MLXXX

Members
  • Content count

    5,646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MLXXX

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Brisbane
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,975 profile views
  1. My understanding is that the system works by taking the original Left and Right stereoscopic views, synthesizing intermediate stereoscopic views, and then projecting this range of separate views across each seating position. Here's my own quick diagram illustrating the general approach:- SET OF VIEWS AIMED AT EACH CHAIR ADULT VIEWER SEATED IN DEAD CENTRE OF CHAIR Full right ==> Outer right ==> ( RIGHT EYE Inner right ==> Central ==> < NOSE Inner left ==> Outer left ==> ( LEFT EYE Full left ==>
  2. I've tried a bit of this and not unexpectedly it is very resource intensive bit-rate wise and playing back without dropping frames can be an issue. However I now see from the support part of the Royole website there's been a software update! This would appear to make the review I cited out of date, as it appears the Moon most likely can play frame-packed 3D now (despite such capability not being referred to explicitly in the website specifications). From the Royole site support section: Will my Moon play 3D Blu-ray movies and how do I connect to my Blu-ray player? 2017-06-09 Connecting Your Moon Yes, Moon plays 3D movies from your Blu-ray, but you need to make sure you are using the latest software version 2.3.0 or higher. If you do not have the latest please STOP and update your software. Moon easily connects to any device that has an HDMI output, including a Blu-ray player. Find the Micro HDMI to HDMI adapter found in your Moon packaging and plug the Micro Adapter into the Moon Box. Remove the HDMI cable “Out” end from the Blu-ray player and plug that into the HDMI end of the Micro HDMI to HDMI adapter plugged into the Moon Box. ____________________________ Edit: I do find this product fascinating but there may be comfort and other issues. I suggest anyone contemplating ordering one of these have a look at the informal purchaser reviews that appear on amazon.com
  3. Nor I. Nevertheless this has been a continually expressed source of criticism of 3D glasses since 2010. As for fitting out suburban commercial cinemas with glasses-less technology, I don't see that happening any time soon. There are technical challenges and it would be an expensive proposition. On the other hand, technically it ought to be relatively straightforward to manufacture OLED TVs with low crosstalk active 3D operating at 144Hz (maybe 192Hz). Perhaps Panasonic (or some other manufacturer) will make a push in that direction soon. This could provide Full HD 3D at good visual quality utilising the previously established 3D Blu-ray disc standard, a standard that almost all UHD players can play. As for no-glasses 3D TV screens, they would I'd think be much more challenging to manufacture with good performance than an OLED TV with "enhanced alternation rate" glasses. We could expect the first glasses-free 3D TVs to appear in Australian showrooms to be expensive and/or to offer only mediocre 3D performance. Personal viewers Sony released the HMZ-T3W personal viewing goggles in 2014. They could display 3D at 720p per eye. With all the resources that have put into developing virtual reality headsets for gaming since 2014 one might have expected by now a home cinema aspect ratio 3D headset capable of 1080p per eye. However to the best of my knowledge no such beast (of proper visual quality) exists. The Royole Moon Full HD viewer released in September 2016, according to reviews gives a good quality Full HD picture for a 2D source, using a pixel format of 1080p for each eye (at 60fps). Unfortunately the specifications although revealing that this viewer accepts 3D input from a file that is in side-by-side format, make no reference to frame-packed format (the format used in Full HD 3D Blu-rays). That suggests the viewer would offer less horizontal resolution for 3D than the Sony viewer released in 2014. If this viewer could provide an independent 1080p for each eye this could become an appealing, albeit expensive, product for 3D geeks. The apparent limitation in the 3D input capability is referred to in a review article ( https://www.wareable.com/wearable-tech/royole-moon-review ). I do find it disappointing that the 3D resolution appears to be limited. Late edit: I now see there has been a software update for this device that appears to allow it to display Full HD 3D from a Blu-ray player.
  4. Mark, I've never seen a report that 90% of people rejected 3D. (Am not even sure what "rejecting 3D" means.) I have never seen reports of "further studies" indicating that the rejection was everything to do with undiagnosed eye conditions. Can you recall where you saw such claims, or perhaps provide a current link? I am a bit mystified as to where this claim, regarding something like 90% of the population having 3D eyesight problems, has come from. The public I saw leaving a 3D showing of Avatar at a RealD public cinema in Australia in 2010 had smiles on their faces. Certainly I saw no general mood of gloom and dissatisfaction in the expressions of those people. Avatar was the first 3D film this century to be seen by a large number of cinema goers. For many it would have been their first experience of 3D at a cinema. It was a roaring success and relaunched 3D right around the world. Mark, I believe that you have been involved with sales of home projectors. It's my understanding that the 3D home projectors that came out a few years ago could only manage a Left Right alternation rate of 120Hz (some models even less). That certainly wouldn't have helped fluidity of the 3D effect. I myself find a 120Hz alternation rate annoying despite being a great fan of 3D. I often see these factors cited as reasons for the failure of 3D on home television sets to attain popularity: 1. The inconvenience of wearing 3D glasses. 2. The discomfort of wearing 3D glasses. 3. The expense of purchasing active 3D glasses. [This reason was more significant in the early years when one pair of active glasses could cost as much as $100.] Factors I've seen cited in more technically pitched articles about home television sets and 3D: Picture too dark when wearing glasses. Too much ghosting. Another factor sometimes cited: Too flickery As for public cinema 3D showings, there are complaints about the surcharge usually payable for 3D, the inconvenience of the glasses, and some complaints about lack of brightness. Then there are those who complain that the 3D effect of a movie [whether viewed at a public cinema or at home with a 3D Blu-ray] is too mild and that there should be more obvious pop out (negative parallax). I see such complaints from time to time on AVS Forum and I suspect there is a significant percentage of members of the general public who expect to be shocked and excited by 3D rather than simply seeing a realistic portrayal. Such people report being disappointed by 3D.
