The industry that manufactures TVs and sells new TV content disagrees, no can it be true!?

If you get even more realism - you can take it to the extreme where people feel they are involved so much, it's like real life.. and then people start to die from heart failure for watching a 3D invasive horror movie.. great! just what we all need.. Imagine the scenario - "Hey I've just bought this new tv and DVD, it's really like being involved.. thing is, if you watch Saw 26 on it, you may die half-way through.." hmm.. the courts will be full of lawsuits against movie companies.

The thing is 99% of people don't have perfect eyesight.. 3D doesn't work unless you're sat right in-front of the thing and head-on.. the viewing angle limits the experience.. the technology is poor. people who wear glasses.. expected to wear 3D glasses on top of their prescription glasses to try and be a part of the experience.. doesn't really do it for me and for many others.. and quite frankly is just too much of a pain. Other people see it as a fad.. and I have to agree with them.. who want's to be a part of the experience..? the only experience most people would want to be involved with is if they were watching a 3D porn movie.. the rest - people are just happy to observe from a distance..

Exactly, the only way 3d will take off is if:
It can be viewed at a wide angle
It can be viewed without glasses
It can be viewed at current HD quality levels
It doesnt give people headaches.

Until those problems are solved, people buying 3d TVs now are buying a minidiscs, betamax, laserdisc equivalent. ie wasting money on something that will never take off.

Actually I think it's the first condition on picture quality that matters most, i.e. that PQ considerations are going to be subjected to a value for money test. This may seem fair enough at first glance, but as soon as this ruling is given* the BBC admits that (in technical terms) it might be a second class provider. This is a dangerous place for a TVL funded organisation to be--as the Trust should well know. Why should viewers be forced to pay for what is by official admission a potentially second class service?

As far as I can tell, it was the strength of this argument which meant that excellence in technical standards used to be taken as a fundamental part of the BBC’s remit. It wasn't the accidental result of enthusiastic lab coats beavering away for Auntie, as romanticised versions of the corporation's history might have it.

But it does come back to DTT. The BBC has been allocated its bandwidth and it has to make it work, which is what 'spectrum efficiency' means in the end I think. (FWIW I can see why they trot out the ‘platform neutrality’ argument at this point.) This is the brute political fact, and the value for money test is a (contradictory) way of dressing it up in vaguely acceptable-sounding language. But that brute fact leaves the BBC in a weakened position.


*which in retrospect may have been the point of the whole exercise as far as the BBC and the Trust were concerned. The old ‘technical excellence first’ ethos had to be dealt with in new circumstances of bandwidth limitation. IMHO this is why Nick Reynolds keeps shutting down continuing complaints on the BBC blogs and referring posters to the Trust’s ruling: not because what people say is untrue but because, now that PQ has been explicitly downgraded in importance by the Trust, it doesn’t matter.

I seem to remember people saying HD was a waste of money - and the commitment the BBC is making to 3D is minuscule compared to HD.

It's entirely appropriate to run this test. Whether or not it's _the_ way to do 3D, or will become a ubiquitous commercial reality, remains to be seen. TV itself was launched with a 30-line mechanical system - but that didn't mean that TV itself was doomed.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. @mwardy - I think what you say is all correct - it's depressing and frustrating in equal measure. But then, we've had nearly a decade of this attitude - the first obvious outing being the DAB bitrate cuts in 2002.

rEmember that the BBC has had HD cameras at Wimbledon since 1989 .... (the year before IBC "Year of HD!!) .. with no opportunity for the audience to see the results ...

Not at all, presumably HD cameras where their to sell the footage to countries that already had HD - so millions probably watched in HD - just not in the UK.

That is the ultimate aim of the tv companies albeit without making it so realistic as to cause physical symptoms.

In one of the SuperHi vision tests a large proportion of the audience were physically sick because the realism of a car chase became too much. I understand NHK are trying to alleviate achieving quite that effect but realism is nevertheless the goal.


Again you're prejudging something I doubt you've seen or at least seen all 3 technologies.

So far as I'm aware the shutter glasses work from any angle, I didn't move around a lot but noticed no difference in my audition from moving my head. Only the lenticular systems require you to sit head on to my knowledge. Polarised systems I'm unsure of regarding viewing angle.

BTW for reference all 3D systems essentially work the same way as our own eyes do, recording the same scene from a slightly different angle. The only difference is with filmed material a way of separating the images out is needed hence the glasses, lenses, polarisers.

Re the systems with glasses, actually they're very comfortable. I need corrected vision, albeit I wear contact lenses and my experience with the Panasonic glasses was very positive - I found them light and comfortable.

Thats the problem, at least 2 of them are obsolete already, I believe all 3 are.

people dont care about 3d, I saw a survey from various countries in europe and having LED displays were several times more important to people and even net TV were way more important than 3d.

