New LED LCDs have a more reflective screen [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : New LED LCDs have a more reflective screen



Nasir
09-04-2010, 01:52 PM
It has dawned on me that the more recent LED LCD TVs and especially the 3D TVs have a highly reflective glassy screen. Some reviews claim that it enhances the picture, while that may be the case, I found that on dark shots, the room is reflected quite annoyingly by the glass like panel. I have all white walls and white sofas to match, so am seriously considering waiting a while before I buy a TV. That is unless some of you have managed to reduce this problem or figured a way around it. Please comment on solutions or did you eventually get used to the reflections and no longer find it a nuisance. Until now, Philips had low reflecting screens on their models, but their 3D ready new TV has a glass window like screen - looks amazing but the daylight reflection of what was behind me has put me off, for the moment. I have curtains that will stop such harsh reflections, but because everything behind my sitting position is white, I THINK it may become an issue. If I remember correctly, the older Plasma TVs had a similar glass panel look. As I said, this is a problem only when dark colors are being displayed by the TV .....
I do not want this thread to turn into a 3D bashing of sorts, so please only input personal experiences OR suggestions to help...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-06-2010, 08:47 AM
My Samsung does have a more reflective screen than let's say my Kuros. However, 3D needs that reflective screen to keep light levels high to compensate for the loss of light levels through the shutter glasses.

The room the Samsung sits in is largely grey, so my problems with reflections are quite a bit less than yours. If reflections do become a problem, I have some black painted diffusion panels I can attached to the wall via a push in connector already installed in the wall. I am not sure I will ever need it because I can cover up all the windows via motorized darkening shades. I can turn that room pitch black in the middle of the day. This comes in handy when I have to do reviews during the daylight hours, and really needed to control the light entering the room.

Woochifer
09-06-2010, 11:25 AM
I don't think this has anything to do with LED or LCD or 3D. Reflective screens simply reflect demand and market trends.

Samsung has installed reflective glossy screens with many of their LCD TVs for the last three years, and the glossy trend has been ongoing with computer monitors and laptops for even longer. You can hardly find a laptop or smartphone or tablet in retail stores nowadays that doesn't have a glossy screen.

The irony is that while LCD TVs have trended towards more reflective glossy screens, plasma TVs now all come with some sort of anti-glare or anti-reflective coating.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-07-2010, 01:31 PM
I don't think this has anything to do with LED or LCD or 3D. Reflective screens simply reflect demand and market trends.

Samsung has installed reflective glossy screens with many of their LCD TVs for the last three years, and the glossy trend has been ongoing with computer monitors and laptops for even longer. You can hardly find a laptop or smartphone or tablet in retail stores nowadays that doesn't have a glossy screen.

The irony is that while LCD TVs have trended towards more reflective glossy screens, plasma TVs now all come with some sort of anti-glare or anti-reflective coating.

I have to disagree with you bud. I have seen both the glossy and non glossy screens on 3D televisions, and you definately have an advantage with a reflective screen than you do with the non glossy in terms of keeping light levels high when watching 3D through the shutter based glasses.

As far as regular 2D application of LED and LCD, then I have no comments on that.

Woochifer
09-07-2010, 11:07 PM
I have to disagree with you bud. I have seen both the glossy and non glossy screens on 3D televisions, and you definately have an advantage with a reflective screen than you do with the non glossy in terms of keeping light levels high when watching 3D through the shutter based glasses.

As far as regular 2D application of LED and LCD, then I have no comments on that.

My comments don't have anything to do with the performance of glossy screens, simply the market trend in that direction on the LCD side.

Interesting comment on the 3D performance, because I recall the concerns with graphic designers when more and more flat panel computer monitors started coming with glossy screens. With still images on a LCD panel, a matte screen supposedly maintains better color accuracy (then again, high end digital prepress shops kept their CRT monitors, which don't have matte finishes, because of their superior color accuracy).

Nasir
09-08-2010, 10:49 AM
Thanks for the input.
Apparently, LG 3D TV has a matte screen.
The way I see it is that I will have to convince the wife to put something above the sofas to eliminate " wall reflections" ( dear me, a term heavily used by audiophiles, now to become a videophile´s pain in the bum ) , like a large tapestry or carpet. It will have to be something cheap as the 2 remaining cats will autograph it frequently with their claws. Also, new darker covers for the sofa, the chandelier will probably have to go as well..... I hope she does not let ME go as well.....

pixelthis
09-09-2010, 10:11 AM
Thanks for the input.
Apparently, LG 3D TV has a matte screen.
The way I see it is that I will have to convince the wife to put something above the sofas to eliminate " wall reflections" ( dear me, a term heavily used by audiophiles, now to become a videophile´s pain in the bum ) , like a large tapestry or carpet. It will have to be something cheap as the 2 remaining cats will autograph it frequently with their claws. Also, new darker covers for the sofa, the chandelier will probably have to go as well..... I hope she does not let ME go as well.....

you are overthinking this.
ALL YOU need is light that is not in line of sight of your screen, lights that are either besides
or behind the TV.
THESE are for serious watching, the rest of the time you can use others.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-09-2010, 10:17 AM
you are overthinking this.
ALL YOU need is light that is not in line of sight of your screen, lights that are either besides
or behind the TV.
THESE are for serious watching, the rest of the time you can use others.:1:

What about light that washes off the walls brightness? This is going to accentuate reflections in the room. Light does not just shine in one place leaving the rest in darkness.(or maybe you didn't know this).

