Negotiations With Chinese Factory

[GizmoTheGreen]

how fast can the lcd update?

i guess its like 60hz like any other screen, but do we have direct hardware access to it or is there some kind of unmodifiable controller chip inbetween?
if it could do 120hz im thinking nvidia 3d glasses B)

 

[Yoyobuae]

It can do 120Hz, 180Hz, 240Hz, etc ad-infinitum using ground-breaking frame duplication technology. This technology is so advanced it doesn't put any extra load on the CPU nor LCD!!!

Now, seriously. All this madness about ***Hz refresh rates has to stop. 60/50Hz was picked for TV refresh rates because they optimally reduced the flickering sensation and produced smooth motions (for the average user). I mean, during operation a large part of the surface of a CRT is black, yet its impossible to notice any flicker (for the average user). I think that is "high enough refresh rate".

Sure, I can imagine that some sort of filtering could be applied to the video signal in order to provide smoother viewing sensation. But the Hz numbers are simply used as a marketting strategy, rather than an actual useful measure.

 

[GizmoTheGreen]

i know about that, i see these 300mhz tvs and say bullshit,

60hz is more than enough, but on nvidia 3d glasses, each eye gets 60hz, so thats 120hz in total. each eye get 1 whole screen each "60hz"

 

[Yoyobuae]

Doesn't being "3D glasses" imply that the displays for each eye need to be rendered independently? That's the only way "real 3D" can work.

It does raise the question: What kind of support will software have for "real 3D"? Without it both displays will be the same by force, and out the window goes your "120Hz".

 

[droneb]

It can do 120Hz, 180Hz, 240Hz, etc ad-infinitum using ground-breaking frame duplication technology. This technology is so advanced it doesn't put any extra load on the CPU nor LCD!!!

Now, seriously. All this madness about ***Hz refresh rates has to stop. 60/50Hz was picked for TV refresh rates because they optimally reduced the flickering sensation and produced smooth motions (for the average user). I mean, during operation a large part of the surface of a CRT is black, yet its impossible to notice any flicker (for the average user). I think that is "high enough refresh rate".

Sure, I can imagine that some sort of filtering could be applied to the video signal in order to provide smoother viewing sensation. But the Hz numbers are simply used as a marketting strategy, rather than an actual useful measure.

its not about the Hz mania men!, didnt you read it was about 3D?.

if you run stereo video you require the double of Hz so being 120Hz the optimal (60 Hz per eye)
whatever the 3D system it will run, Chromatic filters Polarization spliting or Active Sync Shutters. (hmm you need a special screen for the second XD)

 

[daffy]

Now, seriously. All this madness about ***Hz refresh rates has to stop. 60/50Hz was picked for TV refresh rates because they optimally reduced the flickering sensation and produced smooth motions (for the average user). I mean, during operation a large part of the surface of a CRT is black, yet its impossible to notice any flicker (for the average user). I think that is "high enough refresh rate".

I used to think that, but I was reading just today that this is wrong.
Turns out we can perceive higher frame rates. Not only that, but video has motion blur while computer-generated video doesn't, so the differences between frames are more noticeable.

 

[zhasha]

He's talking about active shutter glasses that will cause a signal of 120FPS interchanged images (image for left eye, then right, then left and so on) to be shown only to the correct eye. Basically this requires a 120Hz TV in order to display the images fast enough to seem life-like. It's not your old red-cyan glasses. It's a fairly cool technology that seems to be in development by several big companies. The glasses required just go opaque->transparent-> on one eye and transparent->opaque-> on the other so the images get the correct eye.

EDIT: TVs show 30/25FPS depending on where you are. They use 60/50Hz interlaced images which means you only get half a frame per cycle.

 

[GizmoTheGreen]

EDIT: ninja'd, twince h34r:

well, have you understood how nvidia 3d vision work?

you have a pair of glasses, and the games are being rendered from two views, view one for right eye, view 2 for left (for example)

so 120hz, frame 1 is right, frame 2 is left eye, and so forth, so for each 2 hz, you get one "3d" hz that you can see with these special glasses(shutter glasses).

 

[droneb]

well the only way you could get 60Hz image with 60Hz screen/output would be using Glassless 3d Screen
but it seems they are still on development because they cause headaches.

 

[mali]

I wonder if those shutter glasses have improved over the years. I've got some of those glasses that I've bought around ten years ago lying around. The problem with those glasses is, that the polarisation doesn't make them completely dark, so you have a shadow effect(you see schemes of the wrong picture). It's really annoying and spoils the experience of true 3D. I played Rune completely through with my 3D shutter glasses.

 

[zevdawg]

EDIT: TVs show 30/25FPS depending on where you are. They use 60/50Hz interlaced images which means you only get half a frame per cycle.