The public just doesnt care.

i cant believe the amount of people slagging off 3dtv,ive got a samsung smart 3dtv and it is sensational,3d can be viewed perfectly from any angle its clearer and sharper than hd and is unbelievable,i think its great that wimbledon is going to be in 3d for the finals and after all for all the people who are slagging off 3d just watch it in 2d on channel 108
surely all us people who have adopted 3d should have the opportunity to watch in 3d

@ Flyer, The majority if the public doesn't care for now.

LED, SuperHiVision etc will all come and wear off and then what?

And LED is a laugh anyway, what does it offer beyond slimmer displays?

Are we really going to argue that a 1inch display is so much more of a draw than a 2 inch one? I think in most homes so long as its flat and goes on the wall, no-one really cares whether its 1 inch or 2.

You are only talking about edge lit LED!
From my understanding other LED technology's also offer better contrast, local dimming and greater longevity than CCFL!

How can it be clearer and sharper when its a lower resolution?

They will probably try 3d again after the current hardware has failed to take off.

But it's been that way ever since the dawn of digital TV, nothing has changed. SD digital TV has been artifact-ridden even on the BBC ever since its launch - far from being at the technical leading edge (which would have needed around 7 mbps per channel in SD mpeg 2) the BBC compromised, like all the other 'majors'. Though I will admit, some other broadcasters did take the proverbial bandwidth p**s.

Anyone who expected anything different in principle to be done long-term with HDTV is I suggest naive. HD will end up as what is acceptable to most people, using the largest screens they have in the home - just as SD TV did. And what we have now is more than acceptable to most, on typical 32 and 42 inchers.

Commercial considerations will dictate that Sky too will adopt lower bitrates / picture quality in the future, perhaps keeping them slightly above the others, but not by much, just enough to give a slight competitive edge.

These will not sell many http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_1...13-501465.html

To quote:-

Even without glasses if they don't figure out a better way of filming & reproducing 3D then we are still stuck with that weird artificial look of layers of flat cut-outs like those Viewmaster stereoscopic viewers or Captain Pugwash animation. It looks 3D OK it just doesn't look like real life.

No, the public just doesn't KNOW

The fact the all clamour for "LED tv'" shows how little they know, and how marketing has triumphed.

All the LED sets on sale at the moment are LED backlit LCD sets, with some arguable advantages, and an as yet unknown reliability.

Only when REAL LED sets, such as OLED or PLED reach the market (if they ever do) will people REALLY be able to buy an LED tv.

So they just need to employ the same marketing people currently pushing "LED" tv's, and then everyone wil want a 3D set, without them ever needing to understand what it is, or why they want it.

No, theyve seen the marketing and decided to ignore it. 3d is much, much more heavily advertised than net capable TVs or LED TVs yet the public doesnt want it.

Everyone I know has HD, not one person I know has 3d.

We are right off topic here, just to say 3D IMHO is a complete waste of time I have seen it a few weeks ago & like many people I felt dizzy after only a few minutes after taking off the glasses, 3D isn't a new thing it's a marketing ploy nothing else, I like HD over 3D give me a decent picture like HD & leave it at that.

Heres the link proving customers dont care about 3d
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/06/0...t_selling_tvs/

CRTs are 4 times as popular as 3d TVs.

My wife says an inch can make a big difference.

And do you know why ? The vast majority of people still view most of their TV in SD, and the best way by far to watch SD is the good old CRT. Once TV migrates to HD - how long will that take? - the deficiencies of SD viewed on HD receivers will no longer be an issue.

We were away for the change and my Humax Foxsat HDR did it fine, but the HDR recorded BSS OK except that (like Holby City on BBC1 HD and Lead Balloon on BBC HD) when played back the sound had defaulted to Audio Description, and needed selecting back to ordinary sound.

Richard

TBH who cares. Anyone in the know buys plasma for quality.

LCD / LED are for those who fall victim to the salesmen and whilst they are popular because of the common misconception they're better when in fact they're not, as I said above anyone who rushes out and changes their 2 inch thick tv for a 1 inch thick tv is a little sad in my book. Coming from CRT of course is a little bit different.


They've already done that. Remember those dreadful red / blue glasses, this is already round 2.

There's now way around technologies for separating out the signals to each eye this side of having the display inside a pair of glasses with a separate display for each eye. At the end of the day the 3D camera sees the world as our eyes do. The difference is each eye sees a different picture as standard when we view naturally. When viewing a tv, both eyes see the screen so a method has to be used to get each eye to see only the view its supposed to.

i not that techy so dont know how it all works but all i can say is try it youll be amazed,all i can say is with my tv a samsung d8000 smart tv the picture on2d hd is amazing but 3dhd is even better like looking through the clearest window youve ever seen,it really is that good