Also brightness, you don't watch 3D TV with the lights on - it reduces the 3D effect. But of course you don't know this with your best buy five minute 3D education.

pixelthis
09-09-2010, 10:36 AM
What about light that washes off the walls brightness? This is going to accentuate reflections in the room. Light does not just shine in one place leaving the rest in darkness.(or maybe you didn't know this).

Also brightness, you don't watch 3D TV with the lights on - it reduces the 3D effect. But of course you don't know this with your best buy five minute 3D education.

It reduces the 3d "effect" because any light not coming from the tv is background "noise",
and 3d is dim enough as it is.
But while side and rear light will interfere some, not greatly, and sometimes even enhance the picture slighty.
MAYBE DARKNESS is best, but if you have to have some light, side and rear lighting is best,
dimness. SOMETIMES THE OLD LADY WANTS A LIGHT.
:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-09-2010, 02:27 PM
It reduces the 3d "effect" because any light not coming from the tv is background "noise",
and 3d is dim enough as it is.
But while side and rear light will interfere some, not greatly, and sometimes even enhance the picture slighty.
MAYBE DARKNESS is best, but if you have to have some light, side and rear lighting is best,
dimness. SOMETIMES THE OLD LADY WANTS A LIGHT.
:1:

Pixel, now you and I both know you have zero experience with 3D in the home(or more specifically in your house), so from what perspective could you credibly come from which would make any of this true? My guess is it would be from no perspective.

Light and 3D do not work well together - hence why polarization is used in the theater, and not at home were one sits closer to the screen, in a far smaller room. The shutter based technology(what we use in the home) uses a darker tint on their glasses than polarization methods do, which is why light control is even more important at home than in the theater.

Any suggestion of using a backlight with 3D stands starkly in contrast to the reality of viewing 3D at home. A backlight works well when the individual sits out of the standard viewing distance based on SMPTE and THX recommendations, and the display size is below 50". All 3D TV's are 50" and over for the most part because any size less contracts the convergence versus divergence ratio to a point of total discomfort, especially when fast moving images are present. If you sit too far away from a 3D set, the effect becomes diminished. This is why light levels must be controlled(that means no backlight), and viewing distance is extremely important(which also negates the need for backlighting).

Any lighting in the room will be reflected back to the screen, whether it is via behind you where it is most annoying, or anywhere in the room which reduces the contrast levels, and shadow detail as well. Backlighting is not a universal approach, but has very specific condition which demands its usage.

pixelthis
09-10-2010, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Pixel, now you and I both know you have zero experience with 3D in the home(or more specifically in your house), so from what perspective could you credibly come from which would make any of this true? My guess is it would be from no perspective.


And thats what it would be , a guess


Light and 3D do not work well together - hence why polarization is used in the theater, and not at home were one sits closer to the screen, in a far smaller room. The shutter based technology(what we use in the home) uses a darker tint on their glasses than polarization methods do, which is why light control is even more important at home than in the theater.


This is one of the dumber things you have said, and thats saying a LOT. Does show
that I KNOW more about 3D than you do, dimness.
THE SHUTTERS control which eye sees which field, when the left field is showing, the right eye shutter closes, and vice versa. LIGHT and 3D had better work
"together" since 3d images are made of light
ANYWAY , two different frames , left and right, are produced by the TV, effectively cutting
the amount of light by as much as half that gets to the eye.
This is basically the same system that gained some popularity in Japan in the eighties
as a add on kit, some were sold in this country as well. A POLARIZED 3D system that
uses passive (non powered) glasses was also around( and still is), and is the type used by
the CAPTAIN EO show at DISNEYWORLD.
Anyway, this forces the brain to act in an unnatural fashion(thinking would be unnatural for yours) which causes massive headaches short term. Unknown what long term effects are,
since 3D flames out before any can occur.


Any suggestion of using a backlight with 3D stands starkly in contrast to the reality of viewing 3D at home. A backlight works well when the individual sits out of the standard viewing distance based on SMPTE and THX recommendations, and the display size is below 50". All 3D TV's are 50" and over for the most part because any size less contracts the convergence versus divergence ratio to a point of total discomfort, especially when fast moving images are present. If you sit too far away from a 3D set, the effect becomes diminished. This is why light levels must be controlled(that means no backlight), and viewing distance is extremely important(which also negates the need for backlighting).


Aspirin will be important about two hours after use, when the headaches hit.


Any lighting in the room will be reflected back to the screen, whether it is via behind you where it is most annoying, or anywhere in the room which reduces the contrast levels, and shadow detail as well. Backlighting is not a universal approach, but has very specific condition which demands its usage.

If placed properly the effect will be reduced.
A COMBINATION of 3D "headaches" and retina strain will make for a pretty picture long
term, that is the "long" term effect of 3D watching in the dark.
ENJOY.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-10-2010, 02:09 PM
[QUOTE]

And thats what it would be , a guess

Based on the plethora of inaccurate comments you have made on the subject, my guess would be correct. You have yet to get one thing right on this issue.




This is one of the dumber things you have said, and thats saying a LOT. Does show
that I KNOW more about 3D than you do, dimness.

