New LED LCDs have a more reflective screen

[pixelthis]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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]

[QUOTE]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

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.

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.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]

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.

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]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=pixelthis]

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.