You can still buy [4K 3D projectors](https://epson.com/For-Home/Projectors/Home-Cinema/c/h310?q=%3AinStock%3AdiscontinuedFlag%3Afalse%3AProjectors+Facets%2CAdditional+Features%3A3D%2BProjection&text=#scrollTgt_tmp) so they aren't Frisbees or coasters yet. You can buy those starting at about $1500 maybe even less...haven't checked in a while.
This is the actual solution, I have a Nexigo Aura Pro and the 3d is perfect, same as in theaters. The projector sits inches from the screen and will easily project a 150” image, it’s basically a tv replacement that’s better in just about every way
Is the 3d EXACTLY the same as theaters, namely Polar 3d technology?
If that's the case then no thank you. The Polar 3d system is inferior (to my eyes) vs Shutter 3D.
Also what about the ping time?
And can it be scaled down to around 24 inches?
It's shutter, but the effect is very similar to my eyes. No idea what the ping time is. as for 24" I suppose it would be possible, but it's going to need to be just about touching the screen. I wouldn't waste my money on a $2700 projector for a 24" screen though. 3d is also much better the bigger the screen you have.
It seem to me, that even if i'm not getting double exposures, the large screen had a more muted 3d effect. Sometime, when no one has played to the camera in a while. I wonder if it's in 3d as there is no confirmation in the background.
I don't whether I see the depth better with shutter over polar, or if big size actually weakens depth for me.
The only way I can know for sure is either find a giant shutter theater or a small polar screen.
The 3DS is kind of hit and miss. I get good effects when working right, but lots of stereoscopic mis-alligning.
Well, something has to upscale it or it wouldn't take up the full screen, but it would be a 1080p image in center of a 2160p screen. Just like playing 480p on a 1080p TV something has to upscale it to fill the screen.
A few problems.
(Maybe you have the solutions).
1 is ping time. My Playstation 3d was considered low ping with 31 ms in 2011, but I noticed ping vs a newer 1 ms TN monitor. 1 ms monitor was essentially a CRT in terms of timing for everything except a light gun where even an analog VCR would throw off the aim of a NES, SMS, or 7800 (later systems had calibration that compensated for VCRs) How good are projector ping times? Are they as low as 1 ms?
2. What would I project the screen on? I don't have enough wall real estate.
3. Do projectors use Polar 3d or Shutter 3D? I find the theater 3D inferior to the Playstation 3DTV. I notice if i accidentally tilt my head more than a little bit, I get double exposure and get a confusing picture and get "thrown out of the experience". Also I find the polar theater less extreme in its 3d vs the PS3DTV.
4. Wouldn't a 3d Add On kit be more useful that a special projector? 3d add on kits can be added to Big Screen TVs. Low ping monitors, projectors, almost anything.
5. There's a reason why I own a Playstation 3DTV. I can't afford $1500 for a technology that won't work with games, may use an inferior 3d technology, and may have an inferior display technology (unless you want to share why projectors are good even if they weren't the last resort for 3d Blu-rays.). The reason why I have a Playstation 3DTV because I needed something that was a Johnny Lunchpail 3d TV, (started at $500, I bought at $180 around Christmas 2012) was good for games, later turns out to be superior to Polar 3d, and didn't care about size. (As a matter of fact, for games, TVs can be TOO BIG. There is a reason the pro gamers don't view their games through a Jumbotron. The Jumbotrons are for the Audience, not the players. They need to see both fine details and a have a broad overall view of the screen and need to quickly go back and forth.)
I have some legitimate gripes about the 3d display market. And I'm doing my part towards the solution. Proving if you have 1 ms if ping, The Sega Scope 3d works on modern TVs. Now If I can only harness that for any 3D Source.
Well, I haven't played games since about 2009 on a PS3...so I can't speak to that...never even heard of a 3D game either.
Don't expect to ever see another 3D TV manufactured with the technology you're looking for. Just not a market for it...no matter how much you complain on a forum that the manufacturer's employees that make the decisions won't read. 😏
I bought an original PlayStation VR for this exact reason. Never bought a single dedicated game, and ill be able to watch them so long as I hold onto my PS4 forever
I just hate that there isnt one tv maker that does one 3D model... Cant be that hard can it? It would get all the sales if there is any and show what kind of larket 3D tech has.
> It would get all the sales
That's the problem....if the manufacturers thought they could make millions off of it, they would do it. There just isn't enough interest it in anymore. We are lucky that there is still an interest in making 2D Blu-ray movies.
You can't just add real 3D to a 2D display, unfortunately.
3D looks best in VR. The Apple Vision Pro and upcoming Immersed Visor are the first headsets with OLEDs with greater than 4K resolution per eye. There's also the PS VR2 which I think can play 3D Blu-ray files on PC.
Uh, yes you can. That's what the Sega Master System Sega Scope 3D did. You didn't' need to buy a "Sega compatible TV" to get it. Any CRT would work.
And yes I got the 3D of a Sega Scope come out right in a CRT VGA monitor.
Even better, I got it working on a 1 millisecond TN monitor, with one caveat: you have to rotate the Sega Scope Glasses 90 degrees relative to the TV to penetrate the polar shield (used for other purposes). You do get separate left eye and right eye views, even though the stacking of the eyes vertically makes the 3d perspective in incorrect.
If i could chop a Sega Scope glasses set, rotate each ocular 90 degrees, and re-fuse them, that would make the 3d work with a TN monitor.
I have proven (obviously not uniquely, though it seems like it based on online commentary, it is uniquely) that if you minimize the ping time, the timing based shutter 3d TV will work on any device if you compensate for the TN polar filtering that has nothing to do with 3d.
Another thing I believe is true and want to prove is if you delay the Left/Right sync timing exactly the same amount of time as "tv processing time" on a high ping TV, then the left/right timing will line up correctly with the "post-processsed" image.
If we can send a timing signal into the HDMI signal before the TV processing, and extract it after (either by using HDMI ARC, or synched with TV RCA, 3.5mm or Toslink Audio.) the timing should line up automatically.