  5. Trump is playing a very dangerous game. His outbursts appear less considered and less consistent than the rhetoric from North Korea. An extraordinary reversal of roles! The proposed test firing of missiles by North Korea to land near Guam would however be extremely provocative if it went ahead. It would be an opportunity for America to test anti-missile missiles. How would Japan react to missiles passing over its territory? The Republicans must be getting extremely worried now about the behaviour of the 71 year old business tycoon they have allowed to become commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. The words we are seeing exchanged are a bit like the staged banter that occurs before a professional wrestling match. But what is at stake in terms of human lives is of course disturbingly more serious.
  6. Thanks for your comments regarding use of a 65" 2016 Oled. I had been recalling my experience of a few years ago with plasma where the cutting in of the ABL was quite noticeable (as well as flicker for my flicker-sensitive eyes!). But perhaps if a late model OLED were set to a relatively dim level then it could operate as a pc monitor without ABL cutting in; and that relatively dim level might still be bright enough for net surfing and word processing and spreadsheets. I'll have to look into this aspect carefully if I start seriously considering a particular OLED model.
  7. Well done! Effort involved, but as you say worth the trouble.
  8. Decisions are very difficult, particularly if wanting a very large screen size where the premium to be paid for OLED over LCD is still considerable or OLED might not be manufactured yet in that larger size. I have an extra factor to include in the mix in that the main TV is also often used for net surfing and word processing, i.e. as a computer monitor. The Automatic Power Limiting of OLED would tend to kick in when the screen was required to display almost entirely white. I suspect my next purchase will be of a FALD LCD, despite the fact that some aspects of PQ would not be as good as with OLED technology.
  9. I'm a bit slow off the mark posting this, but not everyone interested in a 3D TV may be aware that Panasonic released the EX780 range of 3D LCD TVs in Australia in April ( https://blogs.panasonic.com.au/consumer/2017/05/29/introducing-new-premium-panasonic-4k-ultra-hd-tvs/ and http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/panasonic-tvs-2017-4k-hdr-2952995 ). The models in this range use active glasses 3D. That is not my favourite technology (as I dislike the flickering/alternation) but it may be necessary to control the crosstalk of an HDR screen. I see the 75" model is currently listed by major retailers in Australia at a bit under $5k. I've been struggling to find a detailed review in English. However what I have seen in various forums and in brief formal reviews indicates that the crosstalk issue has not been fully solved. A detailed review in French (at http://www.audiovideohd.fr/tests/489-Panasonic-EX780-TX-58EX780E--1.html ) of the European 58" model states [as translated into English]:- 3D: At a time when TV manufacturers collectively are turning their backs on 3D, the Panasonic EX780 is an exception to the rule, and is one of the latest 3D (active) TVs available on the market along with Sony's ZD9, a move appreciated by fans of 3D Blu-ray who wish to enjoy their collection of movies on their TV. Although the overall picture quality is satisfactory, with a bright 3D and beautiful colour, a slight crosstalk and a bit of judder still exist.
  10. Al, can you elaborate please? Are you talking specialist hi-fi showrooms in the U.S.? It's almost two years since I was in the States but I recall seeing mainstream retailers Best Buy and Walmart. Best Buy had quite a big range of TVs on display.
  11. I can only go on my subjective impressions at the time when viewing Full HD material. In addition to the panel providing reds and greens that no flat panel display of the era could display, outdoor scenes had a realism for the look of sunlight I could only see with a certain other brand of UHP lamp rear-pro (it may have been a JVC). Glancing at banks of flat panel displays in showrooms in late 2006 and early 2007 the effect for me was of a cartoon-like colour. The SXRD rear-pro represented something much closer to realism for my vision, despite being wayward with its greens and (to a lesser extent it seemed to me at the time) its reds. That has all changed. I can now get a pretty realistic look for well lit outdoor scenes from a modern LCD panel and the reds and greens are much closer to what I see in nature. (And of course there is much improved black level and contrast.)
