I have a 120hz Samsung LED, it isn't 3D ready but it seems to me that 3D is nothing more than a software tweak and addition of a receiver. Does anyone know of a way or if it is even possible to transform a TV that doesn't feature 3D?
you should be able to do it the same way you would with a CRT.
just plug the 3d device in between the television and the video source.
you will know if the television is capable of doing it or not by trying on the glasses and giving it a go.
if the television was marketed as 120hz .. then it should work at 120 frames per second.
that gives you 60 frames per eyeball, the suggested amount needed.
since the left/right is simply a picture on the screen.. the television doesnt have to do anything except play a normal video.
since it isnt 3d ready.. that means there is no wireless sensor or tracking of the frames per second within the television.
the device you buy simply says 'okay this is the left eyeball frame and this is the right eyeball frame' then sends each left/right signal out of the wireless sensor to the 3d glasses.
it would be perfect if the 3d box has the option to adjust/calibrate itself.
i would think all of them do/should.. because not all televisions will receive the video and output it onto the screen with the same exact time.
when you are talking milliseconds.. it can be more than enough to screw up the left/right synchronization.
it does appear to be increasingly difficult to get 3d on a television that isnt being sold as 3d ready.
as if the industry is suggesting 'if you didnt buy a television with 3d features, why bother us about it now?'
really, it appears as if there is some kind of agreement .. that all of the 3d televisions are already there to be purchased if you want 3d.
i can find this to be overwhelming myself, because some of the televisions have features that i simply dont want, and i dont want to pay additional cost for these features and worry about sacrifices in quality somewhere.
i believe there are other people like me who feel the same way.
get only what you need and get what you pay for.. then add technology accordingly.
this has been the setup method preferred for quite a long time.
if you ask one piece of hardware to do too much, it will cost too much or it wont do anything right.
perhaps the industry is requesting us to stop thinking that way, but i for one dont see how i am going to be getting all these additional features and expect the hardware to perform its one sole purpose with quality results.
i already have a PC with internet, i dont need all of the internet applications.
i really dont care if all that was needed is a bigger piece of memory to hold all of the additional applications.
when you start asking your television to go to netflix or youtube or ebay, that generally means you need some security put in place.
that security is going to cost additional money to build, and it means the cost of the television will go up or the quality will go down.
i've said it before, you dont need 3d glasses for depth.. but you do need the glasses for popping out of the screen.
some of the advanced screens will pop out a little bit, but this is usually because of the shape of a lens between the screen and your eyeball.
the image has to be shaped according to the lens.. and all non 3d images would also have to be re-shaped for the lens.
kinda like looking through a fish-eye lens and having to counter-act the shape of the fish-eye so nothing appears to be out of shape.
expensive to say the least, when you ask them to do a whole lot for you at a competing cost.
nvidia makes a PC 3d kit that transforms games and movies into 3d.
this option appears to have some relevent function, because video games in 3d is not a far-fetched choice.
games designed to work in 3d would possibly work better than anything 2d transformed to 3d .. but i tried call of duty: black ops in 3d at the midnight release of the game .. i didnt see any 3d at all.
in fact, i think what i seen was 2d with a mild polarization (meaning maybe the glasses where 'stuck' inbetween the left/right frames.
since the glasses are shutter, they arent supposed to add any grey or blackness to the picture.. but when i put the glasses on, there was lots of grey/black added.
of course we could say to yourselves that the black added to the picture is the exact shade of black missing from the television, but what are the odds we get a perfect match?
and what are the odds we realize the shade of black is missing while watching in 2d?
depth is nothing more than the ability to blur the picture ever so slightly.
the same thing with shading, if you want solid white to be bowled and look real while it is shaded from the renderer.. there needs to be dozens of shades of the color of light to wrap the solid white without looking like it is from the 1980's or 1970's.
since you can connect most anything to your graphics card when the graphics card comes with an adaptor to output the three rca cords.. you should be able to connect your television to the PC and get the 3d viewing experience on the television.
it may be possible that the different connections are 'software locked'
meaning, if the software detects you have connected a second display using the three rca cords.. the software might refuse to apply the 3d effects to the 2nd monitor.
