth than 1920x1080x120@24-bit (248,832,000px/sec).

[Sjonnie]

Also, as far as how we have full resolution, the explanation above regarding dual LCD's is correct. We have 2 LCD's so each eye gets a full image. We purposely went this route, because we wanted to preserve resolution, and not have any cuts in the resolution, or visible lines. If you only have 1 LCD, you have half resolution because it must generate 2 images on 1 screen. But when you have 2 screens, then it is not an issue.

That's a great benefit of the iZ3D imo. Haha when I remember me wanting 3d 10 years ago, as a child, I'm so glad and thankful with the 22"-3d-monitor I have now. Can't wait to see what the future will bring us for even more amazing virtual reality methods!

[martinlandau]

It amazes me that after 8+ years of 3d gaming we still don't have a ghost free, flicker free, 1024X768 or better solution on a large screen or projector. My 1024X768 DLP projector is still the closest I have gotten at the cost of playing at 85hz and seeing a little flicker on bright white objects.

I have a sony1272 crt projector - it has refresh rates as high as 150hz and the highest resolution it supports is 1600x1200, I got it real cheap off of ebay for 300 dollars many years ago, I don't understand your problem - I project a 10 foot screen with it!

As to 8 years of 3D gaming, I played a 3d shootemup 16 multiplayer game called Midi Maze on my atari st back in the middle 80's - so that is at least 20 years ago - where have you been?

[CraziFuzzy]

I know I'm pretty dang happy with my ghost free flicker free DLP. 120Hz is flicker free for a large majority of the people out there, and if the demand was there, a 2-chip dlp could actually be made to work with polarized glasses. The cost would be considerably higher than the single chip LCS method though, so that's where we're at right now. The amount of HD 3D content is so limited, the market isn't there yet. It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, no great sets because of no content, that isn't there because there aren't enough good sets. However, I'd rather do it right and slowly have the adoption increase, then jump in and potentially end up with inadequate industry standards.

Totally off topic case in point. I drive natural gas vehicles (still relatively rare here in the states), and the biggest reasons they haven't been more popular are:
1.) Not enough stations to fill up.
2.) Not enough cars manufactured to be sold in the states.

Car companies won't build the cars unless there is demand, which requires stations. Entrepreneurs won't build the stations, unless there are cars/customers to sell to. In places (like Utah), where the government stepped in and put out big incentives for the cars, the numbers went up, and overloaded the insufficient fueling infrastructure. Things like this need to grow slowly.

Back to 3D, the best way to get over this problem is to get a number of 3D ready displays out in the market, with little to no extra cost. That way people aren't really turned off by the fact that the amount of media is limited, as they didn't really pay anything extra for the ability. Then, once there are enough displays, the media will follow. The 3D-DLP is the best way for this to work. It sells great on its television merits alone, but has the secondary effect of getting a large number of 3D ready displays in the market place, slowly, and silently, creating a demand for 3D content.

[martinlandau]

I believe the IZ3D uses two 1680X1050 LCD panels sandwiched together using polarizing so each eye only sees one of the two panels.

I just don't comprehend, and I am really struggling, and it is really frustrating me and making me emotional, maybe because I am so old and my brain is so worn out now. I imagine each pixel like a mini flashlight, or a mini bulb, and if you sandwich 1 bulb in front of another bulb, the light from the bulb closest to your eye dominates - how do you clearly see the light from the bulb in back - I just don't get it - please make my dumb brain understand how 1 particle of light can occupy the same space at the same time as another - this defies all physics I thought I knew - that stuff about light being both a wave and a particle always went over my head though. I am trying to conceptualize - I have a blue lightbulb in front of me right now and a red lightbulb in front of me right now, when I put the blue lightbulb in front of the red one and turn them both on, I am not seeing just red - so I need help. So make me understand how the pixel on the panel in back reaches my eyeball when the pixel on the panel in front is blocking that pixel.

I thought they had 1 panel that produced the 1680x1050 pixels and then another panel that polarized those pixels, so yes there are 2 panels, but only one providing the light - and the way you describe it make it sound like there are 2 panels providing light at 1680x1050 pixels each - meaning 3360x2100 pixels of info are there and then a third panel polarzing, but that is not what it looks like from the picture I have seen.

