Find a Projector Projector Forums Login


Top 10 Home Theater

Other Top 10's

Where To Buy

News & Articles

Expert Blogs



Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.

Write your message to the moderator below:

(Enter the numbers exactly as they appear to the left)

Comment text appears below:
Ultimately, I expect the polarized approach to win because the cost of multiple shutter glasses and inherent physiological problems are more difficult with shutter glasses. Also ideally, each channel (left or right eye) is based on a companies' standard projector product, thus the 3D performance would not lag the latest non 3D projectors. Of course the cost will be double that of a comparable non 3D projector. Other unique aspects of the 3D projector should include optically combining both channels into one output lens. Also one light source should be used for both channels, where the left & right eye light source optical paths are split using a reflective polarizing filter (this does not waste light by throwing away the wrong polarization and more importantly, keeps both eyes seeing perfectly matched color spectrums & brightness to eliminate eye strain.). Also, the TI DMD light modulation chip driven by LEDs would be the right configuration for ensuring no color differences that can arise from other light modulation chips (as well as contast & black level differences). TI DMD field sequential color is also a lot easier to keep converged and combine into the final output lens. Lumen limitations of LEDs would be mitigated by not throwing away polarized light and the fact that reflective screens tend to have high gain. By having two seperate channels, the full high def bandwidth can be processed including interpolating frames for sharper dynamic imagery (and for correcting for the 1/120th second latency between the eyes if the source was originally designed for shutter glasses which has a 1/120th second delay between eyes. Not correcting for this would make moving objects appear closer or farther than intended or a pendulum to move in a circle instead of side to side.). Ideally, several input formats should be compatible including a new one (24 Hz progressive per eye at 1920 by 1080 compressed to fit into non-dual link HDMI bandwidth. This should be possible because the similarities between left & right eye imagery should allow better compression. If 24 Hz can not be achieved, then 20 Hz could be used with appropriate frame interpolation.).

Bottom line is a stereo projector without compromised performance when compared to non stereo projectors without eye strain. Also compatible with blu ray technology and very do-able with a Playstation 3 firmware push. Most people serious about 3D home theatre want several glasses and quality not compromised from the latest spec performance such as achieved by AE4000. Double the price of non stereo would be in the ballpark.