23:11
iphone3
The side-by-side 3D format is the one favoured by Sky - and the majority of other 3D broadcasters around the world.
In essence it’s extremely simple. It just puts the information for the left eye on the left hand side of the screen, and the information for the right eye on the right hand side of the screen, simultaneously.
You can clearly see how this works if you switch to Sky’s 3D channel (217) without turning your TV into 3D mode. What you’ll get is two images apparently showing the same thing on each side of the screen, with each image ‘squashed’ so that its content looks tall and thin.
Your 3D display, then, has to separate these simultaneously broadcast ‘sides’ of the picture out, decompress them into their original 1,920 x 1,080 widescreen shape, and then either show the two decompressed frames together (in the case of passive 3D displays), or present them sequentially (in the case of active 3D displays).
The reason broadcasters favour this format is the two eyes worth of 3D image data are tucked into a single 1,920 x 1,080 image, meaning the 3D signals can use the same broadcast infrastructure developed for standard full HD 2D broadcasting. As Sky has proved, you don’t even need a new receiver, since the signal just appears to the receiver to be a normal full HD signal. It’s only your display that has to recognise the input as a 3D signal.
As usual, though, there are a couple of catches, the most obvious being the inevitable loss of resolution. Clearly as soon as you have two images sharing the same screen space, they’re also going to have to divvy up the available pixel ‘real estate’. So essentially with side-by-side 3D you’ve got two 960 x 1,080 pixel frames, not two 1,920 x 1,080 frames. And actually, given that Sky uses an interlaced side-by-side format rather than a progressive one, each eye only ultimately gets a 540-line picture.
This, coupled with the necessary aspect ratio compression/expansion procedure, inevitably means side-by-side 3D pictures won’t have the same resolution as frame-packed 3D images. And from our experience, the bigger the 3D screen you’re using, the more obvious this difference in resolution is.
The other problem with side-by-side 3D is that current 3D TVs can’t recognise it automatically. You have to enter the onscreen menus and tell the TV that it’s showing a side-by-side picture before it displays it properly.
A number of upcoming 2011 3D TVs claim to automatically detect side-by-side 3D pictures, though, so hopefully this niggle will subside.
It’s worth pointing out, finally, that side-by-side 3D can be delivered in either interlaced or progressive form, with the progressive one allegedly (though we haven’t seen it for ourselves) delivering significantly better picture quality. Sky uses the interlaced approach at the moment, and it’s hard to imagine this changing any time soon given the extra bandwidth required by progressive side-by-side 3D.
In essence it’s extremely simple. It just puts the information for the left eye on the left hand side of the screen, and the information for the right eye on the right hand side of the screen, simultaneously.
You can clearly see how this works if you switch to Sky’s 3D channel (217) without turning your TV into 3D mode. What you’ll get is two images apparently showing the same thing on each side of the screen, with each image ‘squashed’ so that its content looks tall and thin.
Your 3D display, then, has to separate these simultaneously broadcast ‘sides’ of the picture out, decompress them into their original 1,920 x 1,080 widescreen shape, and then either show the two decompressed frames together (in the case of passive 3D displays), or present them sequentially (in the case of active 3D displays).
The reason broadcasters favour this format is the two eyes worth of 3D image data are tucked into a single 1,920 x 1,080 image, meaning the 3D signals can use the same broadcast infrastructure developed for standard full HD 2D broadcasting. As Sky has proved, you don’t even need a new receiver, since the signal just appears to the receiver to be a normal full HD signal. It’s only your display that has to recognise the input as a 3D signal.
As usual, though, there are a couple of catches, the most obvious being the inevitable loss of resolution. Clearly as soon as you have two images sharing the same screen space, they’re also going to have to divvy up the available pixel ‘real estate’. So essentially with side-by-side 3D you’ve got two 960 x 1,080 pixel frames, not two 1,920 x 1,080 frames. And actually, given that Sky uses an interlaced side-by-side format rather than a progressive one, each eye only ultimately gets a 540-line picture.
This, coupled with the necessary aspect ratio compression/expansion procedure, inevitably means side-by-side 3D pictures won’t have the same resolution as frame-packed 3D images. And from our experience, the bigger the 3D screen you’re using, the more obvious this difference in resolution is.
The other problem with side-by-side 3D is that current 3D TVs can’t recognise it automatically. You have to enter the onscreen menus and tell the TV that it’s showing a side-by-side picture before it displays it properly.
A number of upcoming 2011 3D TVs claim to automatically detect side-by-side 3D pictures, though, so hopefully this niggle will subside.
It’s worth pointing out, finally, that side-by-side 3D can be delivered in either interlaced or progressive form, with the progressive one allegedly (though we haven’t seen it for ourselves) delivering significantly better picture quality. Sky uses the interlaced approach at the moment, and it’s hard to imagine this changing any time soon given the extra bandwidth required by progressive side-by-side 3D.
Posted in: 3dtv side by side 3d display applications,3dtv side by side 3d display features,3dtv side by side 3d display reviews,3dtv side by side 3d display specifications
0 comments:
Post a Comment