I guess you can lie to yourself all day and all night.



THE SHUTTERS control which eye sees which field, when the left field is showing, the right eye shutter closes, and vice versa. LIGHT and 3D had better work
"together" since 3d images are made of light
ANYWAY , two different frames , left and right, are produced by the TV, effectively cutting
the amount of light by as much as half that gets to the eye.

So stupid, if you are already dealing with a slight loss of light, then what role does your stupid recommendation to have a bias light on when viewing? You have a loss of light from the 3D system itself(and it is slight), and then you make a slight loss an even more loss by having a bias light on. What kind of stupid $hit is that? And by the way dummy, the light loss is not half, it ain't even close to that.



This is basically the same system that gained some popularity in Japan in the eighties
as a add on kit, some were sold in this country as well. A POLARIZED 3D system that
uses passive (non powered) glasses was also around( and still is), and is the type used by
the CAPTAIN EO show at DISNEYWORLD.

Both of these two shows used 3D film, not digital files. There has never been a polarized 3D system introduced to the public as it requires a special screen on a direct view, and a silver screen for the home which had not been introduced yet. Any more lies you would like to tell?


Anyway, this forces the brain to act in an unnatural fashion(thinking would be unnatural for yours) which causes massive headaches short term. Unknown what long term effects are,
since 3D flames out before any can occur.

This is not what causes headaches at all(more misinformation as usual). What causes eyestrain is when the vergence/accomodation is highly offset, which causes some folks who cannot focus center images correctly to rely more on the brain to help them out(weak fusional mechanism). Your eyes are having to work harder. The brain is sending extra impulses to keep the eyes in alignment The more prounouced the disparity, the more chances it will induce a headache. The difference in today version of 3D, is that filmmakers are staying away from extreme offsets of the 3D information. Filmmakers are staying away from the "object in your face" 3D as a way to reduce eyestrain, and leaning more towards "depth" which is easier on the eyes because your eyes are not focusing on something close, when it is actually on a flat plane far away(which is called vergence/accomodation conflict). Also tracking fast moving objects within the 3D imagery is also hard on the eyes, so filmmakers are staying away from presenting long period of fast action as another way of reducing eyestrain. By doing these two things, filmmakers have gone a long way in reducing eyestrain for folks with normal vision, but none of this is going to help a person that cannot focus on close objects well, have eye issues in the absence of 3D, or folks that have impaired eye/brain capabilities(fusional capabilities) which does not lend itself to 3D viewing. Most folks getting headaches have eye issues in the first place, which makes watching 3D difficult. I have seen over 60 3D movies in the theater in the last five years, and have suffered zero headaches. I have now watched 10 3D movies in my own home, and have experienced zero headaches, so headaches are not inherent to 3D technology. If headaches are a problem for some, try sitting further from the screen than you do with 2D movies, and that can decrease your chances of getting a headache without reducing the 3D effect.




Aspirin will be important about two hours after use, when the headaches hit.

Many millions of people sat through Avatar for more than 3 hours without getting headaches, so your comments are uniformed and not universally applied to everyone.




If placed properly the effect will be reduced.
A COMBINATION of 3D "headaches" and retina strain will make for a pretty picture long
term, that is the "long" term effect of 3D watching in the dark.
ENJOY.:1:

No it will not. You cannot control the scattering of the light without reducing the bias the light introduces. The very object of using a bias light is to introduce a larger field of light to the eyes to make up for the amount of beaming light coming from a small viewing area.

There is zero evidence of long term eye damage from viewing 3D images, so either you are misinformed, or just plain lying.

Nasir
09-11-2010, 10:03 AM
Perhaps, I shall explain myself better:
The family room is usually where the lights are always on. All the walls are white and so are the sofa covers. So, when I sit in front of the TV everything behind me is reflected by the CRT screen. If I wear a white T-shirt and dark jeans, the white T-shirt interferes on dark shots. Its not so bad with the CRT, but these LED LCD screens are more reflective than the CRT screen. In the stores, I tried the same experiment, and found that my dark jeans did not have an effect but the white T-shirt was annoying in the reflection.
Most of the viewing will be done with the lights on, so I have to find a solution for this.
Thanks for pointing out that 3D should be watched in darkness... one more thing I learned today. So, the Philips ambilight should be disabled, one presumes.
I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that the 3D TV should be slightly bigger than recommended size of TV for a given viewing distance. The 40 in is about right for my sitting distance, but with the 3D content, I feel that a bigger screen is needed... any opinions?

pixelthis
09-13-2010, 02:19 AM
Perhaps, I shall explain myself better:
The family room is usually where the lights are always on. All the walls are white and so are the sofa covers. So, when I sit in front of the TV everything behind me is reflected by the CRT screen. If I wear a white T-shirt and dark jeans, the white T-shirt interferes on dark shots. Its not so bad with the CRT, but these LED LCD screens are more reflective than the CRT screen. In the stores, I tried the same experiment, and found that my dark jeans did not have an effect but the white T-shirt was annoying in the reflection.
Most of the viewing will be done with the lights on, so I have to find a solution for this.
Thanks for pointing out that 3D should be watched in darkness... one more thing I learned today. So, the Philips ambilight should be disabled, one presumes.
I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that the 3D TV should be slightly bigger than recommended size of TV for a given viewing distance. The 40 in is about right for my sitting distance, but with the 3D content, I feel that a bigger screen is needed... any opinions?