Probably why people get headaches while watching 3D.

Practically every video now out there is rendered at 50/60Hz, only 3D (and true 3D at that) is 60/eye. When you're watching TV or movie, it's still 50/60FPS. That means your eyes are only seeing 25/30FPS if watching in 3D (that induces a lot of flicker). Sorry to burst anyone's little bubble here, but what does that make a 120Hz set now? Kinda a useless gimmick at the moment. Maybe in the (hopefully not-too-distant future) there will be video supporting it, but IMO 3D is one of those (buggering things) that's nice in a movie (read: cinema) but not really necessary. Also all current displays require a computer, and a good graphics card. Also 3D displays aren't really standardized (or don't appear to be). Just a few days ago there was an article on Engadget announcing 3D blu-ray and that current Mitsubishi TV sets supporting 3D would need an adapter. What a joke that is (I mean, comparable to having USB but having a bajillion proprietary USB connectors).

IMO the cinema I go to here uses an easy solution: polarized lenses. It works, no headaches. I honestly prefer this. But again, if I want to watch a 3D movie (which is rarely) I'll go with a group of friends to go see it (the cost of me buying 3D equipment will never equate to going out to see 3D movies, unless they start releasing every single movie out there in 3D, which in itself would be a PITA cause I only got one and a half eyes).

Kinda offtopic innit?

On topic, things appear to be going well with that company... As someone already stated, we don't know what problems other companies have with these companies... But then again, when a company goes off to state it took them 5 years of developing, now you guys will know why a company (not a corporation) stated it took so long to get that one thing out the door eh? :lol:

 

[Awakening]

If you watch the new videos, you really can't get a physically bigger screen (it will just go wider). But OLED + Higher Resolution might be nice improvements.

I've said it before in other threads, the Nintendo DSi XL is 21 x 8.5 mm larger then the Pandora. I have also printed out a full size Pandora and I think it can be scaled up a bit. Things will be too tiny if you crank up the resolution too high without scaling up the screen.

 

[Asmo]

Probably why people get headaches while watching 3D.

From what I remember reading ages ago, headaches are the result (largely) of the forced 'convergence'/focal length the eyes experience when watching what appears to be an image beyond the much closer surface they are actually focussing on.

IMO the cinema I go to here uses an easy solution: polarized lenses. It works, no headaches.

Largely though not because of polarization over shutters, but because the screen is that much further away - the eyes are more naturally 'aligned', if that's the right way to put it!

Even more OT but interesting, years ago a 70mm projection system was trialled that wanted to offer the highest possible quality. It ran at 60fps (yes, frames) - regular film runs at 24fps. It wasn't the expense that killed it (though it certainly would have) - apparently people disliked how 'smooth' motion looked, it lost it's filmlike quality and started to resemble HD video.

I wonder if those shutter glasses have improved over the years. I've got some of those glasses that I've bought around ten years ago lying around. The problem with those glasses is, that the polarisation doesn't make them completely dark, so you have a shadow effect(you see schemes of the wrong picture). It's really annoying and spoils the experience of true 3D. I played Rune completely through with my 3D shutter glasses.

They can work very well - I have a couple of pairs around that age that work brilliantly on CRT monitors, almost no ghosting effect at all. If you are using them on an LCD monitor (probably not, if they are 10 years old I guess) the monitor might be the weak link, they just can't match the 'to black' rate between frames.

 

[droneb]

EDIT: TVs show 30/25FPS depending on where you are. They use 60/50Hz interlaced images which means you only get half a frame per cycle.

Probably why people get headaches while watching 3D.

Practically every video now out there is rendered at 50/60Hz, only 3D (and true 3D at that) is 60/eye. When you're watching TV or movie, it's still 50/60FPS. That means your eyes are only seeing 25/30FPS if watching in 3D (that induces a lot of flicker). Sorry to burst anyone's little bubble here, but what does that make a 120Hz set now? Kinda a useless gimmick at the moment. Maybe in the (hopefully not-too-distant future) there will be video supporting it, but IMO 3D is one of those (buggering things) that's nice in a movie (read: cinema) but not really necessary. Also all current displays require a computer, and a good graphics card. Also 3D displays aren't really standardized (or don't appear to be). Just a few days ago there was an article on Engadget announcing 3D blu-ray and that current Mitsubishi TV sets supporting 3D would need an adapter. What a joke that is (I mean, comparable to having USB but having a bajillion proprietary USB connectors).

IMO the cinema I go to here uses an easy solution: polarized lenses. It works, no headaches. I honestly prefer this. But again, if I want to watch a 3D movie (which is rarely) I'll go with a group of friends to go see it (the cost of me buying 3D equipment will never equate to going out to see 3D movies, unless they start releasing every single movie out there in 3D, which in itself would be a PITA cause I only got one and a half eyes).

