Q. How come I can simply just go on youtube and watch a blue and red screen for "3D" but it cannot display the polarized images unless you have "3D TV" Why do I need a 3D TV, isn't the image just produced within the computer/gaming system just like the image is produced within my computer/system for the red and blue image? The image is not produced within the TV, it's only displayed on the TV so this doesn't make any logical sense. To me, it seems like this is all a marketing scam which only the 3D TV allows your machine to produce the polarized images on your computer....
Ok, so why can't you just have the 3D-TV Broadcast Decoder built inside of the machine producing the image, why do you need it inside of the "3D-TV"?
Ok, so why can't you just have the 3D-TV Broadcast Decoder built inside of the machine producing the image, why do you need it inside of the "3D-TV"?
A. First you have to understand how we see in 3D in the first place. Look at an object, and then cover up your left eye. Now uncover your left eye and cover up your right eye. You'll notice that the images each of your eyes is seeing is slightly different. Our brain then combines the two images we're getting from our eyes, and creates a single 3d image.
3d TV/movies must recreate this "each eye sees a different image" system in order for our brains to create the 3d effect. Filming in 3d is easy enough. Just strap 2 cameras together to mimic our eyes, and film as normal. However getting those 2 separate images to our eyes is the tricky part...
How this is accomplished relies on 2 completely different mechanisms.
The red/blue 3D image relies on passive polarization.
3D movie theaters also use passive polarization.
In both cases, the image on the screen actually contain both images at once. The glasses block one of the images from one of your eyes, so each eye only sees 1 image and then combines them in your brain for the 3d effect. The main advantage to this system is that the glasses are cheap, however the overall picture appears darker (due to the dark lenses) and blurrier when compared to a non-3d version.
3DTV is different. These systems, use active shutters in the glasses. This means that each lens on the glasses turns opaque several times a second. Left, right, left, right, etc. At the same time, the screen only displays 1 of the images for a fraction of a second. So when the left lens on the glasses goes opaque, the TV displays the image for the right eye. Then the right lens goes opaque and the TV displays the image for the left eye. This happens several dozen times a second so you aren't consciously aware that you're only seeing out of 1 eye at a time. This is how your eyes get 2 separate images, and then combine them to form the 3D image. Since you aren't using polarization the image is sharper and brighter. The colors aren't as muddy.
HDTVs that support 3D must have very high refresh rates in order to be able to keep up with displaying essentially 2 slightly different versions of the movie (left-eye-version, right-eye-version) at high speeds so that our eyes are tricked into thinking they're still seeing a single image that then gets reassembled by our brains. This also means the glasses are a lot more expensive - as high as $100 a pair.
So why can't they do 3d WITHOUT the goofy glasses? Actually...they can...sorta. Nintendo's next handheld game system, the Nintendo 3DS, will support 3D games...without using special glasses. The technology to do this isn't very new, but its main drawback is that it only works for a narrow viewing angle. This is fine for something small like a game system that only you are looking at. But for something larger - like a TV in the living room - you'd have to be sitting front and center for the 3D effect to be noticeable. To everyone else - even those sitting right next to you - the 3D effect won't work and they'll just see a fuzzy, out of focus picture.
3d TV/movies must recreate this "each eye sees a different image" system in order for our brains to create the 3d effect. Filming in 3d is easy enough. Just strap 2 cameras together to mimic our eyes, and film as normal. However getting those 2 separate images to our eyes is the tricky part...
How this is accomplished relies on 2 completely different mechanisms.
The red/blue 3D image relies on passive polarization.
3D movie theaters also use passive polarization.
In both cases, the image on the screen actually contain both images at once. The glasses block one of the images from one of your eyes, so each eye only sees 1 image and then combines them in your brain for the 3d effect. The main advantage to this system is that the glasses are cheap, however the overall picture appears darker (due to the dark lenses) and blurrier when compared to a non-3d version.
3DTV is different. These systems, use active shutters in the glasses. This means that each lens on the glasses turns opaque several times a second. Left, right, left, right, etc. At the same time, the screen only displays 1 of the images for a fraction of a second. So when the left lens on the glasses goes opaque, the TV displays the image for the right eye. Then the right lens goes opaque and the TV displays the image for the left eye. This happens several dozen times a second so you aren't consciously aware that you're only seeing out of 1 eye at a time. This is how your eyes get 2 separate images, and then combine them to form the 3D image. Since you aren't using polarization the image is sharper and brighter. The colors aren't as muddy.
HDTVs that support 3D must have very high refresh rates in order to be able to keep up with displaying essentially 2 slightly different versions of the movie (left-eye-version, right-eye-version) at high speeds so that our eyes are tricked into thinking they're still seeing a single image that then gets reassembled by our brains. This also means the glasses are a lot more expensive - as high as $100 a pair.
So why can't they do 3d WITHOUT the goofy glasses? Actually...they can...sorta. Nintendo's next handheld game system, the Nintendo 3DS, will support 3D games...without using special glasses. The technology to do this isn't very new, but its main drawback is that it only works for a narrow viewing angle. This is fine for something small like a game system that only you are looking at. But for something larger - like a TV in the living room - you'd have to be sitting front and center for the 3D effect to be noticeable. To everyone else - even those sitting right next to you - the 3D effect won't work and they'll just see a fuzzy, out of focus picture.
Is a 3d TV better option for my computer or a 3d graphics card to output to a regular hd TV?
Q. Considering both the expense and quality of getting a 3d capable HD TV versus getting a 3d graphics card to a regular HD TV from my computer, which would be the best option?
I'm looking to get 3D out of my PC by either getting a 3D TV or a 3D graphics card via an HD TV, which would be a better option?
I'm looking for a screen of over 42 inches
The computer must be connected to the TV.
Mainly used for games.
I'm looking to get 3D out of my PC by either getting a 3D TV or a 3D graphics card via an HD TV, which would be a better option?
I'm looking for a screen of over 42 inches
The computer must be connected to the TV.
Mainly used for games.
A. If you use a 3D graphics card which is genuine 3D, then you will need a 3D TV to watch it on.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar