That said, we can make some broad generalizations between active and passive based on what we've seen. Passive generally causes less crosstalk -- a major 3D-specific artifact -- than active. Active 3D TVs don't show jagged-edge artifacts and line structure that can be seen on passive models, although these artifacts are less visible on smaller screens and farther distances.
They also keep their 3D effect better when seen from extreme angles to either side or above and below the image -- although from most normal viewing angles, passive 3D TVs have no issues maintaining the 3D illusion. The fact that passive isn't available on plasma TVs is also an issue to home-theater enthusiasts who don't want to buy an LCD. We prefer the 3D picture quality of the best active 3D TVs over passive for critical viewing Our main hangup with passive 3D TV is the presence of the artifacts mentioned above, which we find especially distracting at the closer seating distances and with the large screen sizes favored by home-theater enthusiasts.
But with the practical and certain picture quality strengths of passive 3D, especially in bright rooms, an argument can certainly be made that it's the better choice overall.
Check out "Active 3D vs. That's what 4K TVs that employ passive 3D promise. Their higher resolution should eliminate most of those jagged edges and line structure. You need made-in-3D source material to take full advantage of a 3D TV. Many 3D products feature 2D-to-3D conversion options, but they're a far cry from a real 3D source. The ratios are comparable, and so far in 3D Blu-ray releases are on the same pace as the last two years.
In other words, 3D Blu-rays aren't getting much more common as the format matures. There are also quite a few blockbusters; nearly every big-budget 3D theatrical release also makes it to 3D Blu-ray. The 3D Blu-ray format, and made-in-3D movies, definitely represent the state of the 3D art, with full high-def resolution and the benefit of the latest filming techniques to make the 3D effect comfortable and enjoyable.
Unlike Blu-ray, 3D broadcasts on TV currently use a half-resolution 3D format known as side-by-side, resulting in a significantly softer, non-high-def look.
We know of no plans to add more 3D channels or introduce a full-HD resolution 3D broadcast. Click here for more on the differences between Blu-ray and broadcast 3D formats. The Vudu streaming service also has a smattering of 3D movies available. Sensio's 3DGo app , currently only available on Vizio TVs, promises more content than other comparable services. Games are often touted as the "killer app" for 3D TVs, but actual 3D games are still uncommon.
Today many popular titles are still 2D-only, and 3D games aren't really catching on fast. The Nintendo Wii does not offer 3D compatibility. The Wii U does, but no compatible 3D games are available yet.
No 3D TVs are being made. In fact, most manufacturers stopped making them in Before getting into the "why it all failed," it's important to know why it even started.
It's something the "Avatar Effect". Although 3D movie viewing goes back decades, the release of James Cameron's Avatar in was a game-changer. With its worldwide 3D success, movie studios not only started pumping out a steady stream of 3D movies into movie theaters but TV makers, beginning with Panasonic and LG, made 3D available for home viewing with the introduction of 3D TV.
However, that was the beginning of several mistakes. A lot of things came together to doom 3D TV before it really even started, which can be summed up by three factors:. Let's take a look at these three and other issues that plagued 3D TVs from the start. The first mistake was the timing of its introduction. The U. As a result, between and millions of consumers either purchased new HDTVs to meet the "new" broadcast requirements or analog-to-digital TV broadcast converters so that they could keep their older analog TVs working a little while longer.
This meant that when 3D TV was introduced in , most consumers were not ready to discard their just-purchased TVs, and reach into their wallets again, just to get 3D. Bad timing was just the first mistake. To view the 3D effect on a TV you had to wear special glasses. And, get this, there were competing standards that determined which glasses you had to use.
Some TV makers led by Panasonic and Samsung adopted a system referred to as "active shutter". In this system, viewers had to wear glasses that used shutters that alternately opened and closed, synchronized with alternately displayed left and right eye images on the TV to create the 3D effect.
However, other manufacturers led by LG and Vizio adopted a system referred to as "passive polarized", in which the TV displayed both the left and right images at the same time, and the required glasses used polarization to provide the 3D effect. However, a major problem was that the glasses used with each system were not interchangeable.
If you owned a 3D TV that required active glasses, you could not use passive glasses or vice versa. To make matters worse, even though you could use the same passive glasses with any 3D TV that used that system, with TVs that used the active shutter system, you couldn't necessarily use the same glasses with different brands.
Another problem with 3D glasses was the cost. For a family of 4 or more or if a family regularly hosted a movie night that cost was pretty high. Uh-oh, more costs ahead! Also, with internet streaming starting to take off, you needed to make sure that your new 3D TV was compatible with any internet services that offered 3D streaming. Realizing that some consumers might not want to purchase all the other gear needed for a true 3D viewing experience, TV makers decided to include the capability of 3D TVs to perform real-time 2D-to-3D conversion—Big Mistake!
Although this allowed consumers to watch existing 2D content in 3D right out the box, the 3D viewing experience was poor—definitely inferior to viewing actual 3D.
As a result, TV makers made the big mistake of not incorporating increased light output technologies into 3D TVs to compensate.
However, what is ironic, is that with the introduction of HDR technology in , TVs began to be made with increased light output capability. Was it a matter of cost? Was it a lack of consumer interest in 3D? Or is 4K just easier to create and more convenient to watch? Later that year the first 3D TVs started hitting shelves. As expected, this increased sales, and by 3D TVs made up Most manufacturers and pundits predicted this trend would continue, with some predicting that as many as million 3D TVs would be sold in via HDTVTest.
Suffice to say, these predictions were wrong. This led Samsung to drop support for 3D TVs in , with all other major manufacturers doing likewise in Read on to find out why. So, how does 3D work anyway? Essentially, 3D is an optical illusion that aims to trick the brain into perceiving a flat two-dimensional 2D image as a three-dimensional 3D image with depth.
It achieves this via stereoscopy — feeding the left and right eyes slightly offset versions of the same image. Our brains then process these two video feeds and calculates the differences between them, which we perceive as stereoscopic vision with depth perception.
The 3D boom was enabled by the convergence of several technologies. In the cinemas this technology was digital cinemaphotography. This made capturing, reproducing, and displaying 3D content far easier than with film. Another enabling technology was the sunglasses-style polarised 3D glasses. Since Avatar was released in 3D in late , how many times have you watched something, anything, in 3D? That pretty much sums up the journey of 3D TVs. Due to the success of Avatar in 3D, TV manufacturers saw the next gold rush, but due to horrible timing, clunky technology and costs, the 3D TV experience tripped, stumbled and fell right out of the gates in the race to consumer popularity.
Remember these things? Back in , all major TV broadcasting switched their signals from analog to digital. If you wanted to keep your old TV working, you had to purchase one of those digital converters.
0コメント