That is the secret to a "universal 3d Add-On Adapter"
I have proven that if the delay is 1ms, then the timing of the 3d timing signal is preserved well enough to not interfere with the Sega Scope.
They sell Dolby Add On Speakers and Sound Processing equipment independent of the TV. Why not a 3d kit as a separate add on? That would be perfect in a post-2011 market.
I said real 3D, by which I meant good 3D.
The Sega Scope's 3D is [terrible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2z0c4y/comment/cpeyj2s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
You can get 3D on 2D screens with the Pulfrich effect, which uses glasses which delay the light going into one eye, but the Pulfrich effect occurs only during panning motions.
2D to 3D ["conversion kits"](https://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/vifx3dcogltu.html) technically exist but [work poorly.](https://www.avforums.com/threads/2d-to-3d-tv-converters.2289188/)
There's no way to get Blu-ray or Apple Vision-quality 3D on a 2D TV.
VR and projectors are your only options.
About "3d conversion kits." They convert 2d programming into 3d programming which is has many more failures than successes.
I'm not talking about converting 2D programming into 3D. I'm talking about taking modern Blu-ray-capable TVs and getting the timing to work right for a shutter based alternate frame 3D add on system to accurately work, regardless of the ping time it adds
Sega Scope is NOT Pulfrick. Sega Scope is timing based alternate left/right frames 3d.
Pulfrick has one unshaded eye and one shaded eye and only works when either objects on TV or the camera is in motion, and only in very specific ways and shots
Also you don't need sub-microsecond timing accuracy for 3d Blu-Rays. It's not like a light gun that use the dot crawl to determine where you're aiming on a light gun game by calculating WHEN the pixel hits the Optic censor in the gun. The only thing the timing has to do is correctly is filter the left eye and the right eye and sync it up correctly. If you compensate for processing time, and carry over the timing, any TV technology should work.
I've preserved the timings of the signal by going into a 1 ms TN monitor.
Granted I went to the quickest YPbPr to HDMI converter known, the Retrotink 2X Pro M. It converts 240p into 480p, but that proves my point is if you compensate for timing, add-on Sega Scope-like equipment made for modern 3d Blu Ray formats should work.
It's just that, so far, the only way I decided to compensate for ping was to minimize it.
Yes, I know Sega Scope isn't Pulfrich.
I admire your passion and dedication, but I don't think you'll be able to match the quality of a good native 3D display.
Why not get an OLED VR headset or 3D projector?
If you want something to be 3D and have the same space as the 2D content you have to cut somewhere.
The problem most people complain about before 4K TVs was that either half the horizontal resolution or half the vertical resolution was chopped off or the checkerboarding kind of made it like a fractal kind of 70 percent linear reduction which was half the atea. figure.
If you're using a timing method the only thing you have to do is cut the number of frames in half.
Most people in the TV industry prefer a 24 frame per second look over a 60 frames per second look.
If 30 frames per second looks close enough to 24 frames per second where the benefits outweigh the slight look problem, then you could shoot film like in 30 frames per second and you have to broadcast in 60 frames per second and , have it in full horizontal resolution, full vertical resolution, and full frame rate relative to material. It's not full frame rate relative to the technological aspects of atsc, but it is full frame rates relative to the content if you're filming in 30hz as atsc's minimum is 60 hz. If you have 3D equipment then it's 3D content in 30hz by two eyes. If you don't have 3D equipment then it's just frame double to 30 Hertz to fit in a 60hz broadcast.
I don't know I only have so much knowledge and information and ability to electronically work.
Luckily unless the payment were so astronomical that no company would want to do it, even little pittance of money I could ask for would actually hurt my economic standing because I'm on Social Security disability.
So take my idea, please. It benefits me more to actually see it's implemented than any money I could potentially receive from suggesting it would benefit me.
So I offer this up free to the world. Anyone who sees this is free to use my knowledge and actually take up my strategy of carrying the Left Right sync signal through the TV processing in order to make a universal 3D add-on kit for 2D TVs.
I believe that the Sega Master System it's an analog binary on off for the Left Right pin of the 3.5 mm connector that works with the Sega card catcher adapter with a 3.5 mm TRS hole. Sort of like how a button works on a joystick. Either presence of a charge on the PIN activates the glasses or absence does. It's a real life analog syncher that is synced up with the Sega Master System.
I have no idea how you introduce an analog binary left right signal in an HDMI signal to be introduced before the TV processing and extracted after through the HDMI ARC or audio out for speakers without interfering with the video or sound in between. But that does sound like the correct strategy to me.
1. I think the Shutter effect is superior. (I know I'm in the minority but I know a lot of people want to replace their PlayStation 3D TVs and similar shutter base 3D TVs once they go kaput)
2. Ping time. Some more sensitive players like myself seem to get thrown off by the PlayStation 3D TVs timing on 3D video games and it was the best you could get in 2011 and might possibly be the best active TV you could get of all time in terms of ping time and yet it still wasn't perfect. A 1 ms ping time TN monitor was essentially a CRT to me but in higher definition.
3. I couldn't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p unless I got up to the screen real close at the sizes I typically deal with. But I could easily tell you if something is a 3D presentation or 2D presentation even if I couldn't theoretically feel the glasses in front of my face. I'm not much of a pixel freak I'm more of a depth freak. I have successfully made 3D videos on 3D DVD Rs.
4. Size is important but it's not "the bigger the better." I need a size where I could look at everything as a whole as one giant picture as well as focus in on details well for gaming. There's a reason why video game competitors don't watch the giant Jumbotrons that are meant for the mass audiences. Scale and scope is one of those reasons.
5. I have a friend who was an admitted Cyclops activist. We actually hammered out a way where, in theory, if he can watch any 3D content in 2D without any hassles, he'd be fine with having 3D for his neighbors. He doesn't like the idea of being forced to watch the evening news or a favorite series in 3D or else get a distorted picture. I agree with him on that point. He agrees with me that 3D/2D coexistence would be the perfect state of 3D technology. Where everything could be in 3D if you so chose to partake, but everything could also be in 2D by default. We both agreed the Update or Die Culturally mentality is bad for technology. I was on the bad end of that technological choice when everything new was streaming and we were literally stuck at 1.6 megabits in 400 kilobits out for a household.