YOU SEE, Sir talky likes to sit in the dark, watching his "shows", completely oblivious
to the fact that most watch at home with the lights on.
YOUR best solution, only run lights from behind the TV, THIS will minimize
reflections somewhat.
Not perfect, but the only thing that will help people with a LIFE.:1:

pixelthis
09-13-2010, 02:36 AM
[QUOTE=pixelthis]

[QUOTE]Based on the plethora of inaccurate comments you have made on the subject, my guess would be correct. You have yet to get one thing right on this issue.


being clueless you would think that.








So stupid, if you are already dealing with a slight loss of light, then what role does your stupid recommendation to have a bias light on when viewing? You have a loss of light from the 3D system itself(and it is slight), and then you make a slight loss an even more loss by having a bias light on. What kind of stupid $hit is that? And by the way dummy, the light loss is not half, it ain't even close to that.


AND LOOK AT WHOSE calling me a dummy.
You don't lose any light, but what light you have is divided between the left-right
frames. I know you are not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but that effectively devides
your light output by half.
You can reduce this effect by raising the brightness, of course with a PLASMA TV,
which will have burn in issues in spite of what the plasma fanboys say, chances of burn in
will be increased.
And of course you have plasma tv sets for 3D, AINT THAT FUNNY!!!



Both of these two shows used 3D film, not digital files. There has never been a polarized 3D system introduced to the public as it requires a special screen on a direct view, and a silver screen for the home which had not been introduced yet. Any more lies you would like to tell?

there was a shutter system during eighties, a add on kit.
And several TV broadcasts using polarized glasses. Such glasses have been around
for quite a few years.


This is not what causes headaches at all(more misinformation as usual). What causes eyestrain is when the vergence/accomodation is highly offset, which causes some folks who cannot focus center images correctly to rely more on the brain to help them out(weak fusional mechanism). Your eyes are having to work harder. The brain is sending extra impulses to keep the eyes in alignment The more prounouced the disparity, the more chances it will induce a headache. The difference in today version of 3D, is that filmmakers are staying away from extreme offsets of the 3D information. Filmmakers are staying away from the "object in your face" 3D as a way to reduce eyestrain, and leaning more towards "depth" which is easier on the eyes because your eyes are not focusing on something close, when it is actually on a flat plane far away(which is called vergence/accomodation conflict). Also tracking fast moving objects within the 3D imagery is also hard on the eyes, so filmmakers are staying away from presenting long period of fast action as another way of reducing eyestrain. By doing these two things, filmmakers have gone a long way in reducing eyestrain for folks with normal vision, but none of this is going to help a person that cannot focus on close objects well, have eye issues in the absence of 3D, or folks that have impaired eye/brain capabilities(fusional capabilities) which does not lend itself to 3D viewing. Most folks getting headaches have eye issues in the first place, which makes watching 3D difficult. I have seen over 60 3D movies in the theater in the last five years, and have suffered zero headaches. I have now watched 10 3D movies in my own home, and have experienced zero headaches, so headaches are not inherent to 3D technology. If headaches are a problem for some, try sitting further from the screen than you do with 2D movies, and that can decrease your chances of getting a headache without reducing the 3D effect.

3D causes headaches in anybody who watches too long, that time determined by the individual, your lack of brains probably helps.
I STAND BY WHAT I say, people just don't know enough about this issue.




Many millions of people sat through Avatar for more than 3 hours without getting headaches, so your comments are uniformed and not universally applied to everyone.

And millions sat through it and got headaches, tell the truth(for once, anyway).
There was also depression, eyestrain, disorientation, etc.
But who cares, let joe public be the lab rat, right?





There is zero evidence of long term eye damage from viewing 3D images, so either you are misinformed, or just plain lying.

Zero evidence of damage to any human system, but the effects it causes warrant further
study, which has never been done.
ENJOY YOUR 3D TV, LAB RAT.
Turn up the brightness...oh, wait, you have a plasma.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-13-2010, 08:53 AM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]



[quote]being clueless you would think that.

I own a 3D set, you don't. I have the clue, you don't - it is that simple, about as simple as you are.



AND LOOK AT WHOSE calling me a dummy.
You don't lose any light, but what light you have is divided between the left-right
frames. I know you are not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but that effectively devides
your light output by half.
You can reduce this effect by raising the brightness, of course with a PLASMA TV,
which will have burn in issues in spite of what the plasma fanboys say, chances of burn in
will be increased.
And of course you have plasma tv sets for 3D, AINT THAT FUNNY!!!

Again stupid, you don't lose half the light the set puts out, and just how did you measure this loss of light, with you airhead? The loss of light is so slight, you don't even have to adjust for it, especially when you leave the lights off. This is why your bias light suggestion was so stupid. If you already have a slight loss of light through the glasses, would it not be stupid as hell to turn a bias light on, and further reduce the contrast and brightness of the set? Well maybe not for you it wouldn't, you don't calibrate your cheap azz set anyway.



there was a shutter system during eighties, a add on kit.
And several TV broadcasts using polarized glasses. Such glasses have been around
for quite a few years.

