Most 2017 models don't do 3D at all; the active versus passive question is mostly moot.
Is it true that even with 4K and 8K active 3D sets, the resolution still remains 1080p?
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 35
- Views 5K
From what I have seen TV's will not recognize 3D video if the inbound resolution is higher than 1080p x 1920. If the inbound is rendered to SBS or TB, as a 2D file in 2160p x 3840, all you will see is a SBS or TB 2D file on the screen. On my TV's the 3D menu is not accessible to manually select 3D.
I use three edit programs here, Edius, Vegas Pro and Cyberlink Power Director and none of them will render a frame packed 3D output at higher than 1080p. I can trick the editor to doing a UHD SBS or TB but it won't display in 3D.
As to the question of watching a 1080p Blu Ray 3D standard on a 4K TV, every TV I have seen upscales the 1080p 3D frame packed to 4K for full screen display. Some do it better than others. If it didn't do that you would see a picture 1/4 the screen size with letter box and piller box black with a little picture in the center. But, make no mistake about upscaling. It is still a movie that is no better than 1080p.
Now here's the rub, many 2D UHD movies are not UHD all the way from shooting to UHD disk. Some of those are upscaled and sold as UHD. Caveat Emptor! Upscale is not always bad. It's just never as good as 100% UHD from camera to your screen. There are web sites where you can determine whether the UHD title was upscaled HD or fully produced as UHD.
I use three edit programs here, Edius, Vegas Pro and Cyberlink Power Director and none of them will render a frame packed 3D output at higher than 1080p. I can trick the editor to doing a UHD SBS or TB but it won't display in 3D.
As to the question of watching a 1080p Blu Ray 3D standard on a 4K TV, every TV I have seen upscales the 1080p 3D frame packed to 4K for full screen display. Some do it better than others. If it didn't do that you would see a picture 1/4 the screen size with letter box and piller box black with a little picture in the center. But, make no mistake about upscaling. It is still a movie that is no better than 1080p.
Now here's the rub, many 2D UHD movies are not UHD all the way from shooting to UHD disk. Some of those are upscaled and sold as UHD. Caveat Emptor! Upscale is not always bad. It's just never as good as 100% UHD from camera to your screen. There are web sites where you can determine whether the UHD title was upscaled HD or fully produced as UHD.
Another note- While there should be no limitation to do 3D at UHD resolutions, the real limitation is consumer processor technology for TV sets. It will require 8 times the processor horsepower to deliver real time UHD video at 24 fps than today's 3D TV's. Doing 2D UHD only requires 2 times the horsepower as a 3D TV. That's quite a jump. So when the UHD specs were written, it was just way beyond the range of present day CPU power. You can raise that to 12 times for 30p and 60 times for 60p. Plus some are talking 8K. Give the chip makers and memory makers another 3-4 years, OK? 
What "UHD standard" are you speaking of?
I can think of at least three standards that speak to modern TV technology at some level:
1. UHD Alliance
2. Ultra Blu-ray
3. ATSC 3.0
I think it is failed logic to assume that 3D is hugely processor intensive at the TV end. The TV isn't furiously placing objects in three dimensions in real time. Most of the heavy lifting is done when the content is being produced and the rest comes down to a decode of a video stream just as it would with a 2D rendition. Surely there's more data, but that's not something that necessarily requires gobs of horsepower.
The hardware to do 4K 3D started showing up a few years ago from Sony and LG. Given that 3D is becoming less and less of an option in the consumer realm, the topic of home 3D is largely academic. If you haven't already purchased a 3D capable TV, you're probably going to have a real tough time getting your hands on one.
I've had about enough of Harshness. I am getting very tired of all the little digs and outright attacks over minutia. All I can figure is that harshness is insecure and can wow us with his detailed knowledge.
Concerning his latest post where he put down teachsac, can anyone come up with anything in any of the groups he mentioned that have embraced 3D in 4k? Didn't think so. So the only purpose of that post was to 'prove' how smart he is.
All of this constant attack stuff is driving away the legitimate posters in these forums. 6 months ago we had a solid group here who honestly tried to help people asking questions. After a few of harshness' attacks, they all tend to go into lurk mode. I would much rather read the learned opinions of Don, gadgetfreak, teachsac, OSUfan, Scott, etc than listen to harshness' often misinformed drivel.
In other words, pay a bit of respect to the rest of us who take the time to study this material. If you can't do that, then STFU!
Concerning his latest post where he put down teachsac, can anyone come up with anything in any of the groups he mentioned that have embraced 3D in 4k? Didn't think so. So the only purpose of that post was to 'prove' how smart he is.
All of this constant attack stuff is driving away the legitimate posters in these forums. 6 months ago we had a solid group here who honestly tried to help people asking questions. After a few of harshness' attacks, they all tend to go into lurk mode. I would much rather read the learned opinions of Don, gadgetfreak, teachsac, OSUfan, Scott, etc than listen to harshness' often misinformed drivel.
In other words, pay a bit of respect to the rest of us who take the time to study this material. If you can't do that, then STFU!
I disagree that asking someone to refine their unreferenced claim is putting them down.