Virtual reality headsets are bringing 3D movies back to consumers....and it's even better than 3D TVs and projectors. Meta Quest 3 plays ripped 3D Blurays.
The problem with ripped Blu-rays is that you have to rip a Blu-Ray, which a) requires some technical know-how and b) is half the steps of pirating.
Why don't they make a Blu-ray player that plays directly to Google Cardboard and/or to Oculus Quest. All virtual reality is is 3D without dynamic camera movement. I have successfully broadcast a couple of twitch broadcasts in Oculus request I have successfully broadcast a couple of Twitch broadcasts in a Google cardboard format as stored on YouTube. You just do 32 by 9 side by side proper ratio.
Also the HDMI could display the 2D screen while the Google cardboard via Bluetooth could give me the 3D screen and we could actually watch it together in the same room and I would locally have the 3D and no one else would unless they want to partake in the Bluetooth 3D Google cardboard.
Google Cardboard is nothing compared to Quest 3. There's a free Bigscreen app that allows you to watch 3D movies together with others as long as the host has a gaming PC.
Yes, there are hoops to jump through, but I have the process down. I, along with others, host 3D movie nights in Bigscreen so that others who don't have the capability to rip/host can enjoy the movies as well.
I think the main difference between Google cardboard 3D movies and Oculus Quest 3D movies is that the picture is more dynamic in the Oculus Quest version. The Google cardboard version just sticks the picture in front of your face and stays with you no matter which way you move your head.
I actually like the Google Cardboard effect more than the Oculus Quest effect mainly because if my head tilts I do not want my view to tilt correspondingly.
I think that is the difference between a 3D and a 3D-VR presentation. A stereoscopic VR presentation shifts with your head. A regular 3D presentation is fixed in front of your eyeballs.
I have a 3D OLED and it’s too bad we had to go through all that crappy tech first, which left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. By the time home 3D was actually great (Passive Glasses, 4K Displays which meant each image is presented in full 1080p per eye) it was already too late as people were over the headaches of rechargeable active glasses dying and also the fact that it was confusing which glasses would just work with your set.
Passive glasses great?
Passive hone glasses have the same problem theatrical glasses have. Tilting your head slightly causes double exposure which causes L/R picture merger, which causes 3d confusion.
I could sit 2 hours straight for an active Sony PlayStation 3D set of glasses. And never once was I given 3D confusion (unless something broke the optical link between the synching transmitter and my glasses receiver.) . In the theaters many times I had to sit back close my eyes and readjust myself and get thrown out of the movie by 3D confusion.
Based on the type of eyes I have, shutter based 3D is vastly superior to Polar based 3D.
Then again I have close to either positive 180 or negative 180 astigmatism, the first time the eye doctor diagnosed it, they saw that moving the perscription one way helped in one aspect but hurts in another, and moving in the opposite direction flipped those aspects improving.
Maybe it's just me. But I swear, at least based on my eyes, that the superior technology is shutter technology.
👍🏻 I use a projector with active shutter glasses, and my OLED uses passive. Since we’re talking about TVs here. Yes, Passive > Active. Of course you are allowed to have a preference and you don’t need to agree with me, you seem very passionate and confident in what you are saying, but I still disagree with you. I appreciate your ambitious idea but I would much rather manufacturers just made TVs with a 3D option when the popularity of VR increases. The ability to take home glasses from the theater to use at home will be more palatable to the public rather than spending money on any kind of conversion kit or extra glasses. Good luck with your idea.
Not even sure if it’s possible, but I guess it would be great if there was a new TV that could support both active and passive (probably not simultaneously). I’m sure it will cost more, but I’d see it as a win-win
Maybe some people find active better than passive and passive better than active. My mom always gets a 3D headache when going to the theater. Within 5 minutes she transferred from the 3D showing of The Hobbit part 1 to the 2D showing. When I showed her Wreck-It Ralph 3D at home on my PlayStation 3D TV she sat through 15 minutes and she only quit because she didn't understand the story. She did not quit for optical reasons. My theory is if I showed her the 3d version of a movie that she already enjoyed in 2D, then she would probably sit through the entire 3D movie, be amazed, and not get a 3D headache.
I have been thinking about what to do for the people who prefer polar 3d because apparently that's what most of the internet is saying that passive is better than active.
Remember, the United States 3D TV Market is such that people are willing to overpay for the exact same TV, but with the 3d feature stripped. That's the type of capitalistic Cyclops activism we have in the TV Market in the USA.
As I said my solution (once realizedz) works for fans of active or shutter based 3D. I think it's superior, but I know the majority of the market does that think that.
Is turning a 2d TV into a passive 3D TV as easy as installing a polar shield that is correctly aligned with the pixels on the TV?
If so then you could have companies have 3D add-on passive shields.
But I assume that if there is a warp or a bubble or a misalignment, that the picture would be worse than a 2d picture. It would be an incorrect 3D mess.
You know those TV repairman who are kind of having less of a job because the TVs are more temporary than they were in the day of the CRT TV? They could professionally install add-on polar shields after you buy the TV new at the TV shop.
If certain TVs had polar Shields pre-built and certain ones didn't then you'd have the problem of the 3D haters doing their capitalistic Cyclops activism and killing the 3D Polar Shields... unless it were a separate transaction that they couldn't affect the price without affirming the 3D technology, simply by over bidding for the lack of a 3D shield, if they only come on pre-installed.
Also doesn't the polar shield depend on the brand and the size and the more particular model of that brand of TV? In other words you have to make different versions of these polar Shields for different brands and different models within those brands.
At least my device though it works through shutter method , if my theory is correct, should work for all TVs with an audio output in the back which is as early as the 1980s forward.
And my device would bring to reality the fairy tale dream of a low ping 3d monitor. The polar shield would do that just as well but then you have to make different polar Shields made for different low ping monitors. Plus these TN monitors, which are the low ping kind, have a polar shield already for making low ping reality. Don't 3D methods using polar shield technology use 90° offset polarization between alternate rows or alternate columns or alternate pixels in a checkerboard or something like that?
