|
||||||||
3d Tv |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10
|
3d Tv
I have a couple of question reguarding 3D TV that someone with one could maybe help
1, When I record 3D TV on to a sky hd box does take more space that normal TVHD ? and how much more 2, If I have a 3D TV can I use my current blu ray player or must I have a 3d blu ray player 3, is the sound still only 5.1 or 7.1 ? 4, I can currently record down from my sky hd box in sd to my dvd recorder using scart, I guess I would not be able to do this as the hdmi would allow the broadcaster to stop this , or could i record directly onto the blu ray player from sky hd box ? thanks Simon |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
No, any broadcast 3d is cobbled together 3d, its 3d signal crammed into the same space as the original, it is an inferior solution by default. How do you get double the frame rate into the same signal? You don't, you halve the resolution and other nonsense. Theres no magic to get 1080i/p 3d doubled frame rate into the same signal. Only bluray is full 1080p 3d. So no, it takes no more space, its essentially a hack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
1. No, same space for 3D and HD content. 3D on sky is NOT 1080 resolution
2. Yes you can use your current blu-ray player to watch non-3D discs 3. Don't know but I am guessing Sky will be 5.1 4. You can still output SD, the only thing HDCP stops is copying HD signal. If it does not detect HDCP compatible device, it automatically downscales. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
2. Yes you can use your current blu-ray player to watch non-3D discs
Sorry my question was I can watch some 3d movies with my current blu ray player today, but if I want to watch future 3d blu rays, do I need to get another 3d blu ray payer or can my current one play these its a panasonic sc-bt100 thanks Simon |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,590
|
To play 3d discs you need a 3d player. You can currently play colour glasses 3d, not proper 3d. It'll be a long time before there are 3d capable all in ones, it's a high end product, and likely to remain so for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
Sorry my question was
I can watch some 3d movies with my current blu ray player today, but if I want to watch future 3d blu rays, do I need to get another 3d blu ray payer or can my current one play these its a panasonic sc-bt100 thanks Simon |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
Sorry my question was
I can watch some 3d movies with my current blu ray player today, but if I want to watch future 3d blu rays, do I need to get another 3d blu ray payer or can my current one play these its a panasonic sc-bt100 thanks Simon |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
how is colour code not 3d ? it works fine providing you have the proper colour specticals and is a huge improvement over the original red blue from the 1950s giving 3d in full colour
there is more than just active shutter glasses for 3d TV |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,590
|
Quote:
how is colour code not 3d ? it works fine providing you have the proper colour specticals and is a huge improvement over the original red blue from the 1950s giving 3d in full colour
there is more than just active shutter glasses for 3d TV |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
Color code 3d is not real 3d. Its another hack as I was talking about. Full double frame rate 1080p bluray 3d requires 3d bluray, 3d tv, and lcd 3d glasses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
So passive 3D as used in the cinema is not real 3D ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
No, any broadcast 3d is cobbled together 3d, its 3d signal crammed into the same space as the original, it is an inferior solution by default. How do you get double the frame rate into the same signal? You don't, you halve the resolution and other nonsense. Theres no magic to get 1080i/p 3d doubled frame rate into the same signal. Only bluray is full 1080p 3d. So no, it takes no more space, its essentially a hack.
I don't pretend to know the answer so am not arguing either way. It's a complex subject because it it's related to the way the brain processes these 3D signals, the viewer is getting just as much information as with 2D but is getting it in one eye at a time instead of two. I repeat again I'm not putting forward an argument either for a loss of perceived resolution or no loss, I don't pretend to know. There do seem to be a lot of people saying what they think should be the case without linking any evidence - okay this is not a scientific journal so links aren't usually necessary but I do have concerns about how much of all this is supported by research and how much is supposition. Hopefully there has been research done on this that is in the public domain. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
If you encode the image at half the resolution for each eye in order to fit the bandwidth and signal of a regular broadcast, its half the resolution. There is nothing special about perception with 3d that adds resolution, you simply need twice the frame rate and thus twice the bandwidth to do real 3d at a given resolution. Broadcast hacks this because they can't double the bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
If you encode the image at half the resolution for each eye in order to fit the bandwidth and signal of a regular broadcast, its half the resolution. There is nothing special about perception with 3d that adds resolution, you simply need twice the frame rate and thus twice the bandwidth to do real 3d at a given resolution. Broadcast hacks this because they can't double the bandwidth.
If I was to make an assumption it would be that the image would be worse however that would just be an assumption not backed by evidence. Proper experimentation is required to properly find out what the real affect is, anything else is guess work - okay the guess may well turn out to be correct but I require evidence rather than guesswork. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
No, each eye doesn't see half the information, each eye see's the same lower resolution image from a different perspective, there is no detail gained from such a setup. You aren't interlacing each eye, each eye gets its own separate full half resolution image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
|
Quote:
Do you have any links to research that demonstrates there is a lack of perceived resolution of Sky 3D compared to 2D? (Clearly if Blu-ray contains twice as much information them that is likely to be better in the same way that 2D Blu-ray is usually better than 2D Sky).
