Bigger factor in 3d effect: 3D Filter tech or you vs screen scale - Blu-ray Forum

tripletopper · 07-06-2023, 07:53 PM

On a Facebook post I made about 3D being a big ripoff in movies I made a note that the 3d effect was a lot better at home.

I thought the reason was because of the technology of the shutter versus polar.

However someone responded to me that the reason why I find 3D more effective at home and the reason why my mom gets 3D headaches in the theater but not at home might be because of relative scale between the viewer and the screen.

The fact that you're farther and you're watching larger things might according to her say affects us both more than shutter versus polar.

That kind of made me think there's a difference between watching video games and playing video games. In theatrical presentations of video game tournaments the fans watch on mega big screen TVs, the size of a typical movie theater screen. Yet the players when they play they play on their own personal monitor about 24 inches big.

Back at me thinking I got better performance on my video games watching it on the 24 inch screen then watching it on a big 40 inch screen. It seems like in video games you have to alternate between focusing in on a spot and scanning the whole picture overall. You have to be able to see both the tree and the forest.

I know like guns mechanically work best at a range of twice the diagonal distance of the TV screen away from the TV screen. (Example of 24-in CRT TV workspace with light gun games when you are 48 inches away. Any closer and you could quote cheat by getting a clear line. Any further and the light on the TV spreads out further causing misreads.

Maybe 3D is kind of like both those situations where if it's in a small box and the heads of the people are approximately similar size to what is actually reality then the 3D looks more realistic versus a giant scale 3D head and 3D backgrounds corresponding to that size.

To me polar and giant are a one-to-one relationship same with shutter and personal. For me to get a fair answer whether it's the tech that gives better 3D depth or the scale that gives better 3D depth I would either have to watch a giant sized shutter based 3D movie or a personal sized polar based 3D movie.

But I noticed a filter that doesn't completely block one eye gives me a wrong view like for example my anaglif glasses don't work right on my Virtual Boy because when I close my right eye the red eye I could see some of support of a something that is supposed to be perfectly cyan. Which should look black on a black background.

My biggest complaint about polar is that if you took your head more than a couple degrees either way you get double exposures which causes confusion which causes slight and puzzlements in me and 3D headaches for mom maybe.

I know the red filter is not perfectly filtering out cyan causes a misread 3D image which causes a non-apparent misdecoded 3d image.

Just wondering if scale is more important or filtering type is more important in 3D visuals.

BleedOrange11 · 07-06-2023, 08:47 PM

There are many other variables at play here. The difference between active and passive is usually negligible. Firstly, what do you constitute as good 3D visuals? And what do the filmmakers constitute as good 3D visuals, and did they achieve that? An image with strong 3D depth and volume? An image with pop-outs? An image that doesn't give your mother a headache? You don't say why she gets a headache. There are many possible reasons, and she may not know.

The modern way of viewing 3D images on a flat, planar screen, usually with glasses, causes an accommodation/convergence issue that may give inexperienced viewers a minor headache, caused by fatigue of intrinsic eye muscles accommodating and converging at different locations simultaneously. Assuming healthy, normal eye musculature and binocular vision, these types of headaches go away completely with practice looking at 3D. This is basically unavoidable until holography is realized.

Large theater screens are less bright than backlit televisions. In general, it is more eye-straining to look at a dim image than a bright one. This is a big reason that people say 3D looks better at home, and it has nothing to do with active or passive or even the shape of the 3D.

Unlike at home, it is impossible for a theater-goer to manually alter the calibration of a theater screen. Sometimes theater environments are improperly calibrated, and the staff is incapable of correcting them. This can be any issue from 3D image alignment to screen brightness/contrast, color balance, audio volume, not turning off the house lights, handing out the wrong glasses, or even presence of noisy bothersome patrons. 3D is just one more variable that can go wrong. This is the other major reason people prefer to stay at home.