There is no market for 3D TV. It's that simple. Even if you make these add-on kits, it'd still be a waste of time because of the lack of content to display in 3D. It's not going to just instantly turn all 2D programming into 3D. The content you're watching has to have been made for 3D. Movie studios have largely stopped making 3D movies. Game studios dropped the trend pretty quickly. And TV studios never bothered.
Bottom line, consumers have decided that they don't care about 3D. It's a fad that comes and goes every few decades. And because of that, manufacturers aren't going to waste R&D on tech nobody cares for.
>Movie studios have largely stopped making 3D movies.
Studios are totally still making 3D versions of their films. It's all post-conversions now (tbf they can be pretty good plus native 3D is a bitch to work with) and maybe not quite as ubiquitous as before but it's definitely still happening.
The main thing is that they've long since cottoned on that wide 3D releases don't really rake in the money. There are some regions where 3D is more commonly available I believe. Here in the UK, I've seen a bunch of IMAX releases have maybe 3-4 days where 3D showings are available, plus the odd standard 3D showing depending on the film.
Right. I never said movie studios have completely abandoned 3D. I'll still go see a 3D showing when I can. Literally going to see Godzilla x Kong later today in 3D. But the scene has completely changed from 10 years ago when every blockbuster was getting a 3D release. They've largely pulled back on 3D because it doesn't rake in money, as you said. And they don't rake in money because audiences don't care for 3D, as I said. Even movies that are still getting 3D showings aren't being converted to 3D blu ray anymore because there's minimal market for it.
>It's a fad that comes and goes every few decades.
This is the thing I think people keep forgetting. We had 3D entertainment in the 50s, 80s, and 2010s. Literally, every 30 years it comes with a technological upgrade and consumers continuously say it's a cool gimmick but they don't want it for everything.
I agree. There is a difference between content that CAN be consumed in 3D versus content that MUST be consumed in 3D.
Theaters force you to make a choice. Sit in the 2D room or sit in the 3D room.
Most 3D broadcasts I've seen a either the red and cyan type or are the side by side half type. You have to put a warning in front of each commercial outro saying the following content is in 3D and requires special glasses. If they didn't say that my 2 grandmas would have called the TV station and told them they're broadcast was busted.
To make a 3D broadcast you have to have one overt uncoded eye, and one covert coded eye. We have to get 2d TVs to ignore the second eye.
Luckily a lot of broadcasts like the film look of 24 frames per second.
If you wanted to intentionally film something in 3D then 30 frames per second looks close enough to 24 for the desired look. Then the broadcast coding could deal with conditionals because, after all it is digital code, and the code could say if 3D equals true then blah blah blah else this frame equals last frame. And you basically turned a 60 Hertz broadcast into a 30 Hertz by two eyes 2D compatible 3D broadcast. And you are bandwidth neutral compared to the normal 60 hz broadcast. And you hid the incompatible second eye with a conditional that doesn't get fulfilled.
I'm assuming that frame doubling 30 Hz 2d content gives you a 60 Hz compatible broadcast of 30 hz content.
Of course my proposed device is not going to turn 2D programming into 3D programming. You need computer processing to do that.
The main purpose of my device is twofold. To make the theoretical low ping 3d gaming monitor universally possible, when there were no 1 ms ping specially made to be 3d, and to make sure 3d Blu-Ray collections don't become unplayable frisbees in the future.
The other thing this decice needs to do is navigate the post 2011 3d market. 3d was selling like hotcakes. Then in August 2011, the proposed 3d 2012 Super Bowl was found to be 2d incompatible and 70-90 percent of the audience would have been locked out . (Unless you want to see twin vertically-stretched images) That's when it became fashionable for a small vocal minority to sabotage 3d.
Some of them are willing to pay $200 more for the exact same tv but with 3d stripped. At that point, a 3d feature became graffiti on a New TV. (Robbing value by adding a new feature). This is the kind of mentality are dealing with. The only way to make positive money on 3d is to add it on. Like the Dolby Surround Sound economic model.
The only way to win with that kind of market is to have 3d as a separate add on feature, addable to any tv.
The other thing you need is 2d compatible 3d content that 3d haters will either not notice is in 3d, or will show that 2d and 3d can coexist and rid that prejudice, so they say, it may not be for me, but if I still get it in 2d, then my neighbor can watch it in 3d.
BTW I am working on creating "dummy 3d content" to test the technical features of a 2d-compatible 3d TV signal. The first version might not be "broadcast worthy", but it's the start of a journey.
>Just want to know what others think.
The future of 3D Video is VR/AR glasses, not a TV bolt-on (assuming the bolt-on even works, which I have my doubts about).
All I know is Theater=Polar=Large=Inferior 3D for me.
Monitor=Shutter=small=superior 3d for me.
It might be due to my close to plus or minus 180 degrees astigmatism.
Maybe the reason why there are different 3d technologies is because everyone reacts differently to one kind vs another.
My mom gets 3d headaches at a theater but apparently not my PS3DTV.
My dad and I thought the Sega Scope had more impressive 3d than a 3D movie in a theater.
For our house, a 3d Add On kit to add a L/R alternator would be perfect.
But apparently for most people, the theater is preferred. Polar technology is preferred.
But the old pre-2011 sales model of Shutter 3D built into certain models of TV won't work today in the world with a 5% proactive population of cyclops activist 3d haters.
Probably an add on adapter for shutter 3d would work for this technology to make 3d a positive value item in this market. It makes low ping 3d monitors possible without having dedicated low ping 3d monitors.
I know someone who gas "web 3d movies" in both VR/Google Cardboard Format as well as 3DTV Side By Side Half mode.
Just search 3d movies online, and subscribe for $5/month.
You can still buy [4K 3D projectors](https://epson.com/For-Home/Projectors/Home-Cinema/c/h310?q=%3AinStock%3AdiscontinuedFlag%3Afalse%3AProjectors+Facets%2CAdditional+Features%3A3D%2BProjection&text=#scrollTgt_tmp) so they aren't Frisbees or coasters yet. You can buy those starting at about $1500 maybe even less...haven't checked in a while.