[Welder]

There are two panels at 1680x1050

One screen cannot be seen at all without glasses, because it is polarized light. When you put glasses on, it allows each eye to see each screen. so you are seeing both screens at the same time, each with 1680x1050

[Sjonnie]

There are two panels at 1680x1050

One screen cannot be seen at all without glasses, because it is polarized light. When you put glasses on, it allows each eye to see each screen. so you are seeing both screens at the same time, each with 1680x1050

I always thought that the polarization of light makes it stoppable by a polarization filter, but not that you need glasses to see polarized light. Are you sure you don't see both screens without glasses?

[Welder]

Yes

If there is something on the front screen, you cannot see it unless you are looking at it at an extremely severe angle from the side, and even then, you see a very fine outline

Here is a whitepaper with a lot of information, it's a long read, but it may teach you some things:

http://iz3d.com/download/iZ3D_Whitepaper.pdf

[Sjonnie]

Yes

If there is something on the front screen, you cannot see it unless you are looking at it at an extremely severe angle from the side, and even then, you see a very fine outline

Here is a whitepaper with a lot of information, it's a long read, but it may teach you some things:

http://iz3d.com/download/iZ3D_Whitepaper.pdf

I've read that before. And it shows a picture telling the same as I am: you will see the picture double without glasses (unless ofcourse you are displaying the same picture on both screens). (See the picture with the double red car)

[Welder]

Yes, but the doubled part you see is only the back panel.

The back panel has doubling also when in 3D mode.

[martinlandau]

There are two panels at 1680x1050

One screen cannot be seen at all without glasses, because it is polarized light. When you put glasses on, it allows each eye to see each screen. so you are seeing both screens at the same time, each with 1680x1050

Ok so I have a lightbulb that needs to show red regular light, it is a regular red lightbulb, and in front of that I have a blue polarized lighbulb. I turn both lightbulbs on - and put on my polarized glasses - I still think you are losing information of some type - how does the left eye get pure red and the right eye get pure blue? If there are 2 full screens there with full color at 1680x1050 - then I should be able to take off my special glasses and see one windows desktop - and then put on the special glasses and see another full color full resolution windows desktop - but that is not how it works - only one of the screens gives me full color - the other is like greyscale - so I don't really have 2 full screens of 1680x1050 at full color do I? Even if I did, I still don't understand how people keep telling me I can have 2 lightbulbs, one in front of the other, and everything is equal. Something has to be lost somewhere, even if 2 light particles can occupy the same space at the same time - the bulb in back will send the light particle to my eyeball slower than the bulb in front - so there is a time delay of the 2 light sources reaching my respective eyeballs since they are at different distances to my eyeballs.

If I fire up 2 projectors, and polarize the light of one of them, I can have 2 full color full resolution desktops where I can switch between the 2 either by wearing or removing the special glasses - but I can't do that on the Iz3d monitor - why not? If there are 2 full color full resolution displays there - why can't I do that? I am getting more emotional now like I am some real big dummy that doesn't understand this very obvious and easy technology ;(

[Welder]

There is only one light source. LCD is like glass windows, so the one light shines through both. The pixels on the front alter the light so that each eye gets different perspective.

When you have the glasses on, you can see stuff on the front screen. Not in color though.

[Sjonnie]

Yes, but the doubled part you see is only the back panel.

The back panel has doubling also when in 3D mode.

oh... ok

[CraziFuzzy]

Welder, you buys really need a better diagram on your site to show what is going on.

[martinlandau]

Welder, you buys really need a better diagram on your site to show what is going on.

I agree crazifuzzy, I am still having trouble understanding even with all the time and input people have put in trying to get me to understand - I do appreciate their efforts and I am sure what seems clear and obvious to them should translate to the same for me but it doesn't. If the front panel polarizes each pixel behind it on the back panel on pixel by pixel basis, then each pixel is either sent to the right or left eye depending on how it is polarized right? So then you are halving the resolution each eye gets - they cannot both be getting a full 1680x1050 eh? Perhaps if they provided a graphic that showed the light on a pixel by pixel basis going through the back panel pixel and then what happens to it as it hits the front panel pixel I could better conceptualize what is going on.

[BlackQ]

Hi, guys!

We'll try to change WhitePaper to make it clear, but we will add geometry and math there then.