You are a bald faced liar pix, plain and simple. The polarized glasses require a polarized screen, and there has never been a polarized television screen made for ANYONE, let alone the public. If there had been one, then manufacturers would not be having such a tough time creating one today, the technology would have already been there. There was no shutter based system available to the public as well, or once again the technology would have already been here, refined, and not as expensive as it is. You need to stop your lying and pretending like you know what you are talking about. Whenever it comes to this subject, you just lie, lie, lie just to leave an impression you know what you are talking about, and it is apparent you don't.



3D causes headaches in anybody who watches too long, that time determined by the individual, your lack of brains probably helps.
I STAND BY WHAT I say, people just don't know enough about this issue.

And you(the village idiot) who does not own a 3D set, and have never seen a 3D movie, know more about this than those of us who own sets, and have seen many movies. So how did you learn all this? By having it all beamed into you empty head? I have seen over 60 3D movies since 2006, and own 10 3D movies myself, and have never had a headache, dizziness, or felt sick. You are blowing the needle off the the BS meter.



And millions sat through it and got headaches, tell the truth(for once, anyway).
There was also depression, eyestrain, disorientation, etc.
But who cares, let joe public be the lab rat, right?

Where is the proof of this? I want to see proof, because you lie too much. SHOW ME THE MF PROOF poof! Please provide a link that supports what you say, because Avatar made $2,766,046,139 world wide, and a movie that causes headaches and makes people sick does not make that kind of money. There has been zero proof that 3D causes depression, ZERO you lying piece of crap.





Zero evidence of damage to any human system, but the effects it causes warrant further
study, which has never been done.
ENJOY YOUR 3D TV, LAB RAT.
Turn up the brightness...oh, wait, you have a plasma.:1:

My 3D set is a LED LCD set stupid, you still getting this wrong after all of the information I have posted.

I have been a lab right on 3D since the late 90's, no problem here. You have seen zero in the way of 3D, and have ton's of issues, especially in the lack of intelligence. Maybe you should try 3D...it may get your IQ above -400..though I doubt it.

pixelthis
09-14-2010, 11:32 AM
[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]









[QUOTE]Again stupid, you don't lose half the light the set puts out, and just how did you measure this loss of light, with you airhead? The loss of light is so slight, you don't even have to adjust for it, especially when you leave the lights off. This is why your bias light suggestion was so stupid. If you already have a slight loss of light through the glasses, would it not be stupid as hell to turn a bias light on, and further reduce the contrast and brightness of the set? Well maybe not for you it wouldn't, you don't calibrate your cheap azz set anyway.


Its something called physics, maroon.
On a 120hz set half the lines make up a left frame, half the right frame, figure it out.




You are a bald faced liar pix, plain and simple. The polarized glasses require a polarized screen, and there has never been a polarized television screen made for ANYONE, let alone the public. If there had been one, then manufacturers would not be having such a tough time creating one today, the technology would have already been there. There was no shutter based system available to the public as well, or once again the technology would have already been here, refined, and not as expensive as it is. You need to stop your lying and pretending like you know what you are talking about. Whenever it comes to this subject, you just lie, lie, lie just to leave an impression you know what you are talking about, and it is apparent you don't.


You see, this is where you betray yourself as nothing but a GOOGLE-Wikipedia
fraud.
YOU DON'T know even the basics of a 3D video system, what is this crap about a
"polarized" screen? THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Your screen produces two separate frames, one at a time.
The glasses shut off the left eye when the right frame is on, and the right eye when the
when the left frame is on.
So each eye sees something different, producing a 3D effect.
THE GLASSES for the theater were really polarized, each eye only saw what highly directional light was meant for it. THE HOME KIT that was mostly popular in JAPAN
had shutters, much like todays home gear. YOU DONT HAVE THESE in a theater
because you can't wire several hundred glasses



And you(the village idiot) who does not own a 3D set, and have never seen a 3D movie, know more about this than those of us who own sets, and have seen many movies. So how did you learn all this? By having it all beamed into you empty head? I have seen over 60 3D movies since 2006, and own 10 3D movies myself, and have never had a headache, dizziness, or felt sick. You are blowing the needle off the the BS meter.


I GUESS you have to have a brain for it to be affected.
I HAVE SEEN dozens of 3D movies over the years, studied the tech, its all basically
the same.
THE BEST 3D is from personal viewers, like viewmaster, and the lcd glasses which
made it appear like a 40" 3d screen was in front of you.
But you can't do that in a theater for logistical reasons, and two screens at the house would be an expensive , one person deal.
So most 3D systems show both fields on one screen, either with colored, polarized,
or shutter glasses. ONLY problem is that they don't sync properly with the way the
brain produces depth of field, causing headaches.
DON'T TELL an amateur photog that he doesnt understand depth of field and 3D



Where is the proof of this? I want to see proof, because you lie too much. SHOW ME THE MF PROOF poof! Please provide a link that supports what you say, because Avatar made $2,766,046,139 world wide, and a movie that causes headaches and makes people sick does not make that kind of money. There has been zero proof that 3D causes depression, ZERO you lying piece of crap.


Link link LINK. It was in a newspaper article about a month after Avatar came out,
and people watching it over and over (like Titanic) reported bad effects.
SEARCH the web, I don't have time





My 3D set is a LED LCD set stupid, you still getting this wrong after all of the information I have posted.


