3D Ruminations
Shoot, Ready, Aim! Consumer Reports has a first look at two 3D HDTVs, and unsurprisingly screws up
In their zeal to say something, anything, about 3D TVs that arrived at dealers in March, the toaster testers at Consumer Reports put out a short video that contained incorrect information and impressions derived from improper testing.
They obtained a Samsung LED-edgelit LCD set, and also a Panasonic plasma set, and revealed that with the Samsung, turning the 3D glasses 90° on their side completely blocked the picture, due to the glasses’ polarization, and pointed out that no such anomaly occurred with the Panasonic. The presenter inferred that the Samsung would provide a poorer 3D experience for a viewer who’s laying on a couch horizontally.
What CR should have known is that in order to achieve the best 3D experience, it is assumed that viewers will be sitting upright, and that the glasses will be horizontally even. At the Hollywood Post Alliance’s annual Technology Retreat in February, noted 3D expert Dr. Marty Banks, director of UC Berkeley’s Vision Science Lab, delivered a fascinating presentation that included a description of a 3D visual acuity evaluation setup. In order to glean the most useful data, test observers peering into the device actually have their heads “locked” in place, for optimum eye alignment. If a viewer’s head is lopsided, then the 3D effect deteriorates.
“The Panasonic has better blacks!” According to CR, the Panasonic set delivered superior blacks, compared to the Samsung. That statement caught the attention of senior management at Samsung’s headquarters in Korea, and resulted in one of their top engineers traveling to the US to meet with key reviewers and provide technical information as to why they felt CR came to the wrong conclusion.
With a Panasonic 3D plasma set parked next to a Samsung 3D LED/LCD model, they showed that the Panasonic set was incorrectly calibrated when it switched into 3D mode, compared to when it was properly adjusted for 2D viewing. They also provided 3D HD test patterns to the reviewers (none existed outside of the various TV companies’ labs). With the test patterns, it was easy to see that the Panasonic (in 3D mode) needed significant additional adjustment in order to get black level and contrast set correctly – both were way, way off. Once adjusted and compared with the Samsung (which was also properly adjusted for 3D), the Panasonic did appear to have darker blacks in some scenes, but the Samsung actually delivered a superior overall picture, as the Panasonic appeared to be crushing some black detail, which the Samsung delivered intact.
They also pointed out that comparing 3D LCD to 3D plasma is a potentially troublesome affair, as each display type has unique challenges in delivering a quality 3DTV effect. As the only TV company to offer both types of 3DTVs, Samsung is certainly well qualified to know the ins and outs of both technologies.
Prescription 3D Glasses?
During the week that I attended Samsung’s briefing, the May issue of CR arrived, and in their “Ask The Experts” section, a reader inquired if prescription 3D glasses would be forthcoming. “Probably” was the response from the magazine’s unnamed 3DTV “expert”.
As active 3D glasses are multi-layered affairs (with polarizing layers, the LCD shutter itself, and possibly a color filter layer in some cases), I couldn’t see how they could be made with prescription lens optics as well. After all, prescription eyeglass lenses are ground glass or molded plastic, and bear little relation to active 3D lens types.
So I went and asked a real expert if indeed prescription 3D glasses would be likely to appear on the market. “A slight possibility, but very low” was the response I got when I spoke with Ami Dror, Chief Strategy Officer of XpanD, whose firm counts over 3,000 3D movie theaters and screening rooms worldwide that feature their active 3D glasses. They’ve sold more than two million pairs to date, and are co-partnering and providing OEM active shutter 3D glasses to some of the 3DTV set makers.
He pointed out that there are a number of substantial technical hurdles to overcome, and that while his firm is presently exploring this question, due to focal point issues and other challenges, he doesn’t hold out much hope. Instead, they’re concentrating on making 3D specs that are themselves prescription eyeglass-friendly.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
The issue with Quad was not so much that it was a limited technology, but that the marketplace was completely confused because of the multitude of different and incompatible Quad systems. When consumers are confused, they defer the purchase decision. I don't know why manufacturers never learn this lesson.
While the 3D industry is not making that mistake in terms of media, they do seem to be making that mistake in terms of monitors and glasses. While they probably make more selling the glasses than they do on the sets, it's a strategic mistake to not produce glasses that are compatible with any 3D set, even if that means giving third parties the opportunity to co-opt the glasses business.
In addition, I have been in two highly-regarded retailers lately that were displaying 3D, but without any glasses to actually view the 3D. So what you saw was a relatively low contrast, somewhat dim, "ghost" image. This is obviously not the best way to get consumers excited about 3D.
I think the comparison between quad and 3D may prove to be more that just skin deep. In my opinion quad was not just a flash in the pan that faded into obscurity. It was just ahead of its time. Quad eventually won. I have one sitting in my rec room today. They just call it home theater today, and mine has six speakers instead of four. The concept is identical; it just took 30+ years to get traction.
We are now in the infancy of 3D. I fully expect that by 2040 everyone will be watching 3D. It may not be "this" 3D, but it will be something similar.
I like to watch 4 double d's myself. As far as 3d goes? it is a boon dogel by tv makers to suck more money out of people in that down economy. That in it self should tell you how it is going to go. Down economy, people are not going to get new tvs for some gimick like 3D.
Has anyone there actually seen a Panasonic 3D display? I did at the local Best Buy. You can be looking at it with your head bent over at a 90 degree angle and the 3D effect does not change. The other thing that was not mentioned in this article is that the off angle viewing on the Panasonic still delivers a better picture than a LCD display. Plasma will always beat LCD when it comes to that but the LCD champions always seem to either not mention it or do not seem to care. In the real world, family members are spread out in an arc across the front of the TV and the ones on the ends have to make do if they are looking at a LCD TV. That is not the case with plasma.
Almost got the feeling that we were going down the old TAS Road here and we would be told that real viewers watch only CRT Sets as God intended, and listen to Milton Berle in mono via a tube amplifier
Fortunately that did not occur. I guess those Samsung Engineers were not too successful with the toaster testers as they have not changed their tune, nor the degree of doneness of the toast if that is what they were after.
Personally I like 3D content and have already ordered a Panasonic 3D set. Oh, I got myself a head vise too but I don't use it for watching TV :-)