I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added to
the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

Seems the day of the gadget is dead.

Gary

--
This email is Private and Confidential
This e-mail has been virus checked by Mcafee Virus Scan.
Telephone calls may be recorded for quality assurance and security purposes.
Shopping -- get your hit @ www.asmailorder.co.uk www.asmailorder.com

"Gary" wrote in message
news:6HZ_n.180653$m87.37557@hurricane...
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

Yes, if and only if you could find a TV without any fancy motion
compensation, interpolation for 120Hz or more display etc. etc. that so many
have now.


Seems the day of the gadget is dead.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"Gary" wrote in message
news:6HZ_n.180653$m87.37557@hurricane...
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Another possibility for might be a 3D converter for "side by side" 3D, with
special prismatic glasses that made your field of view converge without you
having to cross your eyes yourself. You would have to sit twice as close to
the screen, half the screen area would be wasted, and the resolution would
reduce to SD. But it would work, and it could be cheap.

The prism glasses would have to be carefully designed for a specific viewing
distance so as not to cross your vision too much, and be supplied with dire
warnings not to attempt to walk or do any other activity other than watching
3DTV while wearing them.

(You can produce a similar effect with one of those fresnel sheet magnifiers
from a stationery shop if you hold it right in front of your face.)

In article Dj2%n.225175$k15.24811@hurricane, Stephen
writes
"Gary" wrote in message
news:6HZ_n.180653$m87.37557@hurricane...
I wonder why there aren't any after market 3D TV converters.
Surly any 1080P TV could display in HD 2 images sequentially and a
transmitter like the Sony one would work. with any TV. It could be added
to the HDMI line in and possibly need a knob on it to adjust the sync when
first installed.

I guess the problem is that it's a 50 Hz refresh rate on the HDMI input.
Even if the TV uses a much faster refresh internally, an external converter
can't access the video path at that stage. So you're stuck with 50 Hz which
would have to be halved to 25 Hz for each eye. That would mean intolerable
flicker and probably give people epileptic fits.

Been there, done that and no, it doesn't!

I used a standard 50Hz video system to produce the stereo video system
that was used for a lot of the underwater footage during the raising of
The Mary Rose back in the early 80's. It was also used for stereo
vision on North Sea Oil submersibles. That system just put odd and even
fields to each eye, blanking the unused field, and there wasn't a hint
of flicker, let alone epileptic fits. Simple analogue switches operated
by field identification resulted in video which was easily recordable &
also broadcast compatible - as demonstrated by TVS when they broadcast
demo footage of this and other stereo systems around 1985/6. No reports
of epileptic fits or flicker problems were received - just complaints
from people who didn't get free filtered specs* in their TV Times that
week!

Its a funny old thing human visual perception - I was surprised myself
how easy it was to view with only 25Hz on each eye and how quickly you
became totally immersed in the footage. In those days colour cameras
were much lower resolution than equivalent B&W cameras, so we had one
system which used a colour camera and a high bandwidth B&W camera as a
stereo pair. Surprisingly, you perceived a full colour image at much
higher resolution than the colour camera can reproduce - along with
depth perception and, again, not a hint of flicker.

*The coloured glasses were only required for the demo broadcast - the
source system used circularly polarised filters on CRTs and matching
polarised glasses for viewing.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)