DS Forums

 
 

3d Tv


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-09-2010, 21:29
Simon3000Gt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10

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
Simon3000Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-09-2010, 17:21
pocatello
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.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 17:58
c4rv
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.
c4rv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 18:42
Simon3000Gt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10
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
Simon3000Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 19:10
MAW
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.
MAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 22:12
c4rv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
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
Checked out the specification of your blu-ray player and it looks like the answer is no. No support for modern 3D playback.
c4rv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 23:50
pocatello
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
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
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.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 00:46
Robert__law
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
Robert__law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 06:39
MAW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,590
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
It can never be full colour. It never looks the same, colour wise, asthe 2D version.
MAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 09:17
c4rv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
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.
So passive 3D as used in the cinema is not real 3D ?
c4rv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 09:42
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
So passive 3D as used in the cinema is not real 3D ?
It's a far inferior form of 3D, as is the LG system that Sky fit in the pubs - but the cost of glasses means it's the only alternative.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 10:32
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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.
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 13:08
pocatello
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.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 14:26
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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.
You still see the same image (well amount of information) just that only one eye sees each "half". The question is what happens within the brain in terms of how it deals with each eye only seeing half.

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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 14:35
pocatello
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.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 15:52
c4rv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Essex
Posts: 16,223
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.
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.
c4rv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 15:59
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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.
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 16:21
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
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.
Looking at how the picture is received it appears to be simply half the horizontal resolution, as the two pictures are displayed side by side. Setting the TV to the correct mode means the set takes the two images and displays them in 3D form.

BluRay works in a completely different fashion though.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 20:21
pocatello
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
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.
There is no conclusion to come to, the only additional information is depth cues. The eyes only have two half resolution images to work with, there is no magic rendering of new detail in the brain as you are imagining, else every 3d film could be marketed as enhanced resolution as well. Not sure why you are arguing, the simple fact is the broadcast 3d is working with half the resolution, and thats that.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 21:31
skinj
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
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 22:31
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
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!
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 22:49
pocatello
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
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.
I'm not sure why you are trying to over complicate this, there is no perception issue, it doesn't matter if you believe the eyes are not cameras, they are being fed nothing more than two half resolution images, you do not get a higher resolution image by combining those two images...the only thing the brain gets from those two images are depth cues.

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.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2010, 10:51
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718

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.
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2010, 11:53
pocatello
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,622
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.
I did not say the percieved resolution is reduced. The resolution IS reduced. Each eye recieves only a half resolution image by default in those systems. I'm not sure why you are doing this conspiracy theory tactic where you come up with "questions" over something out of the blue with no justification at all.
pocatello is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:05.