01 Apr 2011, 10:27
#5646
Thank you for the detailed review..
Regarding the minimum distance for nondiscerning odd/even lines and 3D resolution battle...
If we consider an eye (left of right) as an image perception organ, which itself decodes the image, then a pair of eyes as two image perception organs, then it is true that 2 x 1920x1080 has to be the source of information.
But I'm not sure if by its own the eye as an organ is the image perception device and I'm thinking that the brain is the image perceptor.
Let's see and compare 3D active with 3D passive from the perspective of information quantity and resolution. In 3D active system, at each frame the monitor sends a 1920x1080 pixel information to the brain through one of the eyes, by blocking the other. In 3D passive system, at each frame the monitor sends 2 x 1920x540 pixel information to the brain by distributing these information in lines toward each eye. The resolution for the brain means the number of discernable pixels which is a matter of angle between tho adiacent discernable pixels. In both systems the angle between two adiacent discernable pixels is the same, so the details are the same.
But in 3D passive system there is a minimum distance limit where the visible lines are also discernable and it represents an additional information for the brain, which disturbs the clearness of the image as would be visible through a filmy layer. In my opinion this problem is not exactly as a resolution problem, but a problem of having a new unwanted information because the size of that details, I mean the line is exactly the size of the full hd pixel, which was designed to a limit where the pixel size is below the discernable size (Remember the origin of 1080 lines!) That's why moving closer to display the pixel size (and the line height) is getting discernable and causes an additional unwanted information to the brain.
If the distance between lines would be half of the pixel, then we wouldn't observe it so easy, so that the optimal distance from where we can watch the display would have much larger interval, I mean we could stay much closer to the display. Unfortunately halving the size of the line would mean doubling the resolution to 2080 lines. I guess those who designed 1080 lines HD standard, didn't thinked about 3D passive systems so that they sticked our best comfortable visibility distance to a very short interval (not too far but not too close). Also don't think that instead 1080 lines HD would have to be 2080 lines, but somewhere at ~1600. If we would have a 1600 lines HD system, I'm sure we would keep those watching interval more confortable in 3D passive systems too. Therefore I would expect some development in that direction.
So the trick with the current 3D passive system is that we should be keep relatively far from display, thus reducing our interval from where the HD details are discernable but those line does not get discerned by our brain. That's why the reviewers always mention this visibility distance problem!
All I would like to say is that in my opinion, the simplest resolution calculation per eye as a perception device by its own, here does not work and would not explain any phenomenons we see it. Therefore I am following this information quantity approach instead.