LG Cinema 3D TV Get Full HD Certification From VDE

i4u writes "LG announced today that the German VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific associations in Europe, has certified the LG Cinema 3D TVs to be full HD in 3D-mode. LG's Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) technology, used on the CINEMA 3D TVs, creates the perception of 3D depth by delivering two 540 line images, one for each eye, that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image. The ruling from the VDE lets LG carry the full HD badge. There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs."

Comments

Be warned of the summary.

[ThatCopyrightMadow]

LG announced today that the German VDE, one of the largest technical and scientific associations in Europe, has certified the LG Cinema 3D TVs to be full HD in 3D-mode. LG's Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) technology, used on the CINEMA 3D TVs, creates the perception of 3D depth by delivering two 540 line images, one for each eye, that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image. The ruling from the VDE lets LG carry the full HD badge. There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs

It might not be stargazer; it might be pew pew along the lines of magazine.

Sorry I came to the garbage of this place and realized it, fellow Slashdotters.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[AliasMarlowe]

There is no explanation one how the VDE arrives at this ruling. My personal experience shows a rather big resolution difference between FPR and shutter glass based 3D TVs

Big deal. In my experience, the difference (if any) is only to the potential for marketing hype and consumer misinformation. 3D TV is a fad which will likely be relegated to special interest pay channels (porn?), and the odd teaser on regular channels for quite a while. Then again, with incompatible systems between manufacturers, not many will have the right viewing equipment. Ask me in another 10 years whether I have a 3D TV; the market might have sorted itself out by then, and either died or picked a common technology.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Frosty Piss]

Here, let me use Google Translator to translate your post to Russian -> Dutch -> Japanese -> English, and maybe it will make more sense...

This may not be an astrologer, it has benches along the lines of the log.

Unfortunately, I came to the location of the trash, I noticed this man in particular Slashdotters.

Yes, much better, now I understand...

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like the wild fantasies about space people used to have. Also dead.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[strack]

in 10 years, the price difference between 120hz and 60hz displays will be so small that pretty much every tv and monitor sold will be capable of 3d.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Surt]

In 2 years ago the price between 120hz and 60hz displays will be so small that the holdup is the 3d circuitry, not the refresh capabilities.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You mean they cried about how old it was then grew even more emo when it was dropped?

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Jaime2]

120Hz doesn't fix the major problem; expensive glasses. The interleaved method is used to support passive glasses. Alternating between full-resolution right and left eye images will always require active glasses.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incompatible systems between manufacturers? What could be incompatible? They had 3D movies on tv over 50 years ago. With the free glasses in the newspaper. Now you need a special tv and expensive glasses? What's wrong with this picture. When they come out with a set with a set you don't need glasses with, then you'll have something. For now... and expensive fad for the rich and foolish.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[strack]

yeah. and the prices of those are dropping too, if youve been taking notice.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[zippthorne]

Wait, that' can't be it. How expensive can the glasses be, really? It's just one big LCD cell, isn't it? Surely 60 hz is not unreasonable here...

Or do you mean the synchronization? That should be easy too. Just use an extremely narrow-band UHF channel. We just freed up a bunch of UHF and VHF spectrum at no small cost to consumers. Surely we can spare 120 hz to allocate for short-range timing signals...

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[perryizgr8]

there's no 3d "circuitry". its all software. notice how the ps3 became a '3d' blue ray player after a firmware update.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Surt]

Software isn't magic, it runs on hardware. Hardware that costs more money to have in the tv.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

doh!

these are the cinema 3D TVs from LG. The glasses cost about £0.50p as they are the passive kind you get at the cinema not the shutter ones.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[sglewis100]

Incompatible systems between manufacturers? What could be incompatible? They had 3D movies on tv over 50 years ago. With the free glasses in the newspaper. Now you need a special tv and expensive glasses? What's wrong with this picture. When they come out with a set with a set you don't need glasses with, then you'll have something. For now... and expensive fad for the rich and foolish.

Passive 3D sets are hardly expensive. I paid under $700 for a 1080p set from Vizio that uses passive glasses that are about $20 on Amazon, or free if you forget to return a pair from your movie theater. It's 42", 1080P, came with two pairs of glasses, I bought a $89 3D BluRay player to pair with it, and DirecTV has 3-4 channels for no extra charge already. Not sure about "compatibility", but while active glasses may not be cross-brand compatible, the polarized passive ones are, and the discs and TV channels work with either. XBMC may not "support" 3D yet, but 3D-SBS downloads work just fine. And while 3D on a passive set may technically be "less than full resolution", so are most of my HD broadcasts anyway, which are in 720P.