THAT IS BECAUSE I only read half of what you say, since you are right 25% of the time or less, thats generous. Anyway, it was my understanding you bought a PANNY PLASMA
3D. My bad


I have been a lab right on 3D since the late 90's, no problem here. You have seen zero in the way of 3D, and have ton's of issues, especially in the lack of intelligence. Maybe you should try 3D...it may get your IQ above -400..though I doubt it.
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, GOT THE TEE SHIRT.
And the headaches.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-15-2010, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]


[quote]Its something called physics, maroon.
On a 120hz set half the lines make up a left frame, half the right frame, figure it out.

That is not how it works. Each image is full resolution sent sequentially to each eye. Oh, you have studied so much, and know so much about 3D...yeah right! The refresh rate minimizes flicker and ghosting, and that is it.

What does that have to do with light levels? Nothing, which cements the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. 3D sets are 240hz sets, not 120hz. Again, you don't know what you are talking about, but keep talking though, as this is becoming apparent to everyone else.



You see, this is where you betray yourself as nothing but a GOOGLE-Wikipedia
fraud.
YOU DON'T know even the basics of a 3D video system, what is this crap about a
"polarized" screen? THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

You are right, there is no such thing as a polarized screen, it a polarized lens, and you are still wrong, they still didn't have them for sale to the public. What would the public put it on?


Your screen produces two separate frames, one at a time.
The glasses shut off the left eye when the right frame is on, and the right eye when the
when the left frame is on.
So each eye sees something different, producing a 3D effect.
THE GLASSES for the theater were really polarized, each eye only saw what highly directional light was meant for it. THE HOME KIT that was mostly popular in JAPAN
had shutters, much like todays home gear. YOU DONT HAVE THESE in a theater
because you can't wire several hundred glasses

Are you posting this to prove something to yourself? I understand 3D, but apparently you don't with the wild inaccurate statements you make(loss of half the light from the set????)

There was no home kit, you are still a liar. Where is proof of this home kit?



I GUESS you have to have a brain for it to be affected.
I HAVE SEEN dozens of 3D movies over the years, studied the tech, its all basically
the same.

Right, I am not talking movies from the 50's and 60's, I am talking current movies, and current technology which is quite different from the old school stuff.


THE BEST 3D is from personal viewers, like viewmaster, and the lcd glasses which
made it appear like a 40" 3d screen was in front of you.

We are talking about movies stupid, not pictures.



But you can't do that in a theater for logistical reasons, and two screens at the house would be an expensive , one person deal.
So most 3D systems show both fields on one screen, either with colored, polarized,
or shutter glasses. ONLY problem is that they don't sync properly with the way the
brain produces depth of field, causing headaches.
DON'T TELL an amateur photog that he doesnt understand depth of field and 3D

Simply wrong. They do sync properly, and if you had a set you would know that. The problem belongs to the person, not the technology. For those who have normal vision, 3D does not induce headaches. For folks with vision issues, like the inability to focus on centrally located images, lazy eyes, and color recognition errors, 3D is a problem for them. The technology is just fine.


Link link LINK. It was in a newspaper article about a month after Avatar came out,
and people watching it over and over (like Titanic) reported bad effects.
SEARCH the web, I don't have time

You have time to make inaccurate claims, but you don't have time to support them. That is your history, and at least you are a consistent liar.




THAT IS BECAUSE I only read half of what you say, since you are right 25% of the time or less, thats generous. Anyway, it was my understanding you bought a PANNY PLASMA
3D. My bad

Yeah, your bad. The two 3D sets I have are both LCD models. I have ORDERED two 65" Panasonic 3D plasma's, but they are not set to arrive until next month.

How would you know I am right 25% of the time, you can't read 25% of the time, and the other 75% of the time you are brain dead.



BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, GOT THE TEE SHIRT.
And the headaches.:1:

Which means not only are you a liar, but you are a sight challenged one as well. LOLOL You probably can't see the BS you write....LOLOL

pixelthis
09-15-2010, 10:29 AM
[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE]Right, I am not talking movies from the 50's and 60's, I am talking current movies, and current technology which is quite different from the old school stuff.


ACTUALLY, no.
You can put lipstick on a pig, its still bacon. And from the blue-red glasses to modern digital systems , they are all the same, basically


We are talking about movies stupid, not pictures.

BOTH WORK the same way, except movies need to cram two frames into one screen




Simply wrong. They do sync properly, and if you had a set you would know that. The problem belongs to the person, not the technology. For those who have normal vision, 3D does not induce headaches. For folks with vision issues, like the inability to focus on centrally located images, lazy eyes, and color recognition errors, 3D is a problem for them. The technology is just fine.

3D will cause a headache with anyone that watches long enough, just like your posts
will induce a headache in any rational person


You have time to make inaccurate claims, but you don't have time to support them. That is your history, and at least you are a consistent liar.

I stand by what I say, if you are too ignorant to pay attention, thats your problem





Yeah, your bad. The two 3D sets I have are both LCD models. I have ORDERED two 65" Panasonic 3D plasma's, but they are not set to arrive until next month.