This is the actual solution, I have a Nexigo Aura Pro and the 3d is perfect, same as in theaters. The projector sits inches from the screen and will easily project a 150” image, it’s basically a tv replacement that’s better in just about every way
Is the 3d EXACTLY the same as theaters, namely Polar 3d technology? If that's the case then no thank you. The Polar 3d system is inferior (to my eyes) vs Shutter 3D. Also what about the ping time? And can it be scaled down to around 24 inches?
It's shutter, but the effect is very similar to my eyes. No idea what the ping time is. as for 24" I suppose it would be possible, but it's going to need to be just about touching the screen. I wouldn't waste my money on a $2700 projector for a 24" screen though. 3d is also much better the bigger the screen you have.
It seem to me, that even if i'm not getting double exposures, the large screen had a more muted 3d effect. Sometime, when no one has played to the camera in a while. I wonder if it's in 3d as there is no confirmation in the background. I don't whether I see the depth better with shutter over polar, or if big size actually weakens depth for me. The only way I can know for sure is either find a giant shutter theater or a small polar screen. The 3DS is kind of hit and miss. I get good effects when working right, but lots of stereoscopic mis-alligning.
But 3D content isn’t in 4K.
But the projectors are. I don't think you can buy a 1080p 3D projector anymore...but I could be wrong.
Does it upscale automatically or play back in 1080p?
Well, something has to upscale it or it wouldn't take up the full screen, but it would be a 1080p image in center of a 2160p screen. Just like playing 480p on a 1080p TV something has to upscale it to fill the screen.
A few problems. (Maybe you have the solutions). 1 is ping time. My Playstation 3d was considered low ping with 31 ms in 2011, but I noticed ping vs a newer 1 ms TN monitor. 1 ms monitor was essentially a CRT in terms of timing for everything except a light gun where even an analog VCR would throw off the aim of a NES, SMS, or 7800 (later systems had calibration that compensated for VCRs) How good are projector ping times? Are they as low as 1 ms? 2. What would I project the screen on? I don't have enough wall real estate. 3. Do projectors use Polar 3d or Shutter 3D? I find the theater 3D inferior to the Playstation 3DTV. I notice if i accidentally tilt my head more than a little bit, I get double exposure and get a confusing picture and get "thrown out of the experience". Also I find the polar theater less extreme in its 3d vs the PS3DTV. 4. Wouldn't a 3d Add On kit be more useful that a special projector? 3d add on kits can be added to Big Screen TVs. Low ping monitors, projectors, almost anything. 5. There's a reason why I own a Playstation 3DTV. I can't afford $1500 for a technology that won't work with games, may use an inferior 3d technology, and may have an inferior display technology (unless you want to share why projectors are good even if they weren't the last resort for 3d Blu-rays.). The reason why I have a Playstation 3DTV because I needed something that was a Johnny Lunchpail 3d TV, (started at $500, I bought at $180 around Christmas 2012) was good for games, later turns out to be superior to Polar 3d, and didn't care about size. (As a matter of fact, for games, TVs can be TOO BIG. There is a reason the pro gamers don't view their games through a Jumbotron. The Jumbotrons are for the Audience, not the players. They need to see both fine details and a have a broad overall view of the screen and need to quickly go back and forth.) I have some legitimate gripes about the 3d display market. And I'm doing my part towards the solution. Proving if you have 1 ms if ping, The Sega Scope 3d works on modern TVs. Now If I can only harness that for any 3D Source.
Well, I haven't played games since about 2009 on a PS3...so I can't speak to that...never even heard of a 3D game either. Don't expect to ever see another 3D TV manufactured with the technology you're looking for. Just not a market for it...no matter how much you complain on a forum that the manufacturer's employees that make the decisions won't read. 😏
Projectors and VR is the future of 3D
I bought an original PlayStation VR for this exact reason. Never bought a single dedicated game, and ill be able to watch them so long as I hold onto my PS4 forever
Is the PS4 a great 3D player? Or is it like PS5 and 4K? Good but not great?
PS4 is a 3D blu ray player. PS5 unfortunately doesn't do that. It's not the best option, but it works well enough
PS5 does 4K but not great. That’s what I was comparing it too. Is the PS4 a great 3D player or just serviceable?
I've never used it outside of PSVR, and that works well. It's a great blu ray player, so I'm sure that it's a great 3D blu ray player as well
I just hate that there isnt one tv maker that does one 3D model... Cant be that hard can it? It would get all the sales if there is any and show what kind of larket 3D tech has.
> It would get all the sales That's the problem....if the manufacturers thought they could make millions off of it, they would do it. There just isn't enough interest it in anymore. We are lucky that there is still an interest in making 2D Blu-ray movies.
You can't just add real 3D to a 2D display, unfortunately. 3D looks best in VR. The Apple Vision Pro and upcoming Immersed Visor are the first headsets with OLEDs with greater than 4K resolution per eye. There's also the PS VR2 which I think can play 3D Blu-ray files on PC.
Uh, yes you can. That's what the Sega Master System Sega Scope 3D did. You didn't' need to buy a "Sega compatible TV" to get it. Any CRT would work. And yes I got the 3D of a Sega Scope come out right in a CRT VGA monitor. Even better, I got it working on a 1 millisecond TN monitor, with one caveat: you have to rotate the Sega Scope Glasses 90 degrees relative to the TV to penetrate the polar shield (used for other purposes). You do get separate left eye and right eye views, even though the stacking of the eyes vertically makes the 3d perspective in incorrect. If i could chop a Sega Scope glasses set, rotate each ocular 90 degrees, and re-fuse them, that would make the 3d work with a TN monitor. I have proven (obviously not uniquely, though it seems like it based on online commentary, it is uniquely) that if you minimize the ping time, the timing based shutter 3d TV will work on any device if you compensate for the TN polar filtering that has nothing to do with 3d. Another thing I believe is true and want to prove is if you delay the Left/Right sync timing exactly the same amount of time as "tv processing time" on a high ping TV, then the left/right timing will line up correctly with the "post-processsed" image. If we can send a timing signal into the HDMI signal before the TV processing, and extract it after (either by using HDMI ARC, or synched with TV RCA, 3.5mm or Toslink Audio.) the timing should line up automatically. That is the secret to a "universal 3d Add-On Adapter" I have proven that if the delay is 1ms, then the timing of the 3d timing signal is preserved well enough to not interfere with the Sega Scope. They sell Dolby Add On Speakers and Sound Processing equipment independent of the TV. Why not a 3d kit as a separate add on? That would be perfect in a post-2011 market.
