Glasses-less 3D TV for $20K

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis;363444][QUOTE=GMichael;363429]Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term


THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.

The amount of misinformation in this post is staggering. As I have said before, the only thing you know how to do better than anyone else, is to be wrong 100% of the time.

[GMichael]

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

[pixelthis]

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

[GMichael]

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

You see Pixy, the thing is this. You rant on and often quote correct facts. But those facts have nothing to do with the subject being talked about. Or, they seem to matter, but really are slightly off topic. Then other times you do go on about things you only think are correct. You'll seem all sure of yourself, but you'll be dead wrong, and never give in. (remember how you trashed Emo for example)

The difference between refresh rate and frame rate have been spelled out for you, but you once read something that makes you believe that you are more of an expert than someone who actually works with this stuff for a living. It's pretty simple to understand that frame rate has to do with how something was recorded while refresh rate has to do with how it is displayed. Granted, both are very similar, but not the same.

I'm not saying that everything you read or was taught was wrong. Only that you are applying the information incorrectly. You jump to conclusions instead of taking in all the information and analyzing it (like I was taught in Systems Analysis and Design in college) Then you refuse to listen to reason and stick to the conclusion you started with no matter what facts are submitted.

It's all OK though. It does lead to some pretty interesting threads. Rant on my friend.

[E-Stat]

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong"

No, you just never learned what the terms mean.

A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec.

The Intel (80)486 is the fourth version of the 8086 based CPU following the 286 and 386. It's clock ran from 25 mhz to 100 mhz during its product life.

A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.

'3G" stands for "Third Generation" and has nothing at all to do with the transmission frequency.

AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

As been noted before "frames per second" refers to film motion.

rw

[Vinylly]

Quit expensive for going without glasses. I think I'll still opt for the glasses at that price.

[MrManager]

The cost doesn't justify the benefits in my opinion and 3D with glasses isn't too much of a hassle. But still I'm glad that the technology is there for glass-less 3D TVs. Now to just play the waiting game for the price to drop...

[limonv]

3d makes me feel sick

[StevenSurprenant]

It's easy to understand the difference between frame rate and refresh rate. I'm not sure how increasing the refresh rate makes for a better picture.

If you increase refresh rates, there is no improvement in the picture. You just get twice as many of the same frames.

It seems to me that the only way higher refresh rates might make a difference is to use interpolation of adjacent frames every other frame. Of course, with present day technologies, that has the possibility of creating visual artifacts.

If interpolation is used, then Pixelthis is correct that the number of frames increase. You just have to keep in mind that every other frame is some mathematical summation of two adjacent frames and not what was actually in the broadcast.

Technically, Sir ITT is correct.

If I understand it correctly, 24 frames a second gets converted to 30 frames a second by adding 6 additional frames a second which is an interpolation of adjacent frames.

Well, that's what I think.

LCD HDTV Motion Features: How Do They Work? | PCWorld

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's easy to understand the difference between frame rate and refresh rate. I'm not sure how increasing the refresh rate makes for a better picture.

It does not. It just creates a smoother looking picture.

If you increase refresh rates, there is no improvement in the picture. You just get twice as many of the same frames.

Exactly.

It seems to me that the only way higher refresh rates might make a difference is to use interpolation of adjacent frames every other frame. Of course, with present day technologies, that has the possibility of creating visual artifacts.

It could make judder worse.

If interpolation is used, then Pixelthis is correct that the number of frames increase. You just have to keep in mind that every other frame is some mathematical summation of two adjacent frames and not what was actually in the broadcast.

Frame interpolation does not create new information, it interpolates information already presented. The frame rate is established by the camera system. Any other process is just that...a process.

If I understand it correctly, 24 frames a second gets converted to 30 frames a second by adding 6 additional frames a second which is an interpolation of adjacent frames.

Well, that's what I think.

It is called 3:2 pulldown.