In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2/19/2013 2:44 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Gene E. Bloch
writes:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:31:23 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Panic
writes:
[]
came with 6 pairs of glasses. Not that many programs in 3D but
Consumer Reports recommends them as they only cost a little more that
the 2D versions and have a better picture even in 2D. Than if 3D comes
out more Iÿm already set.

I'm intrigued how they _can_ be "better ... even in 2D".

One possibility is faster refresh rates.

It's actually frame rates. Eg, The Hobbit's 3D frame rate is 48/sec vs

Yes, but I'm addressing the claim that "3D" material looks better in 2D.
If it's 48/sec in "3D" (really two-image), then that's two lots of
24/sec alternating, isn't it? You can't just show both the eye channels
alternating to make 2D; that will just look like a double image. I'm not
sure how they _do_ make 2D versions from 3D: I can only assume they just
choose one of the eye channels.

standard 24/sec. BTW, NTSC video is 30/sec (actually 1/2 frames
interlaced 60 times per second).

And non-NTSC* is 25/sec (50 interlaced fields).

That said, I have no idea why Consumer Reports says so.

I've noticed that 2D versions of 3D movies betray their 3D origins in
such things as extreme perspective, rapidly changing POV, rapid motion
towards or away from the camera, deep scenery, etc. This makes the
images more thrilling, for some people anyhow.

As you say, for some people (-:! Such movements, designed to show off
"3D", are OK to start with but the novelty wears off - or so film
reviewers tell me (since I can't benefit from two-eye "3D" anyway).

Well, faster refresh rates won't be a function of 3D.

Agreed, and AIUI, the current most common refers rate of 60 Hz is
actually greater than the 48/sec frame rate of (some) 3D.

Also, I'm dubious about the claimed advantages of faster refresh rates.
I could theoretically see the point in CRT days, as it reduced flicker:
not that I am sensitive to flicker anyway, but I know plenty of people
who are (or said they are). But with displays where the picture
information is not the light source, the only advantage I can think of
is reduction of jerky movement - which can only be done by interpolation
in the set, as the source material isn't being sent out with any faster
rate anyway, and the set's interpolation can only make guesses.

I think you'd have to watch the same source on monitors with different

I think that will only have any effect if the source material has a
refresh rate at or above the highest rate you're considering; otherwise,
you're just showing the same frame repeatedly. (At worst, if the ratio
of refresh rates isn't integral, you can get beating.) Since we were
originally talking about TV material, the refresh rate of the material
is not going to be above 60 (yet), so a faster refresh rate in the
display doesn't AFAICS give any benefit - unless there's actually
interpolation in the set, and even then I don't believe the claims made
(by some makers).

refresh rates. LCD screens don't refresh all that well anyhow: one can
sometimes see shadows of previous images in the black area(s) of a new
image.

Indeed.

HTH

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")