  12. If seriously considering a particular model I always research professional reviews and forum threads. However that for me is not sufficient. I rely very little if at all on what a salesman might tell me about technical aspects of TV sets on display in a showroom but I do very much like to eyeball different displays to make my own assessment of apparent picture quality. As is often mentioned on this forum, that is potentially fraught with difficulties such as displays typically being demonstrated in an overbright, oversaturated demo mode rather than in a closer to neutral mode, and limitations on what video source material is in use, but despite such pitfalls I've found that it's usually not too difficult to spot poor black level, poor contrast, or poor colour. In the days of plasma sets, many reviews would point us towards that technology as the superior technology. Not so for my eyes. I found the flicker of late model plasma sets very hard to tolerate, and I could see that flicker across the showroom floor with some models; notably the greatly lauded Samsung F8500. Had I relied solely on reviews I might have purchased an F8500 and been disappointed. (Some people in the United States returned their F8500s for refund as the flicker was too distracting, and reported their dismay in forum threads. I recall that the subject of ficker was not mentioned in shoot out reviews, or in most of the review magazine reviews for the F8500.) Going much further back in history, about 9 years, I recall reviews of the Sony SXRD rear-pro TVs that complained about inaccurate colour. But the test equipment for those reviews measured colour acccuracy by conventional means well adapted to the narrow bands of light emitted by CRT technology and plasma technology. The test equipment was not designed for the relatively wide spectral distribution of the light emitted by an SXRD's ultra-high pressure bulb split into ranges of Red Green and Blue by dichroic filters. That called for a subjective assessment. I will never forget the impression of deep greens I saw for the first time in my life from a TV set, as supplied by an SXRD screen. And at the time, the reds from the SXRDs compared very favourably for my eyes with the orangey reds being produced by LCD and plasma flat panel sets of the era, the nearest those sets could come to producing red. I never regretted buying my 60" SXRD rear-pro TV. It gave me great enjoyment. In time, LCD and plasma colour improved. In the realm of hi-fi loudspeakers, I'll read reviews for guidance but I will always listen to that model of loudspeaker myself in a showroom to gauge just how much improvement in sound quality the highest tier model can provide compared with the next tier down, or with other manufacturer's speakers and make my own assessment with my own choice of music genre. Having done that, I would then feel rather guilty just ordering online. I might negotiate for a price reduction but to my mind the retailer with the showroom has provided me with something of value, the ability to hear a number of different speaker systems and compare them with my own ears.
  13. I do hope stores like yours are able to continue. There are challenges ahead.
  14. So you go to Harvey Norman, or JB, or Video Pro, etc, to see the models on display in a showroom and compare them, and then you buy one from Amazon and call around to a warehouse to pick it up (or have it delivered to you from a warehouse). Nice for the consumer. I guess the same could be done with cars. Go to the motor dealer to test drive. And then order a car on-line. Could be much cheaper for the consumer that way. [Might be tricky trading-in your own car though. You might decide to sell it privately.] I'd agree our electrical goods have been relatively expensive, but despite that we have had a very large number of failures of electrical retailers in Australia over the years. The smaller ones have pretty much disappeared.
  15. It's a few years I think since the last major Australian retailer of TVs went into liquidation. (I'm excluding Dick Smith as they had a broader range of electrical and electronic goods. And I'm excluding The Good Guys, as I understand they were merely taken over by JB Hi-Fi rather than failing.) Wow stores went into liquidation in 2012. Cliver Peters failed in 2010 but that was said to be at least in part attributable to accountancy fraud. Retravision had some hiccoughs in 2012. There would be many instances of individual franchises failing, creditors being left in the lurch, and the business being taken over by another entity, possibly keeping the same trading name. Members of the public would fail to notice many such business failures. It must be hard for medium-sized retailers to compete with the huge buying power of Harvey Norman and JB Hi-fi. It's a bit like supermarket chains. Who has the buying buyer outside of the giants that sell a full range of supermarket goods, Coles and Woolworths, and the limited-range discount supermarket outlet, Aldi? Retailing of TVs in Australia has become dominated by the largest players. Smaller operators have fallen by the wayside or been bought out. Australian based bricks and mortar retailers only have to worry about the wholesale price they pay for the product they import from the manufacturer, and not getting caught with too much stock unsold when retail prices drop as they do very quickly with televisions. With mainstream television models (such as today's 50" and 65" inch LCD sets) manufacturers have had to spend 100s of millions of dollars in research and development, and setting up manufacturing plant, hoping they sell perhaps 500,000 units of each model to pay for all of that, before they start to see any profit. Sometimes they do see a profit on a particular model, and sometimes they don't. The technology gets superseded very quickly. It's not like manufacturing toasters or electric frypans. With premium sets where the expected total worldwide sales will be less, and development costs are still high, the manufacturer takes on a big risk of being able to make and sell enough units to pay for development and setting up, let alone actually make an overall profit on a premium TV model. Car manufacturing has some similar challenges of huge capital costs and doubts about the number of units that will eventually be sold. Today, it's just too hard for cars to be designed and manufactured in Australia. Too risky. Too expensive.