Kinda offtopic innit?

On topic, things appear to be going well with that company... As someone already stated, we don't know what problems other companies have with these companies... But then again, when a company goes off to state it took them 5 years of developing, now you guys will know why a company (not a corporation) stated it took so long to get that one thing out the door eh? :lol:

i didnt understand what you meant with the 120Hz thing.

120Hz refresh rate means that at most you can get 120 real FPS and for stereo video means nearly 60Fps per eye. (note you will need a full hardware capable of pumping 120FPS in order to be usefull) something impossible for a 60Hz refresh rate Display.
im pretty sensitive in that sense cause i used to get sick and nauseated just by being on a room with bad light bulbs/Balast (those that flicker under 60Hz and make that annoying buzzing noise).

for the polarized ones is more complicated because you need a special screen that actually is 2 LCD worth, 1 is the common LCD, the second positioned above just plays as a polarization switching.

Back on topic. i also didnt get what you meant with "with that company" OP? Chinese Mould Factory?

 

[S-r-ex]

If we're going to use 3D, I'd prefer the wavelength muliplex visualization technology, the kind used in Dolby 3D. I saw Avatar with it, and when closing one eye I couldn't see jack of any ghosting at all. Not even the bright yellow subtitles in Norwegian on steel gray backgrounds would show any.

But for this I'd suppose we'd need displays with very high color accuracy. Eizo OLED's?


But if Craig or whoever says that these Chinese guys are doing a good job, then they are doing one. And if it vosts 1/10th of routing it through Europeans, that just means cheaper Pandora's for us.

 

[Yoyobuae]

Now, seriously. All this madness about ***Hz refresh rates has to stop. 60/50Hz was picked for TV refresh rates because they optimally reduced the flickering sensation and produced smooth motions (for the average user). I mean, during operation a large part of the surface of a CRT is black, yet its impossible to notice any flicker (for the average user). I think that is "high enough refresh rate".

I used to think that, but I was reading just today that this is wrong.
Turns out we can perceive higher frame rates. Not only that, but video has motion blur while computer-generated video doesn't, so the differences between frames are more noticeable.

You forgot this part:

Sure, I can imagine that some sort of filtering could be applied to the video signal in order to provide smoother viewing sensation. But the Hz numbers are simply used as a marketting strategy, rather than an actual useful measure.

I do beleive there would be a noticeable difference.

The point I want to make is that the human eyes are a filter (low pass). Too quick motions will appear blurred when seen. The eye is incapable to see the actual motion. But the blur does give the sensation of motion.

That's why I say the ***Hz number is deceptive. The eye cannot see all those extra frames. What it does see is the resulting blur effect.

But, like you said, 3D games don't have this blur effect. So it's reproduced by brute force instead, with higher framerates. But the same effect could be achieved with lower framerates, but with a proper blur filter.

IMO, it's just wasteful to start refresh rate Hz race. Good blur filters would give the realistic experience everyone wants though.

[...]But for this I'd suppose we'd need displays with very high color accuracy. Eizo OLED's?

Unluckily, no matter how high color accuracy any display has, it probably won't be able to reproduce the exact wavelenghts needed for "wavelength multiplex visualisation".

Despite the apparently large gamut of colors displays can show, they always use very specific wavelength patterns for each color. These wavelengths depend on the contruction of the display itself (depending on the emiting substance used). Once the display is built it is impossible to change this.

I imagine displays for this technology are specifically made to be able to emit the required wavelengths for each each color, for each eye. That is, each pixel is reproduced by 6 sub-pixel elements: red-left, green-left, blue-left, red-right, green-right, blue-right. Each has their own very specific wavelength (depending on their construction).

 

[S-r-ex]

[...]But for this I'd suppose we'd need displays with very high color accuracy. Eizo OLED's?

*snip*

Actually, I doubt "displays" for this even exists ATM. Right now, it's only used in cinemas with regular(!) projectors and a circular two-part filter spinning with one half in front of the lamp so that every other frame reaches the respective eye, much like with shutters and polarization. If a display is ever released, I'd like to think it uses an active filter synchronized with the framerate.

 

[Nik1]

Since the OP team doesnt give ETAs anymore, how much time would it take for the factory to ship the cases if they are able to finish them by the 15th?

 

[mali]

[...] Usually, shipping companies need 3 - 5 WORKDAYS from China to Canada [...]

 

[Nik1]

[...] Usually, shipping companies need 3 - 5 WORKDAYS from China to Canada [...]

Then another day or two for ED to inspect them and then 3-5 more days for shipping to Dallas for assembly right? Oh boy...