Re:Be warned of the summary.

[uninformedLuddite]

Ask me in another 10 years whether I have a 3D TV

Maybe you won't have a 3D TV but I will attempt to ask you via your pineal/coax cable

can I get...

[Aighearach]

a Beowulf cluster of those?

it's HD and 3D

[t2t10]

... just not at the same time

Re:it's HD and 3D

[neowolf]

I have a Panasonic 3D HDTV with 1080p "Full HD 3D". I looked at a demo of the LG 3D a couple of weeks ago, because I liked the idea of not paying $150 each for active glasses. The LG was awful. The 3D is clearly in standard definition, regardless of what VDE says. It also has a much narrower field of view than the Panasonic, and the ideal viewing distance is much closer, with the 3D effect getting completely lost at about 8' (for me, anyway). I know this will improve over time, but calling this an "HD" 3D set is complete BS.

Interlacing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if interlaced SD video can be considered as having the full SD resolution (720x576 for PAL, 720x480 for NTSC), despite the fact that only one field is displayed at a time (i.e., 720x288 or 720x240, respectively), then I see no reason why FPR screens can't be considered as showing "a 1920x1080-pixel image" (although it seems a bit stupid to call it "1080p", maybe they could be described as "1080is", as in "interlaced stereo").

Re:Interlacing

[meerling]

It kind of works for the old CRTs since the phosphors remain excited long enough that both scans of the electron beam leave a single image with that many lines as far as our slow to respond eyes are concerned.

On the other hand, if showing 540 lines to one eye, and 540 lines to the other eye is the same as 1080, then the ones that show 1080 lines to one eye, and 1080 lines to the other eye will have to be labeled 2160p.

The obvious problem those idiots didn't think about is that it's NOT showing you 540 + 540 lines, it's showing 540 lines from the left eyes viewpoint + the SAME 540 lines from the right eyes viewpoint. (morons)

Re:Interlacing

[Anonymous Coward]

It kind of works for the old CRTs since the phosphors remain excited long enough that both scans of the electron beam leave a single image with that many lines as far as our slow to respond eyes are concerned.

If both fields remained visible at the same time, people would notice the jagged lines. The beam on interlaced CRTs is wide enough to make each field essentially "erase" the previous one. You don't notice "pixelation" because the lines blur into each other, but you never get the full vertical resolution on-screen at the same moment.

it's NOT showing you 540 + 540 lines, it's showing 540 lines from the left eyes viewpoint + the SAME 540 lines from the right eyes viewpoint.

Not true. The data recorded on 3D Blu-ray, etc., includes the full 1080 lines for each eye. This means that (unless the people who designed these TVs are complete idiots), they will show different lines to each eye, essentially like an interlaced display.

A more worrying issue with 3D TVs is "temporal interlacing". Typically, 3D movies are shot with two cameras in sync, so both images correspond to the exact same moment in time. However, LCD shutter glasses (which are still the main "home 3D" technology) work by showing images to each eye alternately. This means the image you see with your right eye should correspond to a slightly different moment than the one you see with your left eye (half a frame of difference). This leads to temporal aliasing, which is one of the sources of "3D headaches". The way to fix this would be to put the camera shutters out of phase by 180 degrees, but then the left and right eyes would be out of sync in systems that show both images simultaneously (i.e., all other viewing methods). If the film is shot at 48 FPS, it's possible to produce two 24-fps versions (one in phase, another out of phase), but distributing both on the same medium would require more space.

For gaming this isn't really a problem; as long as the renderer and game engine know which viewing system is being used, they can decide whether to generate the two views for the same instant or for different instants, but it wouldn't surprise me if some existing systems get this wrong (i.e., generate both images for the same instant although the console is using shutter glasses).

I suspect 3D movies are just a fad (they seem to resurface every 40 years or so), but a positive consequence will be getting screens capable of higher refresh rates, which will be great for gaming and possibly nudge the film industry to move to higher frame rates (24 is just pathetic).

Re:Interlacing

[Belial6]

I don't think they will be a fad. The reason is that 3D for gaming works. Field depth isn't an issue, temporal aliasing isn't an issue. The need to be able to walk around the house while playing isn't an issue. The ability to flatten the game to 2D isn't an issue. Making the game in 3D isn't an issue. This means that a good many people will already have the equipment in their home.

