Been away from the thread for a couple days, have lots to respond to!
I don't understand your reasoning. Why would DirecTV include a 2009 model in their list, when we all know that hdmi 1.4a was not adopted until 2010 and no preceding year's models support it? Is that a possible mistake? Besides, I didn't say my "TV wasn't capable of converting a SBS signal into 3d". What I said was subtly different -- that it "could in fact not display DirecTV's 3d signal in 3d". That model, pn42b450, according to its manual, can display in 3d a SBS 728x1024 signal. So it is "capable of converting a SBS signal into 3d." (Of course, the DirecTV boxes don't supply signals at that resolution.)
I simply read that as your display couldn’t handle the 3d format that was being sent to it from the DirecTV receiver, yet the receiver allowed it anyway. IF
DirecTV (and your display) are following the 1.4 3d spec by the book, and using ONLY the 1.4 spec to determine what it does and doesn’t send to the display, that shouldn’t happen. Not only does the handshake say whether or not it can handle 3d, it says what specific formats and resolutions it can handle. If your TV can’t handle what DirecTV is sending, technically you should have gotten the same message the rest of us are getting. From the 1.4 spec: “An HDMI Source shall not send any 3D video format to a Sink that does not indicate support for that
format.”. That is why I said your experience suggests a white list rather than just blindly following the HDMI signaling. It would seem more likely for DirecTV to make a mistake on a list, than for the TV to respond as supporting a signal that it can’t.
Seems the argument is "My Blu-Ray player does it .. Why can't DIRECTV"
I wouldn’t put it exactly that way… it’s more “DirecTV says my TV isn’t 3d capable, but it is. Other sources don’t have this problem, so it’s obviously an issue that can be worked around."
There exists a group of people who invested in 3D televisions that are older and do not use the format that DirecTV has decided to pursue. Understandable these people are not happy with this.
Just for clarification, I think for the vast majority of us, the format isn’t the issue. TI came up with a 3d format that was used on legacy 3d ready TVs, the industry ultimately went a different way, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Fortunately Mitsubishi stood by its customers and offered an adapter to convert the new formats to the old format. The issue is when customers have displays that ARE capable of the current formats (be it a new set that handles it natively, or an old set with an adapter), yet DirecTV’s equipment insists that it’s not a 3d device.
All the rhetoric 'contra' arguments sounds to me as SW Dept manager's excuses. Hear that many times.
By taking away the "wrong" choice Directv is protecting their business from the type of people that we put warning labels about the dangers of electricity on electronic items for.
I’m still failing to understand what kinds of “dangers” are involved here. We just want to be able to view 3d on our 3d TVs.
If it’s the case that DirecTV's implementation of EDID & VSI isn’t working correctly then it’s not a situation where you want to give the viewer the option to bypass blocking the 3D signal.
The firmware not working correctly becomes a matter of reporting specific 3D problems in the applicable issues thread and getting it problem fixed.
Giving the viewer the option to bypass DirecTV's implementation just to watch 3D would just create a work around that masks the real problem.
I don’t perceive the issue being that EDID and VSI aren’t working correctly. It’s simply that the way it was designed eliminates the possibility of backwards compatibility. It’s not “broken” per se, it’s just written with the assumption that the consumer has bottomless pockets and doesn’t mind upgrading their entire system every time the HDMI organization comes up with a new standard. Fortunately, most manufacturers have recognized that this isn’t in the best interest of their customers, and have provided a workaround for this particular part of the spec.
If DTV eliminates the EDID check and the handshake the 3D signal could be sent through the legacy AVRs to any TV. The problem with this is that the Panasonic customers would have to manually switch their TVs to 3D mode so the seamless operation is lost …
FWIW, I'm pretty sure DTV tried to fix this issue in early July by removing the EDID checks but changed back when they recieved complaints from several customers who were using new Panasonic 3D TVs. This is just a guess based on observation and various tech forum entries..
So that means that they'd have to find a way to make other configurations work, without breaking the "automatic" nature of the Panasonic TV's and other working configurations? That does mean that it would likely be a more complex fix, which means likely a more expensive fix.
I’m not convinced that allowing a work-around and having 3d autoswitch are mutually exclusive. The spec says that a source won’t send a signal that the connecting device doesn’t report that it supports. The “problem” occurs when the DirecTV receiver is connected to a device that doesn’t report back that it’s capable of the 3d signal it’s trying to send. In that case, it just won’t even send the video signal to the device. ALLOWING the signal to go anyway shouldn’t change the way things work for newer TVs that understand (and respond to) the handshake. If the header information says it’s a 3d signal, they should autoswitch. It seems much more likely to me that the issue a couple weeks ago was that somehow, those channels simply got coded that they weren’t 3d. Therefore, the auto-switch didn’t happen, and the receiver didn’t care whether or not the device it was connected to was 3d.
Is DIRECTV wrong for following the standard or are the other vendors wrong for NOT following the standard? …
The Blu-Ray player either chose to disregard the spec or ignored it completely and then works. DIRECTV has chosen to follow the spec and folks here are asking that DIRECTV NOT follow the spec. So what's right? Right is probably to follow the spec, but understandably it feels wrong. …
So NOT following standards is the right choice?
It’s interesting that this is being portrayed as some type of right/wrong or even “moral” issue. It seems much more simple (or at least tangible) to me: The HDMI organization put a rule in the 1.4 spec that essentially says that a source device shall not send a signal to an end device that the end device can’t understand. On the surface, that seems very logical, just like it’s very logical to not send a 24p signal to a display that can’t handle it. The problem, of course, is that you COULD end up in a situation where the source is sending a signal that can’t be displayed, and once you do that, it’s difficult to fix because you can no longer see the interface to switch it back to something that works. And I’m sure that the rule was intended with the good intention of preventing such a situation. The problem obviously is that without an override, you are essentially forcing customers to upgrade equipment that doesn’t need to be upgraded. Fortunately, many manufacturers have recognized this potential pitfall, and have enabled a work-around for their customers.
In the case of DirecTV, the risk is particularly benign, because the formats they use LOOK like a regular HD signal. Sending a frame-packed signal (e.g. 3d Blu-ray) to a display that can’t handle it could likely cause the screen to go black. But the formats DirecTV uses simply results in a (side by side, or potentially top/bottom) double image. You can still view and make out the image, so it's easy to fix if you accidentally enable it on a 2d display. Even if they were to use a format in the future that could potentially result in a black screen on a non-HD display, they already have a workaround for that for 24p. You say you want that format, but it doesn’t stick until you’ve confirmed that it actually works. If you don’t don’t confirm the change (after not being able to see the prompt in how to respond saying you do), it reverts back to the “normal” format. Simple.
We’re not talking about anything significant here. It’s not (or shouldn’t be) something controversial like abortion or religion. We’re simply asking for a workaround (like other manufacturers have allowed) to allow some backwards compatibility so we don’t have to go off and replace perfectly good receivers that don’t have any problem relaying the signal. Technically, it wouldn't even violate any "rules". DirecTV receivers aren't 1.4 devices. They are simply using the standards the industry (and the 1.4 spec) have adopted. That doesn't mean they have to adopt every part of 1.4. In fact, they CAN'T adopt every part of 1.4, because the hardware isn't capable. Why is this such a big deal?
And last, but not least:
Hey Darin, how've you been?
A bit frustrated, but otherwise well. Hope all is well with you too!
Friends don't let friends buy PPV.