LG Cinema 3D TV Get Full HD Certification From VDE 71
i4u writes "LG announced today that the German VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific associations in Europe, has certified the LG Cinema 3D TVs to be full HD in 3D-mode. LG's Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) technology, used on the CINEMA 3D TVs, creates the perception of 3D depth by delivering two 540 line images, one for each eye, that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image. The ruling from the VDE lets LG carry the full HD badge. There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs."
Be warned of the summary. (Score:1)
LG announced today that the German VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific associations in Europe, has certified the LG Cinema 3D TVs to be full HD in 3D-mode. LG's Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) technology, used on the CINEMA 3D TVs, creates the perception of 3D depth by delivering two 540 line images, one for each eye, that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image. The ruling from the VDE lets LG carry the full HD badge. There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs
It might not be stargazer; it might be pew pew along the lines of magazine.
Sorry I came to the garbage of this place and realized it, fellow Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs
Big deal. In my experience, the difference (if any) is only to the potential for marketing hype and consumer misinformation. 3D TV is a fad which will likely be relegated to special interest pay channels (porn?), and the odd teaser on regular channels for quite a while. Then again, with incompatible systems between manufacturers, not many will have the right viewing equipment. Ask me in another 10 years whether I have a 3D TV; the market might have sorted itself out by then, and either died or picked a com
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they cried about how old it was then grew even more emo when it was dropped?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 2 years ago the price between 120hz and 60hz displays will be so small that the holdup is the 3d circuitry, not the refresh capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no 3d "circuitry". its all software. notice how the ps3 became a '3d' blue ray player after a firmware update.
Re: (Score:2)
Software isn't magic, it runs on hardware. Hardware that costs more money to have in the tv.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that' can't be it. How expensive can the glasses be, really? It's just one big LCD cell, isn't it? Surely 60 hz is not unreasonable here...
Or do you mean the synchronization? That should be easy too. Just use an extremely narrow-band UHF channel. We just freed up a bunch of UHF and VHF spectrum at no small cost to consumers. Surely we can spare 120 hz to allocate for short-range timing signals...
Re: (Score:2)
Incompatible systems between manufacturers? What could be incompatible? They had 3D movies on tv over 50 years ago. With the free glasses in the newspaper. Now you need a special tv and expensive glasses? What's wrong with this picture. When they come out with a set with a set you don't need glasses with, then you'll have something. For now... and expensive fad for the rich and foolish.
Passive 3D sets are hardly expensive. I paid under $700 for a 1080p set from Vizio that uses passive glasses that are about $20 on Amazon, or free if you forget to return a pair from your movie theater. It's 42", 1080P, came with two pairs of glasses, I bought a $89 3D BluRay player to pair with it, and DirecTV has 3-4 channels for no extra charge already. Not sure about "compatibility", but while active glasses may not be cross-brand compatible, the polarized passive ones are, and the discs and TV channels
Re: (Score:1)
Ask me in another 10 years whether I have a 3D TV
Maybe you won't have a 3D TV but I will attempt to ask you via your pineal/coax cable
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me use Google Translator to translate your post to Russian -> Dutch -> Japanese -> English, and maybe it will make more sense...
This may not be an astrologer, it has benches along the lines of the log.
Unfortunately, I came to the location of the trash, I noticed this man in particular Slashdotters.
Yes, much better, now I understand...
can I get... (Score:2)
a Beowulf cluster of those?
it's HD and 3D (Score:3)
... just not at the same time
Why not? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Wikipedia page is weak on details. But somehow they have every other row polarized opposite so each eye can only see every other line. This will have the effect that one eye will see an entire image one scan line lower that the other. So each eye sees have the resolution of 1080P (like 540p). In a way, it is like 1080i, but with 1080i, each frame is slightly different in time. That is not the case here, where both images are from the exact same point in time.
I am not sure how it looks, but it
Re: (Score:2)
With polarizing or switching glasses for 3D, each eye receives 1080p. With this, it seems that each eye receives 540p, half the resolution. Yes, that's much lower quality and doesn't qualify as "full HD" anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
I've not RTFA, but if it uses doubled frame-rates a la 1080i, so each eye sees both even and odd row lines over the two frames together, then this would count as HD. Not as good as 1080pHD, maybe, but still HD.
Re: (Score:2)
For that they'd have to rapidly switch the optical system that directs light at each eye. If they can do that for each line and do it fast enough, why do it interlaced at all? Why not simply do it a field at a time? That would be much simpler and cheaper hardware.
Re: (Score:1)
You make a good point... I suppose the ultimate answer lies in optical perception and how each method 'feels' to a user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if showing 540 lines to one eye, and 540 lines to the other eye is the same as 1080, then the ones that show 1080 lines to one eye, and 1080 lines to the other eye will have to be labeled 2160p.
The obvious problem those idiots didn't think about is that it's NOT showing you 540 + 540
Re:Interlacing (Score:4, Interesting)
For movies and TV programing, it is a slightly different story. The reason I don't think it will go away comes down to price and the ability to watch in 2D. In the past if you bought a program in 3D, that is all it would ever be. You couldn't simply press a button to convert it back to 2D in real time. Now it is trivial. There is no reason that a TV should not be able to take a 3D stream and display it in 2D. All the current 3D TVs would need to do is drop every other frame, or for SBS just show half the stream stretched onto the whole screen. So from a consumer perspective, their media is backward compatible, and there is no loss for getting the 3D version.