For movies and TV programing, it is a slightly different story. The reason I don't think it will go away comes down to price and the ability to watch in 2D. In the past if you bought a program in 3D, that is all it would ever be. You couldn't simply press a button to convert it back to 2D in real time. Now it is trivial. There is no reason that a TV should not be able to take a 3D stream and display it in 2D. All the current 3D TVs would need to do is drop every other frame, or for SBS just show half the stream stretched onto the whole screen. So from a consumer perspective, their media is backward compatible, and there is no loss for getting the 3D version.

From a hardware perspective, 3DTVs are noticeably more expensive, but I believe that is do to the "because we can" situation. Given time, the 3D functionality will likely be a standard feature because the cost of including it is negligible. Kind of like contrast controls. Almost nobody plays with the contrast controls on their TV, but they are there all the same for those that do want to use it.

Finally, 3DTV functionality will make a big splash for regular TV when units start shipping that will interlace from two different sources. When one person can play video games, and another can watch a TV show on the same TV at the same time, people who you never expected to have an interest will buy the product. This will lead to everyone having a 3DTV. As filming equipment gets replaced, the cost of filming in 3D will become negligible, and thus the cost from creation to consumption will be so small that you might as well supply it that way. Even in a worst case scenario, it will be trivial to supply computer animated movies in 3D since they are already made in 3D and flattened to 2D for distribution. It is pretty much just a matter of running the renderer to a second file. Once TVs start shipping where they will frame drop 3D streams into 2D, it wont even take a second render.

Re:Interlacing

[SuricouRaven]

A very simple way would be to just have the shutter glasses operate at a much higher frequency - say, 96Hz. Then each frame can be shown to the left eye, right eye, left eye, right eye... and then on to the next frame. Simple, elegant... but also very expensive to manufacture TFT panels capable of operating properly at a 96Hz refresh.

Re:Interlacing

[Vegemeister]

Interlaced video should have gone the way of the Dodo long ago. In its day, it was a neat hack to get temporal compression with all analog hardware, but that day is long passed.

3D complaint

[vlm]

You know those old people who complain about a commie plot where technological is just a smokescreen to get them to buy "the white album" for the 20th different media format?

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about "3D" or "smell-o-vision" or whatever other useless frippery of the week, is "I'm gonna have to download Star Wars ... again?"

I mean really, the scene in the Death Star's garbage compactor or the Bar Scene on Tattoine isn't really going to be any better, its just... again.

Re:3D complaint

[o'reor]

the Bar Scene on Tattoine isn't really going to be any better, its just... again.

[troll] Yup, but the 3D version clearly proves that Solo shoots first [/troll]

Re:3D complaint

[genner]

the Bar Scene on Tattoine isn't really going to be any better, its just... again.

[troll] Yup, but the 3D version clearly proves that Solo shoots first [/troll]

No the 3d version will mean another remake so now Chewbacca shoots first.

Re:3D complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

No the 3d version will mean another remake so now Chewbacca shoots first.

Jizz, that's gay.

But is the AstroTurf in HD?

[rueger]

Taking self promotion and Press Releases to a new and integrated level!

Ah, excellent!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Ever since I discovered that the "THX Certified" sticker had fallen off my cheap and nasty set of speakers and stuck it back on, I've been simply astonished at how much more delightsome to the senses a product is when it has a paper cert from some once-authoritative body that is now cashing in on its reputation.

I suspect that LG's new system will experience similar benefits.

Re:Ah, excellent!

[camperslo]

..I discovered that the "THX Certified" sticker had fallen off..

Depending on the programming, I think some television sets might be better shipped with stickers removed from medication packaging; "may cause drowsiness", "do not use while driving or operating machinery", "call for emergency assistance if erections last more than four hours", or "continued use combined with food consumption may be harmfull".

Re:Ah, excellent!

[samkass]

Besides, I'm not sure what the poster's implication is... 1080i is "full HD", isn't it? Isn't this essentially what that is? 1080p split into two interleaved streams...

Re:Ah, excellent!

[Surt]

No, 'full' is 1080p, not 1080i.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

Re:Ah, excellent!

[tlhIngan]

No, 'full' is 1080p, not 1080i.

One of the biggest abuses of marketing, these days. Tons of things (especially camcorders) claim "1080p" when they mean 1080p30, but they can also take 1080i60. Depending on how the CCD is clocked, the results can be exactly the same (take 30 frames/second, in one case, you dump it as 30 frames onto storage, in the other, you break it into 2 fields, and dump both. End result is the same).

