Doctor Who 50th Anniversary to be in 3D

17891012

Comments

  • CallousCallous Posts: 11,957
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DICKENS99 wrote: »
    I would also hope that the extra time 'tail' needed to produce in 3D did not wag the production dog and impact on the length of the anniversary special.

    The viewing figures will make interesting reading though, be funny if this is the show that makes the breakthrough and has everyone enthusing about the 3D, just as the beeb cancels the initiative.

    Well 3D viewing figures will likely be limited to a degree thanks to the BBC shutting down BBCHD.

    You can't view wimbledon 3D on Sky now (and Sky are the ones pushing the 3D format most) as there's no longer a channel to put that programming on.

    ..and of course without having a 3D version on Sky to record people won't be able to sky plus it to view later/watch again..so that won't help either.

    Still, 3D Blu Ray sales might be decent (I'd hope they'd release it in that format).
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    Delboy219 wrote: »
    "lack of public appetite" :p

    I can't wait till the digital spy 3D lovers see this story. It's only like, two or three guys, but they keep posting in 3D threads saying it's amazing, and on the up & up. Not according to the beeb it's not.

    Because the BBC are genius pioneers and know everything.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Media_Initiative
  • TEDRTEDR Posts: 3,413
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Delboy219 wrote: »
    I can't wait till the digital spy 3D lovers see this story. It's only like, two or three guys, but they keep posting in 3D threads saying it's amazing, and on the up & up. Not according to the beeb it's not.

    I think you made a typo. Allow me: "I can't wait till the 3D lovers see this story. It's only like, two or three guys ..."

    3D displays, in their current iteration, are predicated on the assumption that the viewer will sit in a specific position with their head in a specific orientation and that they'll use headwear that dedicates their attention to that one task. None of this matches how people actually watch television.

    Compound that with incredibly poor content — much of it shot without any record of the third dimension and converted by computer to produce the world as Paddington Bear sees it.

    Good riddance.
  • Dave-HDave-H Posts: 9,925
    Forum Member
    Duplicate post.
    :o
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. It is wrong of the BBC to waste license fee payers money on 3D when only a fraction of said people will actually benefit from this 3D. However, the BBC produce shows that barely a percent of license fee payers watch, so... shouldn't they all in that case be cancelled?! \o/

    Which brings me to my next point; the license fee is outdated and poor, but I wont get into that.

    What I will get at is that people saying "3D should die because I don't like 3D" is like colour blind people saying "Everything should be made in black and white because the universe revolves around me and I said so"...

    self·ish /ˈselfiSH/ Adjective
    (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

    Synonyms:
    egoistic - self-seeking - self-centered - self-centred

    If you're gonna argue about the BBC wasting money, argue about the DMI project, argue about the abhorrent crap they keep producing, but don't argue about something simply because you "don't like it".
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TEDR wrote: »
    3D displays, in their current iteration, are predicated on the assumption that the viewer will sit in a specific position with their head in a specific orientation and that they'll use headwear that dedicates their attention to that one task. None of this matches how people actually watch television.

    You need to prefix that with 'Active'. No problem with passive to surf the net and view at the same time, and with some sets giving seven pairs of glasses the whole family can view from very wide angles.
  • TEDRTEDR Posts: 3,413
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    You need to prefix that with 'Active'. No problem with passive to surf the net and view at the same time, and with some sets giving seven pairs of glasses the whole family can view from very wide angles.

    But the stereoscopy is still calculated for a person sitting front and centre, looking straight forwards, with a level head. If you're off to the side, above or below the screen, or If your head is not bolt upright, then the two images delivered are not representative of how you'd actually see the scene.
  • Irma BuntIrma Bunt Posts: 1,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    3D is a gimmick. It has always been a gimmick. It always will be a gimmick. Yes, it's been a recent fad, but it's on the wane now, even in cinemas. Doubtless it'll rise its ugly head again in a few years time, be hailed as "the next big thing", then slowly fade away.

    Such is life.
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People that sarcastically post dictionary definitions, you really should take a good hard look at yourself.