Light from each back sub-pixel has two characteristics: normalized intensity (from 0 to 1) and angle of polarization. Because of analyzer after back panel angle pf polarization is always 0. Intensity based on our algorithm is Left + Right divided by 2 ((L+R)/2) .

Front panel does not change intensity (because liquid crystals don't do that), but rotate polarization. Rotation angle depends on signal we send to panel. Relation between polarization angle and signal is: cosine of polarization angle (alpha) equals of square root of signal (I) (Malus law).

Then light after front panel will have intensity (L+R)/2 and polarization angle alpha = arccos(sqrt(I)).

Now we are coming to glasses with orthogonal lenses with angles beta (35) and 180-beta (145). We need to find I value to get L value to left eye and R value to the right eye. Glasses (lenses) are doing filtering light cutting from it the part with is aligned to their own polarization - mathematically it looks like vector projection to coordinate axis. Then for two lens we have:

I(l) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*cos(beta) = L

I(r) - (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*sin(beta) = R

solving this system we'll get that signal for front panel

I = L / (L+R)

And finally let me give you sample:

To show 2D (L=R) in 3D mode you have:

Back panel: (L + R) / 2 = 2L / 2 = L = R

Front panel: L / (L + R) = L / 2L = 1/2

I (L) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*cos(beta) = L = R

I (R) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*sin(beta) = L = R

I hope I was clear enough (I did not involve colors and gamma, because consideration is the same, but a bit more complicated)

[Sjonnie]

Hi, guys!

We'll try to change WhitePaper to make it clear, but we will add geometry and math there then.

Light from each back sub-pixel has two characteristics: normalized intensity (from 0 to 1) and angle of polarization. Because of analyzer after back panel angle pf polarization is always 0. Intensity based on our algorithm is Left + Right divided by 2 ((L+R)/2) .

Front panel does not change intensity (because liquid crystals don't do that), but rotate polarization. Rotation angle depends on signal we send to panel. Relation between polarization angle and signal is: cosine of polarization angle (alpha) equals of square root of signal (I) (Malus law).

Then light after front panel will have intensity (L+R)/2 and polarization angle alpha = arccos(sqrt(I)).

Now we are coming to glasses with orthogonal lenses with angles beta (35) and 180-beta (145). We need to find I value to get L value to left eye and R value to the right eye. Glasses (lenses) are doing filtering light cutting from it the part with is aligned to their own polarization - mathematically it looks like vector projection to coordinate axis. Then for two lens we have:

I(l) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*cos(beta) = L

I(r) - (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*sin(beta) = R

solving this system we'll get that signal for front panel

I = L / (L+R)

And finally let me give you sample:

To show 2D (L=R) in 3D mode you have:

Back panel: (L + R) / 2 = 2L / 2 = L = R

Front panel: L / (L + R) = L / 2L = 1/2

I (L) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*cos(beta) = L = R

I (R) = (L+R)/2*cos^2(alpha)*sin(beta) = L = R

I hope I was clear enough (I did not involve colors and gamma, because consideration is the same, but a bit more complicated)

Wow! I'm very impressed, haha not because of the formulas (I study Mathematics in University), but that someone of the company itself is explaining it. So many other companies don't take time to listen to/answer their customers (*cough*NVIDIA*cough*).

To me you were clear enough

[BlackQ]

I'm glad it helps I assume we'll add something like that to WhitePaper as Appendix... for people who like Math and Physics

[crim3]

I didn't know how the iz3d monitors work till now. I got curious reading this thread so I read the whitepaper yesterday and it's a brilliant technology. I'm amazed.

I think that what can confuse most people is that almost all solutions are based in having the left and right images in phisically separate screens (spatial or time separations) and then obscure one for each eye. But having the two images merged in the same screen and let each eye see the right proportion of image light at subpixel level by continous polarization manipulation (not 2 fixed polarizations) is simply brilliant.

Maybe you could add something at the begining like "Unlike most stereoscopic solutions that blah blah blah...." and change the mental process of the reader right at the begining.

[Likay]

This is also the reason why the iz3d as passive polarized technique is able to use the whole resolution for both images. I have to admit i'm a bit amazed by the technology as well Customercare is also an outstanding thing when you come in contact with iz3d.