So you can add the naturally dim plasma display with really dim 3D tech, what fun that will be.
Only thing more fun is when you turn the brightness up, and have screen burn in.
PROBABLY HEAR THE SCREAMING down here




Which means not only are you a liar, but you are a sight challenged one as well. LOLOL You probably can't see the BS you write....LOLOL
WATCH 3D teevee long enough and you won't see much either:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-15-2010, 03:02 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]



[quote]ACTUALLY, no.
You can put lipstick on a pig, its still bacon. And from the blue-red glasses to modern digital systems , they are all the same, basically

Wow, this in depth explanation has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water sitting on flat pavement. If one had a cursory understanding of 3D, they would understand the depth of the ignorance of this statement. Analgraph 3D is so inferior to both polarized and shutter based systems it is pitiful. Can anyone say color distortion and loss of resolution?



BOTH WORK the same way, except movies need to cram two frames into one screen

Interesting statement considering one has a set frame rate, and the other does not. One is 90 minutes plus of film, and the other is about two to four minutes of still photographs. One is manual in operation, and the other is totally automatic with set standards. One is high definition, and the other is basic standard defintition photography. Oh, they are all basically the same(turns sarcasm button off :rolleyes5: )



3D will cause a headache with anyone that watches long enough, just like your posts
will induce a headache in any rational person

Anyone that watches regular television enough will also get a headache, not to mention a fatter belly, high blood pressure, and a increased rate of a heart attack. My posts contain more information than your limited brain capacity can store.



I stand by what I say, if you are too ignorant to pay attention, thats your problem

Wow, if this isn't a rubber stamp to remain ignorant and uneducated, then I don't know what is.


So you can add the naturally dim plasma display with really dim 3D tech, what fun that will be.
Only thing more fun is when you turn the brightness up, and have screen burn in.
PROBABLY HEAR THE SCREAMING down here

You are the only dim thing in this conversation. You don't own a plasma, so how do you know what characteristic it has? You don't stupid, just like you don't have a clue about an actual bass note versus noise. If you view a 3D movie in the dark, you don't need to turn up the brightness to compensate for any loss of brightness when watching 3D. Of course this simple logic would elude a simpleton.





WATCH 3D teevee long enough and you won't see much either:1:

Watch any teevee long enough and you won't see much either - which explains your inability to read more than 25% of anything.:dita:

pixelthis
09-16-2010, 10:27 AM
[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]





Wow, this in depth explanation has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water sitting on flat pavement. If one had a cursory understanding of 3D, they would understand the depth of the ignorance of this statement. Analgraph 3D is so inferior to both polarized and shutter based systems it is pitiful. Can anyone say color distortion and loss of resolution?




Interesting statement considering one has a set frame rate, and the other does not. One is 90 minutes plus of film, and the other is about two to four minutes of still photographs. One is manual in operation, and the other is totally automatic with set standards. One is high definition, and the other is basic standard defintition photography. Oh, they are all basically the same(turns sarcasm button off :rolleyes5: )




Anyone that watches regular television enough will also get a headache, not to mention a fatter belly, high blood pressure, and a increased rate of a heart attack. My posts contain more information than your limited brain capacity can store.




Wow, if this isn't a rubber stamp to remain ignorant and uneducated, then I don't know what is.



You are the only dim thing in this conversation. You don't own a plasma, so how do you know what characteristic it has? You don't stupid, just like you don't have a clue about an actual bass note versus noise. If you view a 3D movie in the dark, you don't need to turn up the brightness to compensate for any loss of brightness when watching 3D. Of course this simple logic would elude a simpleton.






Watch any teevee long enough and you won't see much either - which explains your inability to read more than 25% of anything.:dita:



BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Well, look at the bright side, LCD with a more reflective screen, before you know it they will have screen burn in, shorter life span, and be so dim you have to sit right in front of one.
JUST LIKE A PLASMA !!!:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-16-2010, 12:29 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]



BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Well, look at the bright side, LCD with a more reflective screen, before you know it they will have screen burn in, shorter life span, and be so dim you have to sit right in front of one.
JUST LIKE A PLASMA !!!:1:

This is another one of your more educatedly bankrupt statements. LCD don't have phosphors, so they cannot suffer from burn in. With LED lights doing the backlighting(or edge lighting), the life of them is a lot longer than CCFL backlights even if they are turned up a little higher.

There is zero evidence that a plasma panel has any shorter life than a LCD panel. Is there any more lies you would like to spread?

Nasir
09-16-2010, 01:48 PM
The way I understand 3D is ( and feel free to correct me), the TV is putting out a full screen for the left eye ( so the 3D glasses blank out the right eye ) and vice versa. To my understanding, this means that the TV is NOT putting out half the light, but continues to put out the full amount of light, just that only one eye is allowed to see this image. This does NOT mean that the eye for which the image is meant for will see a less intense image, but rather that the intention of fooling the stereo depth of the visual image is made possible, and hence 3D is made possible!! And its done so fast that image for the other eye is still retained by the eye ( and brain ) . I would further argue, that if one were to close the left eye, the monitor one would be looking at would not seem any the dimmer, nor would one see half the picture, rather, the accuracy of depth only is compromised....
OK, for cable 3D signals, the resolution suffers, as they are transmitting at normal HD channel bandwidth, but with BLURAY nothing should be lost, that is full 1080p for the left eye and ditto for the right eye.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-16-2010, 05:17 PM
The way I understand 3D is ( and feel free to correct me), the TV is putting out a full screen for the left eye ( so the 3D glasses blank out the right eye ) and vice versa. To my understanding, this means that the TV is NOT putting out half the light, but continues to put out the full amount of light, just that only one eye is allowed to see this image. This does NOT mean that the eye for which the image is meant for will see a less intense image, but rather that the intention of fooling the stereo depth of the visual image is made possible, and hence 3D is made possible!! And its done so fast that image for the other eye is still retained by the eye ( and brain ) . I would further argue, that if one were to close the left eye, the monitor one would be looking at would not seem any the dimmer, nor would one see half the picture, rather, the accuracy of depth only is compromised....
OK, for cable 3D signals, the resolution suffers, as they are transmitting at normal HD channel bandwidth, but with BLURAY nothing should be lost, that is full 1080p for the left eye and ditto for the right eye.