Is it not a fundamental issue (as opposed to minutiae) to the whole idea of home 3D viewing that manufacturers have mostly discontinued 3D in their new consumer/prosumer models? It seems like what we'll get is based on what we already have and expecting 2160p or 4320p 3D, whether active or passive, is not in the tea leaves.
Is 3D likely to experience some manner of large-scale resurgence in the foreseeable future?
If you're so well studied, it is your social responsibility to share the facts, not to angrily disparage those who may be less well-informed or simply have a different view.
nobody was disputing that 3D is apparently dead. I think we all agree on that. I was calling you out on your post #25 where you went after teachsac to let us all know that there are different standards. What a shocking revelation!
I asked for clarification. In order to support that clarification was desirable, I offered multiple possibilities that, by their inclusion, helped to establish the level of specificity that I was seeking.
Blu-ray Association falls under the UHD Alliance for certification. 3D is not included in either. Since any playback equipment would then also fall under the UHD alliance, pretty sure it is not included in ATSC 3.0, but I do not follow that one closely.
I have no problem with harshness opinions. He may believe there is little processing difference in 3D vs. 2D or may believe that it doesn't affect the hardware requirements in a exponential way, but the math, and my work doesn't go along with that. The processing for frame packed 3D in displays is not quite 2x 2D but it is not the same either. However the real multiple happens when you add pixels in a jump of CPU cycles and memory to buffer the stream of data. It multiplies on an exponential level as the video goes from 2K to 4K to 8K. If it was so easy we would jump right to 8K today and bypass all the little steps along the way.
I don't agree that 3D is dead. Only that some people have always felt 3D was dead or more appropriately not for them. I do quite a bit of 3D because I like to document real life scenery and 3D just brings me closer to the image memory of that experience. Plus it helps to have a large screen that is exceptionally bright and high quality.
I don't agree that 3D is dead. Only that some people have always felt 3D was dead or more appropriately not for them. I do quite a bit of 3D because I like to document real life scenery and 3D just brings me closer to the image memory of that experience. Plus it helps to have a large screen that is exceptionally bright and high quality.
Sony and JVC continues to support 3D in their higher end projectors here in the US. That works for me. But when I needed a new small <30" monitor for my edit room, I had to go to South Korea to find one. 3D is very popular in these Asian nations. It isn't that these sets are no longer made. They are just not being sold here in the states. Plenty in South Korea, China, Japan, & Singapore. In case you haven't discovered, shopping world wide today is real easy but shipping can take a couple weeks with customs inspections. Alibaba, Amazon.foreign, and ebay are good ways to find these 3D TV sets. But be aware, mine has some menus in Korean.
As most modern buffering is handled using Direct Memory Access (DMA), the CPU's involvement in the buffering process is typically limited to setting some parameters and handing the transfer off to dedicated DMA hardware.
As to the question of watching a 1080p Blu Ray 3D standard on a 4K TV, every TV I have seen upscales the 1080p 3D frame packed to 4K for full screen display. Some do it better than others. If it didn't do that you would see a picture 1/4 the screen size with letter box and piller box black with a little picture in the center. But, make no mistake about upscaling. It is still a movie that is no better than 1080p.
when u put a 3d 1080p bluray to a active shutter 4k 3d tv what resolution do u get 3840x2160p or 3840x1080p or something els cus passive does 3840x1080p so one would think a active 4k 3d tv gets the 2160p or does it just get 3840x1080p like passive plz help?
i need a lil more info on the matter u said they upscaled the 3d but what are the specs of resolution active and passive 4k 3d tvs do is it higher then 1920x1080 and if yes what are those resolutions on each????????????????????
when u put a 3d 1080p bluray to a active shutter 4k 3d tv what resolution do u get 3840x2160p or 3840x1080p or something els cus passive does 3840x1080p so one would think a active 4k 3d tv gets the 2160p or does it just get 3840x1080p like passive plz help?
i need a lil more info on the matter u said they upscaled the 3d but what are the specs of resolution active and passive 4k 3d tvs do is it higher then 1920x1080 and if yes what are those resolutions on each????????????????????
I'm not sure what you're implying with your phrase "falls under". The UHD Alliance has taken it upon themselves to carry out the Blu-ray Association's testing and certification process rather than using an independent testing organization as is the case with RVU. The Blu-ray Association wrote the rules so they shouldn't be thought of as subordinate to the UHD Alliance.
3D is most certainly defined in ATSC 3.0 in A/104 part 3. This may be more for the benefit of the Southeast Asians given Don's note about the popularity of 3D there. There's also a separate audio standard in there for most of the other countries of the World.
I suspect that the answer to your apparently urgent question is that it depends on where the content comes from and who manufactured (note carefully the past tense) the display device.
It is certainly possible to drive a display to do things that aren't supported by the various television standards. For the UHD Alliance's part, UHD 3D is not defined (thus far). There are SMTPE standards but those are only of interest if you're looking at professional equipment.
Are you considering producing content (as a hobby or professionally), shopping for a 3D display system or something else? It is often more useful to start with what you're trying to accomplish rather than starting somewhere in the middle or learning everything surrounding the subject.