I don't pretend to know the answer so am not arguing either way. It's a complex subject because it it's related to the way the brain processes these 3D signals, the viewer is getting just as much information as with 2D but is getting it in one eye at a time instead of two. I repeat again I'm not putting forward an argument either for a loss of perceived resolution or no loss, I don't pretend to know. There do seem to be a lot of people saying what they think should be the case without linking any evidence - okay this is not a scientific journal so links aren't usually necessary but I do have concerns about how much of all this is supported by research and how much is supposition. Hopefully there has been research done on this that is in the public domain. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
No, each eye doesn't see half the information, each eye see's the same lower resolution image from a different perspective, there is no detail gained from such a setup. You aren't interlacing each eye, each eye gets its own separate full half resolution image.
I'll wait to see what "proper research" says on this before I come to any conclusion one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
I believe sky will be broadcast 3D at 720 resolution and that is with increased compression compared to non 3D broadcast. As you say the total amount of data is the same, but now half the data is being used to provide the 3D feature, not increase resolution of image.
BluRay works in a completely different fashion though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
Yes which is different information than the other eye gets. How this will affect the viewing is complex because the eyes and brain are not simple cameras as you seem to be treating them.
I'll wait to see what "proper research" says on this before I come to any conclusion one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Agree with pocatello here bobcar. The sets them selves have to stretch an image that is less than half 1920 pixels wide to fill the 1920 pixel width screen. Each eye see's this half 1920 pixel image. The half 1920 images are flashed at the screen twice as fast as a normal 1920x1080i picture so that the combination of frames for the left eye and the right eye are perceived by the eye to displayed at the same rate (and also at the same time as your eyes would perceive a normal 1920x1080i signal)
Blu-ray gives the option of a single perceived image being made up of 1920x1080 pixels resolution to each eye. This means the images are being being refreshed 4 time more often than a 1920x1080i signal. This obviously results in a much sharper picture than broadcast can give. http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-side-by-side-3d/ this describes what I tried to much better! Last edited by skinj : 15-09-2010 at 21:49. Reason: useful link |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Agree with pocatello here bobcar. The sets them selves have to stretch an image that is less than half 1920 pixels wide to fill the 1920 pixel width screen. Each eye see's this half 1920 pixel image. The half 1920 images are flashed at the screen twice as fast as a normal 1920x1080i picture so that the combination of frames for the left eye and the right eye are perceived by the eye to displayed at the same rate (and also at the same time as your eyes would perceive a normal 1920x1080i signal)
Blu-ray gives the option of a single perceived image being made up of 1920x1080 pixels resolution to each eye. This means the images are being being refreshed 4 time more often than a 1920x1080i signal. This obviously results in a much sharper picture than broadcast can give. http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-side-by-side-3d/ this describes what I tried to much better! Obviously Blu-ray 3D will give better quality than Sky 3D for the same simple and straightforward reasons that Blu-ray 2D is better, this is not really in any doubt however it does depend to a large extent on viewing distances as to how much of an improvement there will be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
My point is that I have not seen any properly conducted experiments that show how the splitting of the signal affects the perceived resolution, our eyes and brain are not cameras and assuming them as such may not lead to the correct conclusion. I am not suggesting (nor have I suggested, I've always been clear on the point) that there will not be deterioration (it does seem quite likely there will be) just that I will not jump to the conclusion based upon insufficient knowledge and research.
Obviously Blu-ray 3D will give better quality than Sky 3D for the same simple and straightforward reasons that Blu-ray 2D is better, this is not really in any doubt however it does depend to a large extent on viewing distances as to how much of an improvement there will be. If your assertion were true as I said, any 3d could be marketed as "enhanced resolution", in fact you could be sure the marketers would jump on this in a snap, esp if there were actual scientific evidence backing it up. Bluray 3d is better because of the simple fact that its full 1080p resolution for each eye. Its your job to come up with proof of enhanced resolution through 3d. You have no reason at all to even begin to claim that 3d gives enhanced resolution in the first place, its not mentioned anywhere, so to bring up grave doubts over it is just not justified. If you think the human visual system has not been studied enough for people to know whether 3d can double resolution, you are giving scientists way too little credit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Its your job to come up with proof of enhanced resolution through 3d. You have no reason at all to even begin to claim that 3d gives enhanced resolution in the first place, its not mentioned anywhere, so to bring up grave doubts over it is just not justified. You have said that the perceived resolution is reduced so you are the one to have made a claim that needs to be justified. It may well be that there is a perceived reduction (indeed I think that is the most likely case) however you have not produced any evidence for this only your own suppositions. It would be good for you to produce this evidence. I have no axe to grind on this at all and would be interested in the result. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
|
Quote:
It's not my job to do anything of the sort and I have made no such claim! I don't see how I could have been more explicit from the start in saying I did not know what the result would be.
You have said that the perceived resolution is reduced so you are the one to have made a claim that needs to be justified. It may well be that there is a perceived reduction (indeed I think that is the most likely case) however you have not produced any evidence for this only your own suppositions. It would be good for you to produce this evidence. I have no axe to grind on this at all and would be interested in the result. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:05.