Theater screens are larger than TVs and most home projector setups. A larger screen will allow the viewer to sit further away from the screen, which mathematically increases the roundness of the 3D image. Most people like this aspect. This is the reason that people prefer to go to the theater. Theoretically, seeing an image on a big screen should look better, or more cinematic, more majestic. It even "increases" apparent 3D depth.

Additionally, depending on the 3D parallax values, sitting too close to a 3D image on a large screen may result in issues fusing the 3D image, causing eye strain. This can usually be resolved by sitting further away, which effectively makes the parallax values seem smaller (and the apparent 3D depth larger). Never sit in the front row.

Assuming optimal calibration, nice projection, nice viewing environment, 3D looks much better on a theater screen for me than my at-home 42in TV or VR devices. The problem is that I can't always trust my local theaters not to have brightness issues, projector alignment issues, or audio that's too loud. It's also a major pain getting in traffic near the best theaters (due to construction), so sometimes the expense of time, gas, admission, etc. is just not worth it. I'd rather purchase a Blu-ray 3D that I can own and re-watch in my own environment and on my own equipment that I control.

BleedOrange11 · 07-06-2023, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tripletopper

My biggest complaint about polar is that if you took your head more than a couple degrees either way you get double exposures which causes confusion which causes slight and puzzlements in me and 3D headaches for mom maybe.

This only occurs with linear polarization, used by IMAX screens. Does not occur with circular polarization, used by RealD and passive 3D televisions. It's not an issue for me, because I typically hold my head straight.

Quote:

I know the red filter is not perfectly filtering out cyan causes a misread 3D image which causes a non-apparent misdecoded 3d image.

Red/cyan filters are only used in the anaglyph 3D method, which causes immediate eye strain for everyone. Full-color polarized or active 3D is a much better way to watch 3D. The main advantage of anaglyph is that it is cheap, not requiring special equipment.

tripletopper · 07-12-2023, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

This only occurs with linear polarization, used by IMAX screens. Does not occur with circular polarization, used by RealD and passive 3D televisions. It's not an issue for me, because I typically hold my head straight.

Red/cyan filters are only used in the anaglyph 3D method, which causes immediate eye strain for everyone. Full-color polarized or active 3D is a much better way to watch 3D. The main advantage of anaglyph is that it is cheap, not requiring special equipment.

The point of the filtering of the Virtual Boy is that I know the virtual boy gives a monochrome signal dyed in either black and red or black and science.

If I could see the red portions without the cyan when closing my right eye, and the cyan portions without the red portions that when closing the left eye, then the quality of the actual color filters are good.

Hover for an older model of Amazon and a glyph 3D glasses I could see some cyan bleeding through the red side and some red bleeding through the cyan side.

Did I later bought a new copy and did the same test and it filtered out the opposite color more perfectly.

longhornsk57 · 07-20-2023, 07:12 AM

I definitely agree that the 3D experience at my house is much better than at the theater, but I don't think it's active vs passive, but the calibration and the environment. The 3 factors that I think really come into play:

1 - calibration and brightness. My system is calibrated and is very bright (BenQ X3000i) and I manually set the picture settings and even the gamma for max brightness and punch while not degrading the color or wash it out. Too many theaters I find too dim for 3D a lot of the time. I use active RF Optoma glasses and I rarely if ever have a brightness issue except for very dark scenes in movies, but even that is momentary.

2 - Environment. I find most movie theaters have these ambient lights on, maybe they have to so people can see the floor when walking? My house is pitch black when I watch movies and so I get full contrast and no light invading my screen or jacking with the movie. This gives off an overall brighter appearance and much better contrast.

3 - Position and size. I can sit right in the middle and by sitting about 12' away from a 150" screen it actually feels more immersive than a theater and I notice that when I am at an angle the 3D can sometimes feel a bit weird.

