Talk:Active shutter 3D system

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Active shutter 3D system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110409182634/http://www.informationdisplay.org/issues/2009/07/art5/art5.pdf to http://www.informationdisplay.org/issues/2009/07/art5/art5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disadvantages of active shutter systems
An editor (Mlang.Finn) keeps re-adding a note that some HD TVs using the active shutter system only display half the vertical resolution. This article is about the active shutter 3D system not specific badly designed TV types. The halved vertical resolution is not a feature of the active shutter 3D system. That it is feature of the manner in which some TV manufacturers have chosen to implement it is exactly that - a feature of specific TV models and has no place here. Further the reference provided is a broken link so the claim is unreferenced anyway.

Also: the disadvantage about depth distortion due to a mismatch in recording and play back of the left and right images is not a disadvantage of the active shutter 3D system, but a problem with the recording of the media being exhibited (and would also be a problem with any 3D system). At least I assume that was what the disadvantage was claiming because it was not well worded. -- Elektrik Fanne  17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That is an essential detail and must be included. I will update the link. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not getting it. It may be an essential detail of a totally different piece of equipment but it is not a feature of the article subject.   -- Elektrik Fanne   14:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I already noted, it is essential to elaborate that the “advantage” of the active shutter 3D system is often not realized. I find your repeated deletions disruptive. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The essential point is that the reduced vertical resolution is not a disadvantage of the active shutter system in itself. It is a product of the cost cutting design of some 3D TV sets. Many practical applications of technology often do not realise the full capability of a particular system, but that is not an inherent disadvantage of that system.  To draw a parallel allusion: it would be equally wrong to claim that because battery operated portable DVD players replay the Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1 channel sound in 2 channel stereo only, that that is a disadvantage of the Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1 system. It isn't, it's just a result of the way the DVD player has been designed.


 * Your point about the reduced vertical resolution in some 3D TVs may be a valid point to make in 3D television if it could be cited. However, that article does not seem to list the merits and demerits of the various systems (but a summary of them would make a valuable addition to that article).   -- Elektrik Fanne   16:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can but wonder at your hostile attitude. You have repeatedly removed sourced information, which starts to feel like vandalism. In an encyclopædia article, it is fair to explain both how a system operates and how the system is realized in practice — in this case, the purpose is not always carried out ideally, and I see no reason to be reticent about that. (Also your allusion is invalid: we are not talking about portable TV sets or anything like that but TV sets which do show Full HD in 2D.)


 * Misleading advertising for non-Full-HD 3D presentation (540p instead of 1080p) has also been a subject to legal action in Germany, as mentioned in the notice Einigung mit Samsung, Klage gegen LG. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No valid source has been provided. The original source does not exist.  You already know this.


 * Misleading adverting for a TV set has nothing to do with the proper implementation of active shutter 3D systems. Poorly designed TV sets have nothing to do with the features of properly implemented active shutter 3D systems either.   -- Elektrik Fanne   13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you are misleading editors who happen to read this discussion. I provided an archived version of the original source. Improper implementation is — unfortunately — an essential practical feature of the active shutter 3D system, and this may be mentioned in the article. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because some television manufacturers chose to build their televisions with less screen resolution than the active shutter system is intended to work at, does not make that feature a disadvantage of the system under discussion no matter how many citations state that some shonky television sets do not impliment the full specification. The active shutter 3D system, as a system, supports the full spatial resolution of the HD television standard. It does only support half the temporal resolution (the article does say this though indirectly). Television sets doing anything else do not meet the system capabilty and deserve no mention here (otherwise we would have to list every example of a standard not being implimented properly in its appropriate article).

Following from EF's sound example above: a more facetious example, but following MF's logic precisely. We build aeroplanes that feature a full colour display processor. The aeroplanes also feature full colour displays for the pilot. However, the software writers have decided to only impliment monochrome graphics on those displays (actually green on black). If there was an article on this technology (which mercifully there is not), following MF's logic we would have to list the monochrome usage as a disadvantage of the full colour system's capability. That would be a complete nonsense (and there would be a rush to revert it - quite rightly), just as MF's desire to list the fact that some television manufacturers have manufactured sets that have less spatial resolution than intended as a disadvantage of the active shutter 3D system is a complete nonsense. If you buy a cheap crap television (or any product for that matter) do not expect it to fully impliment what it does do, and do not come whining here about it.

Also, the article currently says, "... the active shutter system can retain full resolution ..." (my emphasis), strongly suggesting that television set manufacturers are not compelled to use the full spatial resolution capability. No further comment is required. 185.69.145.217 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your conterexamples are getting more and more far-fetched and unconvincing. It is appropriate to mention that the “advantage” in question is not always realized as nicely the article may lead uninformed readers to believe. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Who's counterexamples? 185.69.145.217 has only provided one.  And I've only given one counter example which is almost identical in concept to your ridiculous aim of including examples of technology that do not use the full capabilities of the article subject as a disadvantage of that system.  185.69.145.217's example of colour displays used in monochrome mode is somewhat more far fetched, I agree (though the fact that early colour TV's could display black and white pictures was actually an advantage).  However, the logic is entirely in accordance with what you are trying to do.  Also his last paragraph is a good observation.  The fact that TV sets don't have to feature the full resolution is indeed already stated in the article (although as in any system, it always was an implied fact).


 * And in spite of your claims to the contrary you have still failed to provide a supporting reference for your position (that the fact that some TV manufacturers do not use the full 1920x1080 resolution is an inherent disadvantage of the active shutter 3D system itself).  -- Elektrik Fanne   14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently you see Wikipedia as a formal, technical manual, not as an encyclopædia. For instance, you might demand that in an article about a movie, an editor is allowed to provide a summary of the plot, but he or she is not allowed to write about the critical or negative reception of the movie (perhaps, especially when you happen to disagree with the reviewers or own a movie theater) because reviews and reception are not “an inherent feature” of the movie in question. I would guess very few editors agree with you in this. In an encyclopædia, information is provided according to its relevance to the general public, not according to some rigid, arbitrary formal principles. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your allusion is nonsensical and a completely different context. Still no reference in support of your claim though ...   -- Elektrik Fanne   16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting relevant and sourced facts mostly constitutes vandalism. Please understand that other editors can find your attitude vexing and belittling and some of your claims untruthful, and act accordingly. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sourced? You have still not shown any source that says that this is a disadvantage of the active shutter system itself - only some shonky TV sets.  Plus, you are adding it to the advantages section where it does not belong anyway.  Removing unsourced material is a core Wikipedia policy.  However, as 185.69.145.217 pointed out, the article already states that TV sets don't have to feature the full resolution, so your point is just repetition.   -- Elektrik Fanne   15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I only need to show that the information is relevant in this particular context. You cannot one-sidedly create new criteria of your own, such as “inherence.” One may very well mention that a certain advantage is not universally realized, and that information is useful to the readers of the article. (I have never claimed that it would be a disadvantage of the system itself.) Your repeated and questionable deletions may be considered vandalism, and you cannot one-sidedly declare that such deletions aren’t disruptive editing. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is rather irrelevant as the point is already in the article.  -- Elektrik Fanne   13:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Active shutter 3D system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalversus.com/tv-television/investigation-active-3d-tvs-full-hd-3d-guaranteed-a1467.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826081944/http://www.3d-audiovisuals.co.uk:80/blog/post/Universal_3DTV_Glasses-619 to http://www.3d-audiovisuals.co.uk/blog/post/Universal_3DTV_Glasses-619

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)