Or game consoles, where 1080p often also means 1080p30. At least 1080i tends to consistently mean 1080i60 (60 fields/sec, 30 frames/sec).

Annoying.

The Process

[chill]

The certification process is simple;

1. Did check clear?
2. Profit!
3. Certification granted

Re:The Process

[rbrausse]

1. Did check clear?

unlikely, Germany is more a bank transfer society

Let's get retarded in here

[tepples]

Whoever in marketing came up with the name "Film Patterned Retarder" is a film patterned retard for thinking the public wouldn't discover "retard" in the name.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Hsien-Ko]

Yeah, and all those people that do their job in flame retardant suits must be flaming retards, right? Political correctness isn't doing anything good.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Seumas]

Agreed. Isn't it supposed to be a Film Patterened Intellectually Disableder?

Anyway, I think more than one of us missed the point in your link to a specs page where they typo'd the name of the product/feature . . . ?

As for the word itself . . . "retarded" is word that was chosen in the medical profession as a kinder and more appropriate way to refer to a certain condition than imbecile, moron, or idiot. We no longer use those three words to refer to people with actual mental retardation, and so we are free to use them to hurl at each other without consequence. Nobody ever calls you to task for insensitively using the word 'idiot' or 'imbecile'. Likewise, since it was decided some time ago that the word 'retarded' no longer applies to actual cases of mental retardation (the appropriate phrase is now "intellectually disabled"), then that opens up the word 'retarded' as free to use, without consequence. If the other three words are appropriate, because they're no longer used to refer to the actual people they once did, then the same has to directly apply to 'retarded'.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[drinkypoo]

This isn't about political correctness, this is about people seeing it and saying "I'm not buying it, because this shit is retarded." IOW, fire the marketdroid who failed hard on this one.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Hsien-Ko]

Then it's natural selection then. But still, you know an advocate group will raise a big stink about this sooner or later.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Belial6]

I have always marveled at the irony of people being offended by the word "retarded".

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Surt]

Yeah, and all those people that do their job in flame retardant suits must be flaming retards, right?

I've always assumed so.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always marveled at the retardedness of people being offended by the word "irony".

Even when you're using it wrong.

Re:Let's get retarded in here

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like...

No, no, no!

[Anonymous Coward]

that are then combined via the glasses to create a unified 1080p image

No! They're combined by the brain, not the glasses! Sheesh.

Shutter glasses based 3D TVs deliver the better 3D image.

Great. Can they work on not giving me a headache within 30 seconds of putting on the glasses now, please?

Re:No, no, no!

[Belial6]

That's easy. Just put a piece of masking tape over one lens. Problem solved.

lg

[strack]

ive had a look at that polarised display in the shop. the ghosting was pretty bad. if they can fix that, and maybe double the horizonal resolution to compensate for using alternate lines, they got a winner. i could use flipdowns on my prescription glasses instead of wearing another full set of expensive specs over the top.

so can 1950's glasses work?

[Anonymous Coward]

ya know like how OLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD this tech really is and why holly stupid wants you to have it so the scam americans can just keep on going , i see germany is now getitng into the act .....ya like IF YOUR RICH AND YA KNOW IT BUY STUPID

Why not?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I don't know enough about the technology - and the linked article wasn't informative - but do the right/left eye lines differ by more than just the depth? If they also contain additional detail, then this sort of like 1080i with your brain doing the interleaving, right?

Re:Why not?

[markdavis]

Even the Wikipedia page is weak on details. But somehow they have every other row polarized opposite so each eye can only see every other line. This will have the effect that one eye will see an entire image one scan line lower that the other. So each eye sees have the resolution of 1080P (like 540p). In a way, it is like 1080i, but with 1080i, each frame is slightly different in time. That is not the case here, where both images are from the exact same point in time.

I am not sure how it looks, but it sounds extremely promising. Has to be better than the horrible shutter glasses I have experienced.

Re:Why not?

[t2t10]

With polarizing or switching glasses for 3D, each eye receives 1080p. With this, it seems that each eye receives 540p, half the resolution. Yes, that's much lower quality and doesn't qualify as "full HD" anymore.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen these displays for a couple of years at the IBC (international broadcast conference) everyone doing 3D stuff uses these displays. They are extremely comfortable to watch.

Re:Why not?

[Rosy At Random]

I've not RTFA, but if it uses doubled frame-rates a la 1080i, so each eye sees both even and odd row lines over the two frames together, then this would count as HD. Not as good as 1080pHD, maybe, but still HD.