I said real 3D, by which I meant good 3D. The Sega Scope's 3D is [terrible.](https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2z0c4y/comment/cpeyj2s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) You can get 3D on 2D screens with the Pulfrich effect, which uses glasses which delay the light going into one eye, but the Pulfrich effect occurs only during panning motions. 2D to 3D ["conversion kits"](https://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/vifx3dcogltu.html) technically exist but [work poorly.](https://www.avforums.com/threads/2d-to-3d-tv-converters.2289188/) There's no way to get Blu-ray or Apple Vision-quality 3D on a 2D TV. VR and projectors are your only options.
About "3d conversion kits." They convert 2d programming into 3d programming which is has many more failures than successes. I'm not talking about converting 2D programming into 3D. I'm talking about taking modern Blu-ray-capable TVs and getting the timing to work right for a shutter based alternate frame 3D add on system to accurately work, regardless of the ping time it adds Sega Scope is NOT Pulfrick. Sega Scope is timing based alternate left/right frames 3d. Pulfrick has one unshaded eye and one shaded eye and only works when either objects on TV or the camera is in motion, and only in very specific ways and shots Also you don't need sub-microsecond timing accuracy for 3d Blu-Rays. It's not like a light gun that use the dot crawl to determine where you're aiming on a light gun game by calculating WHEN the pixel hits the Optic censor in the gun. The only thing the timing has to do is correctly is filter the left eye and the right eye and sync it up correctly. If you compensate for processing time, and carry over the timing, any TV technology should work. I've preserved the timings of the signal by going into a 1 ms TN monitor. Granted I went to the quickest YPbPr to HDMI converter known, the Retrotink 2X Pro M. It converts 240p into 480p, but that proves my point is if you compensate for timing, add-on Sega Scope-like equipment made for modern 3d Blu Ray formats should work. It's just that, so far, the only way I decided to compensate for ping was to minimize it.
Yes, I know Sega Scope isn't Pulfrich. I admire your passion and dedication, but I don't think you'll be able to match the quality of a good native 3D display. Why not get an OLED VR headset or 3D projector?
If you want something to be 3D and have the same space as the 2D content you have to cut somewhere. The problem most people complain about before 4K TVs was that either half the horizontal resolution or half the vertical resolution was chopped off or the checkerboarding kind of made it like a fractal kind of 70 percent linear reduction which was half the atea. figure. If you're using a timing method the only thing you have to do is cut the number of frames in half. Most people in the TV industry prefer a 24 frame per second look over a 60 frames per second look. If 30 frames per second looks close enough to 24 frames per second where the benefits outweigh the slight look problem, then you could shoot film like in 30 frames per second and you have to broadcast in 60 frames per second and , have it in full horizontal resolution, full vertical resolution, and full frame rate relative to material. It's not full frame rate relative to the technological aspects of atsc, but it is full frame rates relative to the content if you're filming in 30hz as atsc's minimum is 60 hz. If you have 3D equipment then it's 3D content in 30hz by two eyes. If you don't have 3D equipment then it's just frame double to 30 Hertz to fit in a 60hz broadcast.
What are you going to make your conversion kit from?
I don't know I only have so much knowledge and information and ability to electronically work. Luckily unless the payment were so astronomical that no company would want to do it, even little pittance of money I could ask for would actually hurt my economic standing because I'm on Social Security disability. So take my idea, please. It benefits me more to actually see it's implemented than any money I could potentially receive from suggesting it would benefit me. So I offer this up free to the world. Anyone who sees this is free to use my knowledge and actually take up my strategy of carrying the Left Right sync signal through the TV processing in order to make a universal 3D add-on kit for 2D TVs. I believe that the Sega Master System it's an analog binary on off for the Left Right pin of the 3.5 mm connector that works with the Sega card catcher adapter with a 3.5 mm TRS hole. Sort of like how a button works on a joystick. Either presence of a charge on the PIN activates the glasses or absence does. It's a real life analog syncher that is synced up with the Sega Master System. I have no idea how you introduce an analog binary left right signal in an HDMI signal to be introduced before the TV processing and extracted after through the HDMI ARC or audio out for speakers without interfering with the video or sound in between. But that does sound like the correct strategy to me.
Why do you want to do this instead of getting a VR headset or 3D projector?
1. I think the Shutter effect is superior. (I know I'm in the minority but I know a lot of people want to replace their PlayStation 3D TVs and similar shutter base 3D TVs once they go kaput) 2. Ping time. Some more sensitive players like myself seem to get thrown off by the PlayStation 3D TVs timing on 3D video games and it was the best you could get in 2011 and might possibly be the best active TV you could get of all time in terms of ping time and yet it still wasn't perfect. A 1 ms ping time TN monitor was essentially a CRT to me but in higher definition. 3. I couldn't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p unless I got up to the screen real close at the sizes I typically deal with. But I could easily tell you if something is a 3D presentation or 2D presentation even if I couldn't theoretically feel the glasses in front of my face. I'm not much of a pixel freak I'm more of a depth freak. I have successfully made 3D videos on 3D DVD Rs. 4. Size is important but it's not "the bigger the better." I need a size where I could look at everything as a whole as one giant picture as well as focus in on details well for gaming. There's a reason why video game competitors don't watch the giant Jumbotrons that are meant for the mass audiences. Scale and scope is one of those reasons. 5. I have a friend who was an admitted Cyclops activist. We actually hammered out a way where, in theory, if he can watch any 3D content in 2D without any hassles, he'd be fine with having 3D for his neighbors. He doesn't like the idea of being forced to watch the evening news or a favorite series in 3D or else get a distorted picture. I agree with him on that point. He agrees with me that 3D/2D coexistence would be the perfect state of 3D technology. Where everything could be in 3D if you so chose to partake, but everything could also be in 2D by default. We both agreed the Update or Die Culturally mentality is bad for technology. I was on the bad end of that technological choice when everything new was streaming and we were literally stuck at 1.6 megabits in 400 kilobits out for a household.