you might be forced to use the DVI output instead.
the specifications of the nvidia kit specifically state that HDMI 1.4 connection is available, but requires a 3d ready television.
so to me that says, the software will 'talk' to the television and ask if it is 3d ready.
if the tv replies with 'yes' then the transmitter within the television is used.
if the tv replies with 'no' then the nvidia software has the option to use its own transmitter or deny you access to the 3d.
i havent read up on what is and isnt available, although i know the denying is a matter of choice (and the choice might be imposed by an industry agreement.. because who knows what they have planned)
i found another website that offers a standalone kit, except that it also requires some kind of PC connection.
i couldnt figure out what the connection type is, but the kit says it will do HD.
there is also a kit that transforms 2d standard definition content into 3d on the website.
you can find that here: http://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/
what i think may be happening, since it already is actually happening, the industry is going to 'glasses free 3d'
and i have no idea what that means really.
to say that the picture will have depth?! because my 8 year old CRT television has depth.
hell.. even this 19 inch standard definition CRT from 1998 has some depth.
i can see the possible function of depth when using the new high definition webcams too.
not only is it a function of color accuracy, it is a function of focus and blur.
if you ever get onto a 3d modeling software, you can add 'depth of field' to the model to make the furthest distance appear blurry and the closest distance appear perfectly in focus.
there are lots of 3d modelers out there.. and it is within the industry's comfort to do something about it before these people get upset about how easy it is for them to render things with depth on a daily basis.. and yet the television and movie industry is struggling to keep up.
i am willing to bet cheap LCD's can show depth of field.. even if the panel is so bad that the special effect needs to be exaggerated for the depth of field to come across as 'decent'
there will be companies who say 'these televisions can easily meet the expectations'
and then there will be companies who are struggling, giving themselves an anxiety attack because their 'design' just isnt cutting it.
i'm not a fool to what is happening, and i havent gone through all of the steps to get this way.
CRT's of yesterday had enough visual ability to allow a person to put their forehead up against the screen and they could see a virtual reality of land distance for miles and miles.
it is all about two major things.
1. the pixels have to be there
2. the color's have to be there
of course it helps to have the electron gun calibrated so that everything is straight without being morphed.. because too much shape degradation can ruin the effect.
one might be able to start at perfect and then skew away from that point and hold onto what was initially attempted.
but where the above leaves off, a person wouldnt get the same 'wow of depth' as the person who viewed with calibrated convergence.
the beauty of LCD's is that we no longer have to complain about bad convergence.
(and convergence is when you put up a picture with lines or a grid.. and the blocks arent all the same size and shape.
most people would know this to be true by looking at one of the edges of the screen and seeing it curved or bent.
since we already have that upgrade by going to LCD.. we also have another upgrade, smaller depth sizes from front to back.
the tv is thinner and takes up less room from front to back, as they can be hung from a wall and take up virtually no space at all !!
that leads us to the absolute nightmare of LCD televisions.. the color accuracy and the total number of colors available.
sure, some of the LCD's can give quite the same miles of depth that the old CRT's could.. but wouldnt these LCD's be reserved for the top end of the best of the best?
not only that, but some of the televisions use flourescents in their color dyes.. the viewing experience is light seeing lots of colors lit up bright from a blacklight.
the backlight is a certain shade of UV light that 'excites' the colors to an 'enhanced' brightness.
and this might seem attractive sometimes, but over time.. it could lead to headaches or mess with your daily train of thought.
if you could imagine a rod of their colored dye being 'excited' by a blacklight rather than the UV light they normally use.. that dye would light up to be as bright as a 100 watt bulb.
i have clearly seen this when going to best buy and viewing their televisions for sale.. these tv's have a luminance that is high.
to reduce the brightness means what?
eventually the UV backlight will dim.. but does the television add some black to each pixel to lower the brightness?
what does that do to the gradient scale from black to white (or for any color for that matter) ?
funny though, because i know CRT's can get really bright too.
but usually only when the camera points at the sun.. it isnt as high and constant as the LCD televisions.
i can see the appeal as being 'high end' simply by the increased luminance.. but i believe the 'end' is really that of a person's vision based on the 'high' brightness.