Overall these things and maybe a couple others I can't name make 3D so much more enjoyable on my home setup even though it's active, which you would think that would be a bad thing, but ya it's a combination of things I suppose.

tripletopper · 08-12-2023, 09:52 PM

Interestingly, my environment is an artificially normally lit room about 2 m away from a 24 in Sony Playstation 3DTV wearing headphones played in a matching headphone app (dolby with dolby. Dts with dts, windows sonic with LPCM surround)
.

I heard the PS3DTV is one of the few TVs where bright surroundings improve the movie.

Also when I saw SegaScope on my dad's sony Trinitron CRT, the 3D was cool and realistic.

The only exposure to the polar was in the dark, on large screens, and my only exposure to shutter was on small tvs in bright rooms.

I can't differentiate what is a good mechanical deliver system of 3d, id don't know whether it's polar vs solar, or it's large and far or small and close, or bright or dark.

07-06-2023, 07:53 PM	#1
tripletopper Active Member Member since:Mar 2017 Blu-ray reviews:1	Bigger factor in 3d effect: 3D Filter tech or you vs screen scale On a Facebook post I made about 3D being a big ripoff in movies I made a note that the 3d effect was a lot better at home. I thought the reason was because of the technology of the shutter versus polar. However someone responded to me that the reason why I find 3D more effective at home and the reason why my mom gets 3D headaches in the theater but not at home might be because of relative scale between the viewer and the screen. The fact that you're farther and you're watching larger things might according to her say affects us both more than shutter versus polar. That kind of made me think there's a difference between watching video games and playing video games. In theatrical presentations of video game tournaments the fans watch on mega big screen TVs, the size of a typical movie theater screen. Yet the players when they play they play on their own personal monitor about 24 inches big. Back at me thinking I got better performance on my video games watching it on the 24 inch screen then watching it on a big 40 inch screen. It seems like in video games you have to alternate between focusing in on a spot and scanning the whole picture overall. You have to be able to see both the tree and the forest. I know like guns mechanically work best at a range of twice the diagonal distance of the TV screen away from the TV screen. (Example of 24-in CRT TV workspace with light gun games when you are 48 inches away. Any closer and you could quote cheat by getting a clear line. Any further and the light on the TV spreads out further causing misreads. Maybe 3D is kind of like both those situations where if it's in a small box and the heads of the people are approximately similar size to what is actually reality then the 3D looks more realistic versus a giant scale 3D head and 3D backgrounds corresponding to that size. To me polar and giant are a one-to-one relationship same with shutter and personal. For me to get a fair answer whether it's the tech that gives better 3D depth or the scale that gives better 3D depth I would either have to watch a giant sized shutter based 3D movie or a personal sized polar based 3D movie. But I noticed a filter that doesn't completely block one eye gives me a wrong view like for example my anaglif glasses don't work right on my Virtual Boy because when I close my right eye the red eye I could see some of support of a something that is supposed to be perfectly cyan. Which should look black on a black background. My biggest complaint about polar is that if you took your head more than a couple degrees either way you get double exposures which causes confusion which causes slight and puzzlements in me and 3D headaches for mom maybe. I know the red filter is not perfectly filtering out cyan causes a misread 3D image which causes a non-apparent misdecoded 3d image. Just wondering if scale is more important or filtering type is more important in 3D visuals.