    Good day.
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    Delboy219 wrote: »
    People that sarcastically post dictionary definitions, you really should take a good hard look at yourself.

    Good day.

    It wasn't sarcasm.

    Good day.
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm glad the beeb are ditching your precious 3D.

    Good day.
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    I'm going out because I have a life.

    Good day.
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Have fun, don't get too wasted.

    I'm staying in tonight to watch A Field in England. :D
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    Ooh I want to see that, I loved Ben Wheatley's Sightseers! :D
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sightseers is the only Wheatley film i haven't got a hold of yet. I think i'll pick up the bluray, as i've yet to hear a bad word said about it. :)
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    It's a brilliant film! Saw the trailer then ordered the Blu-ray, hilarious film well worth it! :) Gimme a low budget Brit comedy over a $200mil "blockbuster" any day!
  • tomwozheretomwozhere Posts: 1,081
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just want to watch it at the pictures.
  • mrprossermrprosser Posts: 2,260
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ryanellis wrote: »
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. It is wrong of the BBC to waste license fee payers money on 3D when only a fraction of said people will actually benefit from this 3D.

    Was it wrong of the BBC to use licence fee payers money to experiment with televisions in 1938? After all those broadcasts were only of benefit to a limited few who had a hugely expensive sets and lived within a few miles of London.

    Was it wrong of the BBC to in 1967 to start broadcasting in 'HD" and colour when few people had sets capable of displaying 625 line colour pictures?

    Was it wrong of the BBC to start broadcasting in NICAM stereo in 1986 even though no-one had TV sets that supported the feature?

    And don't forget ceefax, or widescreen, or HD etc.

    All these things had to be pioneered by the BBC, using funds from the licence fee. The BBC has always pioneered new broadcasting technologies with funds from the licence fee, as it is part of their remit from the government.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As part of its Charter obligations, the BBC has a number of public purposes, the final one being:
    (f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf

    Trialling 3D falls into this category
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I might just add that I'm glad that no more resource will be wasted on this format - public interest never really took off, and save for a small group of die-hards, I have never seen it as a product that had a future
  • ryanellisryanellis Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    mrprosser wrote: »
    Was it wrong of the BBC to use licence fee payers money to experiment with televisions in 1938? After all those broadcasts were only of benefit to a limited few who had a hugely expensive sets and lived within a few miles of London.

    Was it wrong of the BBC to in 1967 to start broadcasting in 'HD" and colour when few people had sets capable of displaying 625 line colour pictures?

    Was it wrong of the BBC to start broadcasting in NICAM stereo in 1986 even though no-one had TV sets that supported the feature?

    And don't forget ceefax, or widescreen, or HD etc.

    All these things had to be pioneered by the BBC, using funds from the licence fee. The BBC has always pioneered new broadcasting technologies with funds from the licence fee, as it is part of their remit from the government.

    Well... That was out of context... What I then said was "However, the BBC produce shows that barely a percent of license fee payers watch, so... shouldn't they all in that case be cancelled?! \o/"

    I was trying to prove a point, I'm a massive supporter of new technologies and I've said in these forums before or somewhere that I bet people complained before about money being spent on "useless colour" and they were wrong. It annoys me as much as you and as a license fee payer myself I wish the BBC let us have a say in the matter, with what they spend our money on. Im pretty sure there would be a lot of
    changes afoot.

    But was I was trying to do was point out the lunacy and selfishness of people. Those of you that pay your license fee, and get your lovely beloved Eastenders, your daytime TV, your antiquing shows, your radio shows, shows for your kids, that's lovely for you. I pay a license fee too, can't I have something that amounts to more than the 10 hours of BBC programming I watch in a YEAR?! \o/

    If the BBC hadn't stuck to the charter before we wouldn't have gone colour, or HD... In decades time when TVs are glasses free and 3D is commonplace the BBC will be looked back on as "pioneers" and the BBC themselves will regret not producing more 3D content. That's the reason 3D isn't kicking off! Who'd buy a 3D TV just to see one Wimbledon match every year or whatever, really BBC, really?!