Basically you are spot on. However, there is a small loss of light of light that comes from the flashing of the shutter glasses(and a bit of dark tint as well), but a small adjustment to the brightness(or turning off all of the lights in the room) can compensate for it. It quite frankly is a non issue in reality, as LCD displays have migrated over to LED(both of my sets are LED backlit). Even when turned up to full brightness, they last longer the CCFL backlights.

pixelthis
09-17-2010, 10:53 AM
[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is another one of your more educatedly bankrupt statements. LCD don't have phosphors, so they cannot suffer from burn in. With LED lights doing the backlighting(or edge lighting), the life of them is a lot longer than CCFL backlights even if they are turned up a little higher.

There is zero evidence that a plasma panel has any shorter life than a LCD panel. Is there any more lies you would like to spread?

Is english your second language? OR ARE YOU SO DENSE you can't understand sarcasm?
Of course LCD DOESNT HAVE PHOSPERS (duh).
One of the many reasons its superior to plasma, clueless one.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
09-17-2010, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]

Is english your second language? OR ARE YOU SO DENSE you can't understand sarcasm?
Of course LCD DOESNT HAVE PHOSPERS (duh).
One of the many reasons its superior to plasma, clueless one.:1:

You are soooooo stupid sometimes, I don't know your sarcasm from your just plain idiocrasy.

Sorry, but with 3D LCD is not superior, plasma is. If you actually owned a 3D set, you would know this. I suppose this is sacrasm as well.......

Nasir
09-28-2010, 01:40 PM
I have to disagree with you bud. I have seen both the glossy and non glossy screens on 3D televisions, and you definately have an advantage with a reflective screen than you do with the non glossy in terms of keeping light levels high when watching 3D through the shutter based glasses.

As far as regular 2D application of LED and LCD, then I have no comments on that.

Well, I have to hand it to you, once again Sir Terrence, you are SO right. I checked out the Samsung 3D LCD next to 3D LED LCD TVs and the shutter glasses DO reduce the light coming through so significantly, that it only makes sense opting for the LED version with a significant USD 600 price difference!!!
With that cleared up, I am still waiting patiently for the Philips 3D ready TV to come up the prices and physically available transmitter and glasses for a taste of whats being promised.
Also, I am looking keenly at the Plasma 3D TVs as well, but there does not seem to be any with a 42 in screen.
I also attended a 3D showing of RESIDENT EVIL and liked it.

reilly
08-05-2011, 03:34 AM
I would prefer LED LCD because it gives it a more HD look to the screen.

StevenSurprenant
10-28-2011, 04:58 AM
Personal experiences...

My TV's all have the reflective screens. In my living room I have one window behind me and that causes a major problem when viewing TV in the day time. I use a blackout shade to block out this light and that works very well. I also have side windows that aren't nearly as much of a problem as the back window, but on very bright days, it can be distracting. I use bottom up/top down shades on these windows which only subdue the light to a degree and that solves that problem. The side window shades are not blackout shades.

When watching TV at night, I use lights behind the TV and they work perfectly to keep the room bright enough to see and to reduce the eye strain caused by watching TV in the dark. There are no reflections on the screen with this method.

I tried lights in front of the screen and they created reflections so that is not a viable solution. The behind the screen lights I use are CFL lights used for under the counter in the kitchen.

In my other room, I have curtains covering a side window and so reflections are not an issue there. When I watch at night, I have two small lamps sitting below and on each side of the screen. The shades block a great deal of the light and so the brightest light is bounced off the wall behind the TV and the ceiling. The lamps in this room use low power incandescent bulbs. I tried CFL, but the light "color" was too distracting.

I have no experience with 3D TV and so I cannot say how this would work with that technology.

I suppose that if you used extremely bright lights in either method I mentioned, it could cause problems, so light intensity is probably important.

I hope this helps.

TECHNICAL 1
12-05-2011, 11:02 AM
3d was out over 15 years ago it in only better now 3d has been in the books and on cereal boxes with free glases think of the way we see it is 3d no replys or lies from anyone unless u agree technology has improved a lot u know maby read some old books on 3d technology

TECHNICAL 1
12-05-2011, 11:50 AM
I would prefer LED LCD because it gives it a more HD look to the screen.

led is what i am up 4 got high contrast longest life span best look and best picture check out some jap tvs those guys are wild i see led hd 3600 -2400 lines res 4mm thick panel full voice control at least it understands english it is even powered wirelessly some kind of a coil loop power transfer system all signals via wi fi