07-06-2023, 08:47 PM	#2
BleedOrange11 Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Sep 2011 4K collection:20 Blu-ray collection:986 DVD collection:62 Blu-ray reviews: 44 Trading Score:4	There are many other variables at play here. The difference between active and passive is usually negligible. Firstly, what do you constitute as good 3D visuals? And what do the filmmakers constitute as good 3D visuals, and did they achieve that? An image with strong 3D depth and volume? An image with pop-outs? An image that doesn't give your mother a headache? You don't say why she gets a headache. There are many possible reasons, and she may not know. The modern way of viewing 3D images on a flat, planar screen, usually with glasses, causes an accommodation/convergence issue that may give inexperienced viewers a minor headache, caused by fatigue of intrinsic eye muscles accommodating and converging at different locations simultaneously. Assuming healthy, normal eye musculature and binocular vision, these types of headaches go away completely with practice looking at 3D. This is basically unavoidable until holography is realized. Large theater screens are less bright than backlit televisions. In general, it is more eye-straining to look at a dim image than a bright one. This is a big reason that people say 3D looks better at home, and it has nothing to do with active or passive or even the shape of the 3D. Unlike at home, it is impossible for a theater-goer to manually alter the calibration of a theater screen. Sometimes theater environments are improperly calibrated, and the staff is incapable of correcting them. This can be any issue from 3D image alignment to screen brightness/contrast, color balance, audio volume, not turning off the house lights, handing out the wrong glasses, or even presence of noisy bothersome patrons. 3D is just one more variable that can go wrong. This is the other major reason people prefer to stay at home. Theater screens are larger than TVs and most home projector setups. A larger screen will allow the viewer to sit further away from the screen, which mathematically increases the roundness of the 3D image. Most people like this aspect. This is the reason that people prefer to go to the theater. Theoretically, seeing an image on a big screen should look better, or more cinematic, more majestic. It even "increases" apparent 3D depth. Additionally, depending on the 3D parallax values, sitting too close to a 3D image on a large screen may result in issues fusing the 3D image, causing eye strain. This can usually be resolved by sitting further away, which effectively makes the parallax values seem smaller (and the apparent 3D depth larger). Never sit in the front row. Assuming optimal calibration, nice projection, nice viewing environment, 3D looks much better on a theater screen for me than my at-home 42in TV or VR devices. The problem is that I can't always trust my local theaters not to have brightness issues, projector alignment issues, or audio that's too loud. It's also a major pain getting in traffic near the best theaters (due to construction), so sometimes the expense of time, gas, admission, etc. is just not worth it. I'd rather purchase a Blu-ray 3D that I can own and re-watch in my own environment and on my own equipment that I control. Last edited by BleedOrange11; 07-06-2023 at 09:31 PM.

07-20-2023, 07:12 AM	#5
longhornsk57 Active Member Member since:Oct 2016 Location:Texas Trading Score:17	I definitely agree that the 3D experience at my house is much better than at the theater, but I don't think it's active vs passive, but the calibration and the environment. The 3 factors that I think really come into play: 1 - calibration and brightness. My system is calibrated and is very bright (BenQ X3000i) and I manually set the picture settings and even the gamma for max brightness and punch while not degrading the color or wash it out. Too many theaters I find too dim for 3D a lot of the time. I use active RF Optoma glasses and I rarely if ever have a brightness issue except for very dark scenes in movies, but even that is momentary. 2 - Environment. I find most movie theaters have these ambient lights on, maybe they have to so people can see the floor when walking? My house is pitch black when I watch movies and so I get full contrast and no light invading my screen or jacking with the movie. This gives off an overall brighter appearance and much better contrast. 3 - Position and size. I can sit right in the middle and by sitting about 12' away from a 150" screen it actually feels more immersive than a theater and I notice that when I am at an angle the 3D can sometimes feel a bit weird. Overall these things and maybe a couple others I can't name make 3D so much more enjoyable on my home setup even though it's active, which you would think that would be a bad thing, but ya it's a combination of things I suppose.

08-12-2023, 09:52 PM	#6
tripletopper Active Member Member since:Mar 2017 Blu-ray reviews:1	Interestingly, my environment is an artificially normally lit room about 2 m away from a 24 in Sony Playstation 3DTV wearing headphones played in a matching headphone app (dolby with dolby. Dts with dts, windows sonic with LPCM surround) . I heard the PS3DTV is one of the few TVs where bright surroundings improve the movie. Also when I saw SegaScope on my dad's sony Trinitron CRT, the 3D was cool and realistic. The only exposure to the polar was in the dark, on large screens, and my only exposure to shutter was on small tvs in bright rooms. I can't differentiate what is a good mechanical deliver system of 3d, id don't know whether it's polar vs solar, or it's large and far or small and close, or bright or dark.

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals