After HD, here comes 3D TV

[TCM2007]

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sky-3dtv-will-be-launched-in-2010-621310

I've seen it in action, and it is impressive, but I think this may ba a step too far/too soon for most folks.

[Automan]

But do you not need yet another new HD TV which is "3D Ready"?

And if we all do spend another 4 figure sum how much 3D content are we going to get?

Automan.

[AMc]

I saw Ice Age 3 in 3D with my kid recently. I was quite impressed, but I can't imagine watching all my telly that way - they probably said that about colour didn't they ;) ?

[kitschcamp]

If it involved wearing special glasses, I don't see me doing it on a regular basis. Maybe if visiting a friend, but... Technology should be transparent for mass adoption.

[steveroe]

If it involved wearing special glasses, I don't see me doing it on a regular basis. Maybe if visiting a friend, but...

A maxim for life. :)

[Pete77]

If it doesn't require wearing any special glasses I can see myself getting round to upgrading my old 4:3 2D television for one of these devices if and when such broadcasts come to FTA television and/or the Grand Prix season and Grand Slam tennis is broadcast in this format.

But can TCM tell us how the 3D sets handle the 2D broadcasts that will be with us for many more years to come on most of the other channels? Do they handle them just as well as a 2D 4:3 high end Plasma television?

[Raisltin Majere]

Together they create a 1920x1080 image that – in quality terms – is a quarter as good as the Full HD 1080p pictures found on a Blu-ray disc.

What am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?

[Pete77]

What am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?

Raisltin,

Presumably this must be some kind of compromise representing a Mark 1 development stage for the 3D product and it must be more difficult to make a display that can do both 3D and have the same absolute picture resolution. One would expect the resolution of these 3D screens to increase as time goes by.

It also seems obvious that the main point of the 3D product is of course to allow Sky to charge you an even more extortionate subscription than they already do to those who are willing to pay to be ripped off for Sky HD.

Personally my interest in this product will only begin if 3D starts to be available on FTA television.

Although I was initially angry that I could no longer watch the cricket test matches (especially The Ashes) on FTA television (unless one wants to risk copyright theft charges and having one's broadband connection cut off if Peter Mandelson gets his way) I actually find that having to exclusively use Test Match Special to follow the game is almost like renewing an acquaintance with an old long lost friend and if anything Test Match Special is even more fun now than when I used to listen to it in school lunch breaks 30+ years ago. I'm also amazed that Blowers and CMJ are still going strong after all these years although Bill Frindell's humourless replacement cannot last and they must find someone better.

[mikerr]

Together they create a 1920x1080 image that – in quality terms – is a quarter as good as the Full HD 1080pWhat am I missing? What's the point if it's worse than existing technology?

1/4 full HD is "normal" SD quality isn't it?

So it might have been better to say "3D will initially be available at SD resolutions, 3D HD comes later..."


New TV needed, AND needs special glasses... not going to take off anytime soon.

If there was demand, surely we'd have seen a 3d channel using the red/green method by now...

[Pete77]

New TV needed, AND needs special glasses... not going to take off anytime soon.

If there was demand, surely we'd have seen a 3d channel using the red/green method by now...

Sky knows that the completion of digital switchover is the last hurrah for increasing their customer numbers any further. After that they can only grow by increasing average revenue per customer. They can only do this by introducing new products and claiming they have major advantages that customers should pay them more for.

Yes we know that 3D viewing is of dubious benefit as the technology was invented over 50 years ago in the cinema but has never taken off due to all the disadvantages involved in 3D viewing. But that doesn't matter if Sky thinks it is something that will let them make more money. In my view PVRs and related technology are a major customer advance but widescreen tvs, HDTV and 3DTV are by and large all things Sky and the television manufacturers have pushed because they need them in order to justify people buying new tv equipment and new services to support it when their old equipment still works perfectly well.:eek::mad:

[iankb]

I saw 'Friday the 13th Part III' in 3D in the early 80's, and was amazed at the quality, and the effectiveness of the special effects; like when Jason(?) turned round and nearly poked my eye out with his broom handle.

And when the titles of a trailer zoomed out of the screen and stopped 6 inches in front of my face. When they then moved another 12 inches, people were screaming and falling over the back of their seats :eek:

It used polarised glasses, but needed a special metallised screen that was capable of reflecting the polarisation accurately.

I saw a more recent example based upon 100% CGI in an IMAX cinema, and that also used lightweight polarised glasses.

Having used shutter-based 3D with a PC, I find this to be harder to use long-term, because of the heavier weight of the glasses, and the smaller area covered by the more-expensive LCD panel; especially when on top of normal spectacles. I used wireless glasses to avoid dragging wires around, but this used infra-red for its shutter synchronisation, and that caused havoc with my video sender and the TiVo. :D

I never really understood why they didn't continue with 3D films in the cinema, especially with their ability to improve upon the lesser experience of home theatre systems. Since most CGI is 3D at source, it would be relatively easy to re-render that for 3D viewing, in the same way as they re-rendered it for HD.

Personally, I would prefer (but maybe not afford) a home 3D system based upon polarised glasses and a projector, rather than a shutter-based solution.

[Pete77]

I saw 'Friday the 13th Part III' in 3D in the early 80's, and was amazed at the quality, and the effectiveness of the special effects; like when Jason(?) turned round and nearly poked my eye out with his broom handle.

It takes a brave man indeed to admit to enjoying a slasher horror flick like this one. And all the more so to admit to enjoying it even more in 3D.:eek:

I once accidentally watched one of the Nightmare on Elm Street series on Sky Movies during a free trial period of an analogue distributed cable version of Sky in a block of flats where I lived and had sleepless nights for several days afterwards. I don't mind Vincent Price or Hammer House of Horror stuff at all but the Friday The 13th and Freddie series of movies (not to mention the Hellraiser series) are of a quite different order of nastyness and if anything needs an R18 certification it is these movies rather than the relatively harmless stuff with an R18 certificate to be found in the average high street sex shop (assuming that is that there are any left nowadays given that most people tend to watch such stuff via the internet).