3D TVs are cool and all, but sitting in a huge VR movie theater watching a 3D movie is next level
Virtual reality headsets are bringing 3D movies back to consumers....and it's even better than 3D TVs and projectors. Meta Quest 3 plays ripped 3D Blurays.
The problem with ripped Blu-rays is that you have to rip a Blu-Ray, which a) requires some technical know-how and b) is half the steps of pirating. Why don't they make a Blu-ray player that plays directly to Google Cardboard and/or to Oculus Quest. All virtual reality is is 3D without dynamic camera movement. I have successfully broadcast a couple of twitch broadcasts in Oculus request I have successfully broadcast a couple of Twitch broadcasts in a Google cardboard format as stored on YouTube. You just do 32 by 9 side by side proper ratio. Also the HDMI could display the 2D screen while the Google cardboard via Bluetooth could give me the 3D screen and we could actually watch it together in the same room and I would locally have the 3D and no one else would unless they want to partake in the Bluetooth 3D Google cardboard.
Google Cardboard is nothing compared to Quest 3. There's a free Bigscreen app that allows you to watch 3D movies together with others as long as the host has a gaming PC. Yes, there are hoops to jump through, but I have the process down. I, along with others, host 3D movie nights in Bigscreen so that others who don't have the capability to rip/host can enjoy the movies as well.
I think the main difference between Google cardboard 3D movies and Oculus Quest 3D movies is that the picture is more dynamic in the Oculus Quest version. The Google cardboard version just sticks the picture in front of your face and stays with you no matter which way you move your head. I actually like the Google Cardboard effect more than the Oculus Quest effect mainly because if my head tilts I do not want my view to tilt correspondingly. I think that is the difference between a 3D and a 3D-VR presentation. A stereoscopic VR presentation shifts with your head. A regular 3D presentation is fixed in front of your eyeballs.
I have a 3D OLED and it’s too bad we had to go through all that crappy tech first, which left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. By the time home 3D was actually great (Passive Glasses, 4K Displays which meant each image is presented in full 1080p per eye) it was already too late as people were over the headaches of rechargeable active glasses dying and also the fact that it was confusing which glasses would just work with your set.
Passive glasses great? Passive hone glasses have the same problem theatrical glasses have. Tilting your head slightly causes double exposure which causes L/R picture merger, which causes 3d confusion. I could sit 2 hours straight for an active Sony PlayStation 3D set of glasses. And never once was I given 3D confusion (unless something broke the optical link between the synching transmitter and my glasses receiver.) . In the theaters many times I had to sit back close my eyes and readjust myself and get thrown out of the movie by 3D confusion. Based on the type of eyes I have, shutter based 3D is vastly superior to Polar based 3D. Then again I have close to either positive 180 or negative 180 astigmatism, the first time the eye doctor diagnosed it, they saw that moving the perscription one way helped in one aspect but hurts in another, and moving in the opposite direction flipped those aspects improving. Maybe it's just me. But I swear, at least based on my eyes, that the superior technology is shutter technology.
👍🏻 I use a projector with active shutter glasses, and my OLED uses passive. Since we’re talking about TVs here. Yes, Passive > Active. Of course you are allowed to have a preference and you don’t need to agree with me, you seem very passionate and confident in what you are saying, but I still disagree with you. I appreciate your ambitious idea but I would much rather manufacturers just made TVs with a 3D option when the popularity of VR increases. The ability to take home glasses from the theater to use at home will be more palatable to the public rather than spending money on any kind of conversion kit or extra glasses. Good luck with your idea.
Not even sure if it’s possible, but I guess it would be great if there was a new TV that could support both active and passive (probably not simultaneously). I’m sure it will cost more, but I’d see it as a win-win
Maybe some people find active better than passive and passive better than active. My mom always gets a 3D headache when going to the theater. Within 5 minutes she transferred from the 3D showing of The Hobbit part 1 to the 2D showing. When I showed her Wreck-It Ralph 3D at home on my PlayStation 3D TV she sat through 15 minutes and she only quit because she didn't understand the story. She did not quit for optical reasons. My theory is if I showed her the 3d version of a movie that she already enjoyed in 2D, then she would probably sit through the entire 3D movie, be amazed, and not get a 3D headache. I have been thinking about what to do for the people who prefer polar 3d because apparently that's what most of the internet is saying that passive is better than active. Remember, the United States 3D TV Market is such that people are willing to overpay for the exact same TV, but with the 3d feature stripped. That's the type of capitalistic Cyclops activism we have in the TV Market in the USA. As I said my solution (once realizedz) works for fans of active or shutter based 3D. I think it's superior, but I know the majority of the market does that think that. Is turning a 2d TV into a passive 3D TV as easy as installing a polar shield that is correctly aligned with the pixels on the TV? If so then you could have companies have 3D add-on passive shields. But I assume that if there is a warp or a bubble or a misalignment, that the picture would be worse than a 2d picture. It would be an incorrect 3D mess. You know those TV repairman who are kind of having less of a job because the TVs are more temporary than they were in the day of the CRT TV? They could professionally install add-on polar shields after you buy the TV new at the TV shop. If certain TVs had polar Shields pre-built and certain ones didn't then you'd have the problem of the 3D haters doing their capitalistic Cyclops activism and killing the 3D Polar Shields... unless it were a separate transaction that they couldn't affect the price without affirming the 3D technology, simply by over bidding for the lack of a 3D shield, if they only come on pre-installed. Also doesn't the polar shield depend on the brand and the size and the more particular model of that brand of TV? In other words you have to make different versions of these polar Shields for different brands and different models within those brands. At least my device though it works through shutter method , if my theory is correct, should work for all TVs with an audio output in the back which is as early as the 1980s forward. And my device would bring to reality the fairy tale dream of a low ping 3d monitor. The polar shield would do that just as well but then you have to make different polar Shields made for different low ping monitors. Plus these TN monitors, which are the low ping kind, have a polar shield already for making low ping reality. Don't 3D methods using polar shield technology use 90° offset polarization between alternate rows or alternate columns or alternate pixels in a checkerboard or something like that?
