http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/ Engadget Comments for HD 101: The difference between sequential and side by side 3D http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/Jan 12th 2010 5:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/
What's interesting is that no firmware is required to decode the side by side 3D signal. They only needed to update the UI to render over 3D and the HDMI to shake with a 3D TV so it knows the display can handle the 3D signal.]]>Jan 12th 2010 6:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/Jan 12th 2010 7:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/so is 1080p, shit so is T.V but moving forward is moving forward. The closer we get to virtual reality/holodeck the better. ]]>Jan 13th 2010 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/This is not a new concept and is nothing more than a "GIMMIC"

I am all for "CAVES" , "Holodecks", but yet again Content,Content,Content and cost , cost , cost.

I am also disappointing in the very slow roll out for HD and the fact that we are moving to 3D so quickly, full HD TV for our current TV's being years away.]]>Jan 13th 2010 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/Jan 12th 2010 10:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/Jan 13th 2010 12:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd-101-the-difference-between-sequential-and-side-by-side-3d/
side-by-side: half horizontal resolution

"Xpol" line-inerleaved: half vertical resolution.

This also means, if 3D content is stored in side-by-side and displayed as line-interleaved, you end up with a quarter of the originial resolution.

Anaglyph / ColorCode: horrific color quality, headache inducing.

Checkerboard: half resolution, but since it's somewhat "diagonally" half, it's easier to upscale back to original frames.

Full HD sequential: requires frame parity signalling. HDMI 1.4 does this by placement in an enlarged video frame. Others seem to sacrifice the last line for "blue-lining". The "noticebale flicker" they mention occurs only when the frame rate can not be doubled for the transmission. HDMI 1.4 does this doubling.

Above-below (also called over-under, top-bottom): half vertical resolution.

line interleaved and checkerboard can not be encoded with the current video codecs, because the 4:2:0 color compression would result in sharing the same color for the left and right frames.]]>Jan 13th 2010 4:50PM