    The BBC are clearly trying to save face (and money) in light of the DMI project disaster, and in my opinion have lost all little credibility they ever had left. If 50% of 3D TV owners watched one of the BBC's broadcasts (can't remember what it was now) then clearly there's a demand that needs to be met. The BBC NEVER advertise a 3D broadcast properly...

    But just because the BBC have jettisoned 3D doesn't make it dead. Huge percentages of films these days are made up of 3D sales alone, if the viewing experience at home could be the same as watching a 2D show ie unlimited angles on a glasses free TV, then people would watch.its just a shame technology hasn't advanced that far today for it to be cheap enough...

    In conclusion, people who's argument consists of "I don't likey" or "it's a fad" have about the validity of someone getting Eastenders cancelled because they don't watch it. The BBC are obliged to frontier new technologies, and as license fee payers we are all entitled to our say, but before they get rid of 3D, how about getting rid of the ridiculously high paid management? The projects akin to DMI in which millions are being wasted? Anyway ill end my essay there, give somebody the chance to trash 3D...
  • nattoyakinattoyaki Posts: 7,080
    Forum Member
    Will passive 3D work?

    We just got a passive 3D set (the cinema type with the cheap glasses and which are increasingly common I believe -?). It wasn't the reason we chose the set, but thought it might be an interesting bonus.

    The announced on the BBC today that Wimbledon today would be in 3D for both passive and active 3D sets, including on Freeview (as well as Sky, Freesat and something else, but not BT Vision as we have) through the red button.

    Tried the red button and there's only one 3D option, and using that set the screen to the active shutter type (two screens side by side). What's more, the default sound was the Radio 5 Live commentary (talking over the umpire and everything else!).

    Took me about five minutes to get out of the bloomin' thing and back to a regular picture and the BBC1 commentary.

    I'd like to watch the special in 3D but with nothing else I've heard about being broadcast by the BBC before that for me to check if their system actually works in future for passive TV sets, I'm not prepared to 'risk it' and mess about during the special!
  • CallousCallous Posts: 11,957
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    nattoyaki wrote: »
    Will passive 3D work?

    We just got a passive 3D set (the cinema type with the cheap glasses and which are increasingly common I believe -?). It wasn't the reason we chose the set, but thought it might be an interesting bonus.

    The announced on the BBC today that Wimbledon today would be in 3D for both passive and active 3D sets, including on Freeview (as well as Sky, Freesat and something else, but not BT Vision as we have) through the red button.

    Tried the red button and there's only one 3D option, and using that set the screen to the active shutter type (two screens side by side). What's more, the default sound was the Radio 5 Live commentary (talking over the umpire and everything else!).

    Took me about five minutes to get out of the bloomin' thing and back to a regular picture and the BBC1 commentary.

    I'd like to watch the special in 3D but with nothing else I've heard about being broadcast by the BBC before that for me to check if their system actually works in future for passive TV sets, I'm not prepared to 'risk it' and mess about during the special!

    Side by side isn't active shutter only. It's the standard broadcast signal for all 3D. It works fine on passive tv's (it'll work on yours if you press the right button).

    On broadcast 3D you have to press the 3d button on your remote and select the side by side option (at least that's how it is on my passive set). 3D broadcasts don't automatically activate your tv's 3d mode, you have to do that yourself.

    Only 3D on blu-ray plays automatically in 3D (from my experience at least). Anything else and you have to activate the 3D mode on your tv.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Callous wrote: »
    On broadcast 3D you have to press the 3d button on your remote and select the side by side option (at least that's how it is on my passive set).
    And I am sure that instruction was given by Sue Barker at the start of today's final.
  • CallousCallous Posts: 11,957
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    And I am sure that instruction was given by Sue Barker at the start of today's final.

    :p Well lets be honest..if you don't read the tv instruction manual then you're not going to get much of anything to work beyond the basics.....be it HD ,3D, surround sound or smart tv functionality.

    It's amazing how many people with HDTV's and HD devices still don't have a clue they aren't watching in HD because they didn't alter settings/buy a HDMI lead.
Sign In or Register to comment.