Re:Why not?

[t2t10]

For that they'd have to rapidly switch the optical system that directs light at each eye. If they can do that for each line and do it fast enough, why do it interlaced at all? Why not simply do it a field at a time? That would be much simpler and cheaper hardware.

Re:Why not?

[Rosy At Random]

You make a good point... I suppose the ultimate answer lies in optical perception and how each method 'feels' to a user.

LG Firmware increased the resolution

[MSRedfox]

The article doesn't mention that LG modified how the TVs display 3D recently to increase the resolution. "Before the Cinema 3D technology worked like this: During a time period of 1/200 seconds the TV showed 2 frames; 540 lines for the left eye and 540 lines for the right eye. The new algorithm shows 4 frames instead of 2 during the 1/200 second time frame. It shows 1080i for the left eye and 1080i for the right eye." from http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1304582822

Re:LG Firmware increased the resolution

[AmiMoJo]

I bet it still gives me a headache though.

Re:LG Firmware increased the resolution

[RivenAleem]

Comments like yours give me a headache also. You might as well complain at the injustice of being left-handed in a right-handed world. I've learned to suck it up and get over it.

Can't watch 3D? Boo-hoo, don't buy it. If they decided never to make a can opener because it couldn't be used fully by left-handed people, where would we be now?

It's to do with framerate

[Anonymous Coward]

With shutter based technology you halve the framerate. Polarised glasses halve the resolution.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I know which I'd rather trade in half of in order to see something in 3D.

Re:It's to do with framerate

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

With shutter based technology you halve the framerate. Polarised glasses halve the resolution.

Being a pendant - this isn't true.

It's the use of screen-field polarisation that halves the resolution (having a filter infront of the LCD that polarises even pixels one way, odd pixels the other).

There is nothing stopping for example two full resolution polarised screen images over the same screen real estate having full resolution.

TL;DR - it's not the glasses that halve the resolution - it's the choice of the screen / projection technology.

and so a regulatory body nobody cares about

[Surt]

Burns its reputation and ensures that will remain true.

Like USB?

[Anonymous Coward]

you have full 3D HD, and high 3D HD, and later ultra 3D HD

Re:Like USB?

[Nikker]

That is pretty much it.

Article Fail + Manufacturer Fail = Awesome Win?

[damn_registrars]

First, I feel the need to call out the article as a failure. They couldn't even get us the most elementary information about the TV - that is, what kind of TV is it? They tell us it does 3D HD; great. But is it an LCD? An LED? Plasma? CRT? Something else? Come on, it would have taken a minute fraction of a line to get that information into the article and they couldn't do it.

Second, fail to the manufacturer themselves. Someone there thought that calling their fancy 3D technology "Film Patterned Retarder". Really, why the hell would you voluntarily put the word "retard" into your own description of your technology?

Re:Article Fail + Manufacturer Fail = Awesome Win?

[Anonymous Coward]

damn_registrars is fond of creating sock puppet accounts.
damn_registrars = raiigunner

Call me when..

[Billlagr]

Wake me when there's 3D tv without the glasses. Until then, it seems to me just as much as a fad as the red and blue '3d' effects in kids books.

3dhd

[Anonymous Coward]

3d has really made its impact so far and in games especially. 3dhd televisions are going to be the standard in all homes the way i see it at least until theyhave holographic. I have seen websites popup that are waiting to explode or already are or simply waiting for developmnet. 3dadvertising is going well too and 3d printing those seem to be the thing then next to mapping on building but http://3dadvertising.me and www.3dadvertising.us are great names i saw just taken and http://3dhdtelevisions.net as well for 3dhd tv. 3dprinting dot com sold for about $30,000 while http://3dhdprinting.com is beckoning to be huge. Then also saw http://3dtvflatscreen.com was for sale along with the plural http://3dtvflatscreens.com seems like some huge opps out there. GO 3D and by the way 3d.com is up for sale for around a couple of million! Im not 3d advertising lol but it speaks for itself!

I tested a few 3d tv's and liked the LG best.

[kop]

I tested a few 3d tv's and liked the LG best. The polarization technique makes for a much more relaxing viewing compared to shutter glasses.
In Europe incandescent lighting is being phased out. The fluorescent lights that replace them tend to flicker when viewed trough shutter glasses.

Congrats to the AC!

[damn_registrars]

You are factually wrong and off-topic! I'm wondering if you can find a way for a trifecta of time-wasting?