projectors are an alternative, since the contrast ratio of these can be typically junk with all of the ambient light.
they have forced us to stop buying CRT televisions and i dont see much of an option to not only be safe, but to allow cameras to upgrade the depth.
i know there are a whole lot of instances where things would look 'amateur' and cause embarassment without filtering some of the depth.
since movies have always had a sense of blurryness.
newscastors would probably be the first ones to decide how much 'virtual reality' they want to portray.
since it is possible for the cameras to over-exceed the vision capabilities of normal human vision.. the clearness and focus would be exaggerated.
no real problem here, as i enjoy some things to be simply 'tossed my way' or 'fall into my lap'
when the clarity and depth gets high enough, movies would be able to open their doors to allow for more clarity and more depth with new filtering techniques.
as that should really put the new high resolution standard in its place for quite a long time.
when the end of the road gets longer and further away.. the lowest filter should also scoot up towards some more clarity.
this combined aspect would graciously move us up to the 2k and 4k resolutions.. and it would be done as a 'forcing' of the entire industry once again.
leading the audio industry to be pushed into gear to be equivalent with the video fidelity.
virtual reality is to be an obtainable goal.
and dont disrespect the fidelity of reality in the sense of virtual.
because people will not only have the option for brain tricking realism that their own eyes can capture, they could also go above and beyond to get an exaggerated result (if that is what they so desire)
you might be thinking the same thing i am, excitement for one.. and 'what good is it going to do?' as the other.
as more and more people get involved in the viewing of the audio and video industry.. that should be like an epiphony that people are, at their very least, at a stage of infancy in term with the endearment of the entertainment industry.
to say that the 1970's and 1980's was simply that of 'being in the womb'
compared to the splitting of that rationale to the other rationale of 'people of today are just 3-4-5 years old with their endearment of the entertainment industry'
it should get some philosophers to flip over their heads and choose which method to watch (if not both)
i do find myself asking 'what good is it going to do?'
and to that i say, we get a stronger emotional/intimate attachment with the artist who is creating the movie or audio track.
people have been known to buy a specialized light (the shade of the light generally) to enhance their book reading experience.
i bet this goes as far back to times before electricity.
those who would choose bare sunlight.. those who would choose the shade of a tree (and at what time during the day)
and even those who would choose light from a fire (and the size of the fire, or even the type of material used to burn to cast the perfect emitted substance across the pages)
this should also get some philosophers on their heels about people and the entertainment industry, as it sheds light to 'categories' of people and possibly what they want (or how they want it).
once the recession is over with.. the government wont have much to monitor.
lots of people are angry or sad or depressed based on the economy.
these people would still have a job if it ment watching the people as they entertain themselves with the increased fidelity.
together there will be nothing about the human species we dont already know.
that should be good news for nasa and their attempts to go further and further into space.
not only can they monitor for new life, they can rest assured that their astronauts interactions with the exploration would be well-known and tailored to.
as we know more about the human species, we can be more responsible during those explorations.
now if that was all too much for you to read..
i will simply say this, if you want to open up the television and FORCE it to be 3d capable.. you have circuits that are pre-designed for a certain resistance.. and if you start adding new circuit boards, the resistance is only going to change and exceed the specifications.
if you know that you can get ahold of some really low impedance component pieces, you still are going to have a battle with the voltage being too low.
you are looking at re-writing the entire design with new pieces to bring the voltages back up.
it would be a rare project, and i wouldnt say you are the only person in the world to want it.. but if your supply of component pieces falls short anywhere with what you need, you'll end up with a project that is 90% complete and wont have any way to finish it.
maybe you wait for the pieces to become available.. and maybe the LCD panel goes bad from not being used (kinda like mold on food that hasnt been eaten yet)
unfortunate for you, using a term like '3d kit' is going to show a lot of results for 3d ready televisions.
those kits are going to be extra glasses or extra glasses and a wireless transmitter (if not a 2nd transmitter, a higher powered one).
maybe browse the nvidia forums to see other complaints about their 3d vision kit for PC.
if there are things that the software simply wont do, then there will be people complaining about it for you to read.
should help you before you go and buy it, only to find yourself with the same complaints.