From a hardware perspective, 3DTVs are noticeably more expensive, but I believe that is do to the "because we can" situation. Given time, the 3D functionality will likely be a standard feature because the cost of including it is negligible. Kind of like contrast controls. Almost nobody plays with the contrast controls on their TV, but they are there all the same for those that do want to use it.
Finally, 3DTV functionality will make a big splash for regular TV when units start shipping that will interlace from two different sources. When one person can play video games, and another can watch a TV show on the same TV at the same time, people who you never expected to have an interest will buy the product. This will lead to everyone having a 3DTV. As filming equipment gets replaced, the cost of filming in 3D will become negligible, and thus the cost from creation to consumption will be so small that you might as well supply it that way. Even in a worst case scenario, it will be trivial to supply computer animated movies in 3D since they are already made in 3D and flattened to 2D for distribution. It is pretty much just a matter of running the renderer to a second file. Once TVs start shipping where they will frame drop 3D streams into 2D, it wont even take a second render.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3D complaint (Score:2)
You know those old people who complain about a commie plot where technological is just a smokescreen to get them to buy "the white album" for the 20th different media format?
The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about "3D" or "smell-o-vision" or whatever other useless frippery of the week, is "I'm gonna have to download Star Wars ... again?"
I mean really, the scene in the Death Star's garbage compactor or the Bar Scene on Tattoine isn't really going to be any better, its just... again.
Re: (Score:2)
[troll] Yup, but the 3D version clearly proves that Solo shoots first [/troll]
Re: (Score:2)
[troll] Yup, but the 3D version clearly proves that Solo shoots first [/troll]
No the 3d version will mean another remake so now Chewbacca shoots first.
But is the AstroTurf in HD? (Score:2)
Ah, excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that LG's new system will experience similar benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
..I discovered that the "THX Certified" sticker had fallen off..
Depending on the programming, I think some television sets might be better shipped with stickers removed from medication packaging; "may cause drowsiness", "do not use while driving or operating machinery", "call for emergency assistance if erections last more than four hours", or "continued use combined with food consumption may be harmfull".
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I'm not sure what the poster's implication is... 1080i is "full HD", isn't it? Isn't this essentially what that is? 1080p split into two interleaved streams...
Re: (Score:2)
No, 'full' is 1080p, not 1080i.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest abuses of marketing, these days. Tons of things (especially camcorders) claim "1080p" when they mean 1080p30, but they can also take 1080i60. Depending on how the CCD is clocked, the results can be exactly the same (take 30 frames/second, in one case, you dump it as 30 frames onto storage, in the other, you break it into 2 fields, and dump both. End result is the same).
Or game consoles, where 1080p often also means 1080p30. At least 1080i tends to consistent
The Process (Score:4, Funny)
The certification process is simple;
1. Did check clear?
2. Profit!
3. Certification granted
Re: (Score:2)
1. Did check clear?
unlikely, Germany is more a bank transfer society
Let's get retarded in here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about political correctness, this is about people seeing it and saying "I'm not buying it, because this shit is retarded." IOW, fire the marketdroid who failed hard on this one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and all those people that do their job in flame retardant suits must be flaming retards, right?
I've always assumed so.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. Isn't it supposed to be a Film Patterened Intellectually Disableder?
Anyway, I think more than one of us missed the point in your link to a specs page where they typo'd the name of the product/feature . . . ?
As for the word itself . . . "retarded" is word that was chosen in the medical profession as a kinder and more appropriate way to refer to a certain condition than imbecile, moron, or idiot. We no longer use those three words to refer to people with actual mental retardation, and so we are free t
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no! (Score:1)
that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image
No! They're combined by the brain, not the glasses! Sheesh.
Shutter glasses based 3D TVs deliver the better 3D image.
Great. Can they work on not giving me a headache within 30 seconds of putting on the glasses now, please?
Re: (Score:2)
lg (Score:2)
LG Firmware increased the resolution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it still gives me a headache though.
Re: (Score:2)
Comments like yours give me a headache also. You might as well complain at the injustice of being left-handed in a right-handed world. I've learned to suck it up and get over it.
Can't watch 3D? Boo-hoo, don't buy it. If they decided never to make a can opener because it couldn't be used fully by left-handed people, where would we be now?
Re: (Score:2)
Being a pendant - this isn't true.
It's the use of screen-field polarisation that halves the resolution (having a filter infront of the LCD that polarises even pixels one way, odd pixels the other).
There is nothing stopping for example two full resolution polarised screen images over the same screen real estate having full resolution.
TL;DR - it's not the glasses that halve the resolution - it's the choice of the scr
and so a regulatory body nobody cares about (Score:2)
Burns its reputation and ensures that will remain true.
Re: (Score:2)
Article Fail + Manufacturer Fail = Awesome Win? (Score:2)
Second, fail to the manufacturer themselves. Someone there thought that calling their fancy 3D technology "Film Patterned R
Congrats to the AC! (Score:2)
Call me when.. (Score:1)
I tested a few 3d tv's and liked the LG best. (Score:2)
In Europe incandescent lighting is being phased out. The fluorescent lights that replace them tend to flicker when viewed trough shutter glasses.