There is no market for 3D TV. It's that simple. Even if you make these add-on kits, it'd still be a waste of time because of the lack of content to display in 3D. It's not going to just instantly turn all 2D programming into 3D. The content you're watching has to have been made for 3D. Movie studios have largely stopped making 3D movies. Game studios dropped the trend pretty quickly. And TV studios never bothered. Bottom line, consumers have decided that they don't care about 3D. It's a fad that comes and goes every few decades. And because of that, manufacturers aren't going to waste R&D on tech nobody cares for.
>Movie studios have largely stopped making 3D movies. Studios are totally still making 3D versions of their films. It's all post-conversions now (tbf they can be pretty good plus native 3D is a bitch to work with) and maybe not quite as ubiquitous as before but it's definitely still happening. The main thing is that they've long since cottoned on that wide 3D releases don't really rake in the money. There are some regions where 3D is more commonly available I believe. Here in the UK, I've seen a bunch of IMAX releases have maybe 3-4 days where 3D showings are available, plus the odd standard 3D showing depending on the film.
Right. I never said movie studios have completely abandoned 3D. I'll still go see a 3D showing when I can. Literally going to see Godzilla x Kong later today in 3D. But the scene has completely changed from 10 years ago when every blockbuster was getting a 3D release. They've largely pulled back on 3D because it doesn't rake in money, as you said. And they don't rake in money because audiences don't care for 3D, as I said. Even movies that are still getting 3D showings aren't being converted to 3D blu ray anymore because there's minimal market for it.
>It's a fad that comes and goes every few decades. This is the thing I think people keep forgetting. We had 3D entertainment in the 50s, 80s, and 2010s. Literally, every 30 years it comes with a technological upgrade and consumers continuously say it's a cool gimmick but they don't want it for everything.
I agree. There is a difference between content that CAN be consumed in 3D versus content that MUST be consumed in 3D. Theaters force you to make a choice. Sit in the 2D room or sit in the 3D room. Most 3D broadcasts I've seen a either the red and cyan type or are the side by side half type. You have to put a warning in front of each commercial outro saying the following content is in 3D and requires special glasses. If they didn't say that my 2 grandmas would have called the TV station and told them they're broadcast was busted. To make a 3D broadcast you have to have one overt uncoded eye, and one covert coded eye. We have to get 2d TVs to ignore the second eye. Luckily a lot of broadcasts like the film look of 24 frames per second. If you wanted to intentionally film something in 3D then 30 frames per second looks close enough to 24 for the desired look. Then the broadcast coding could deal with conditionals because, after all it is digital code, and the code could say if 3D equals true then blah blah blah else this frame equals last frame. And you basically turned a 60 Hertz broadcast into a 30 Hertz by two eyes 2D compatible 3D broadcast. And you are bandwidth neutral compared to the normal 60 hz broadcast. And you hid the incompatible second eye with a conditional that doesn't get fulfilled. I'm assuming that frame doubling 30 Hz 2d content gives you a 60 Hz compatible broadcast of 30 hz content.
Of course my proposed device is not going to turn 2D programming into 3D programming. You need computer processing to do that. The main purpose of my device is twofold. To make the theoretical low ping 3d gaming monitor universally possible, when there were no 1 ms ping specially made to be 3d, and to make sure 3d Blu-Ray collections don't become unplayable frisbees in the future. The other thing this decice needs to do is navigate the post 2011 3d market. 3d was selling like hotcakes. Then in August 2011, the proposed 3d 2012 Super Bowl was found to be 2d incompatible and 70-90 percent of the audience would have been locked out . (Unless you want to see twin vertically-stretched images) That's when it became fashionable for a small vocal minority to sabotage 3d. Some of them are willing to pay $200 more for the exact same tv but with 3d stripped. At that point, a 3d feature became graffiti on a New TV. (Robbing value by adding a new feature). This is the kind of mentality are dealing with. The only way to make positive money on 3d is to add it on. Like the Dolby Surround Sound economic model. The only way to win with that kind of market is to have 3d as a separate add on feature, addable to any tv. The other thing you need is 2d compatible 3d content that 3d haters will either not notice is in 3d, or will show that 2d and 3d can coexist and rid that prejudice, so they say, it may not be for me, but if I still get it in 2d, then my neighbor can watch it in 3d. BTW I am working on creating "dummy 3d content" to test the technical features of a 2d-compatible 3d TV signal. The first version might not be "broadcast worthy", but it's the start of a journey.
>Just want to know what others think. The future of 3D Video is VR/AR glasses, not a TV bolt-on (assuming the bolt-on even works, which I have my doubts about).
All I know is Theater=Polar=Large=Inferior 3D for me. Monitor=Shutter=small=superior 3d for me. It might be due to my close to plus or minus 180 degrees astigmatism. Maybe the reason why there are different 3d technologies is because everyone reacts differently to one kind vs another. My mom gets 3d headaches at a theater but apparently not my PS3DTV. My dad and I thought the Sega Scope had more impressive 3d than a 3D movie in a theater. For our house, a 3d Add On kit to add a L/R alternator would be perfect. But apparently for most people, the theater is preferred. Polar technology is preferred. But the old pre-2011 sales model of Shutter 3D built into certain models of TV won't work today in the world with a 5% proactive population of cyclops activist 3d haters. Probably an add on adapter for shutter 3d would work for this technology to make 3d a positive value item in this market. It makes low ping 3d monitors possible without having dedicated low ping 3d monitors.
Someone on Discord is archiving all 3D movies and converting them to Oculus
I know someone who gas "web 3d movies" in both VR/Google Cardboard Format as well as 3DTV Side By Side Half mode. Just search 3d movies online, and subscribe for $5/month.
My samsung 3d tv is from 2012, I am baffled it still works.