I am going to install Ubuntu and try your approach, and in addition I am going to install the Raydon's ftp service and see what that does. I didn't know about the rename hrs..maybe try that too. I should be back in about a month.

Keep up the pioneering work

Thanks for the support ...

I can report that I have installed Ubuntu 11.04 and this allows a rename with no hassle , and a copy to a Windows disc folder, also with no hassle.

Your clue about the rename was the answer, it just remained to find out how.

I can play and do anything I want with the file

I plan on installing the ftp server on the HDR, but it will be a few days.

A 1Hr recording will usually fit on a blank dvd using avchd. Playable in pretty well any blu-ray player.

TSmuxergui will create the folder, imgburn will burn the disc in udf2.50.

OK, I tried, I really tried to like this but had to give up with a headache & mild nausea after watching the men's final live for about 10 minutes. I was sitting in a darkened room watching on my LG 60" set with active shutter glasses. My first observation is that even in a darkened room the image is much darker than the regular picture. Secondly it doesn't look like real life. It either looks like Captain Pugwash i.e. a series of flat overlaid cutouts or tiny people running around in an aquarium. I didn't see any 3D effect at all from the crowd. There was also a shimmery effect in my peripheral video. Eventually turning over to the regular presentation on BBC One HD was a relief.

What might be wrong preventing me from enjoying the experience? Is it my TV? Its it my eyes? Is it my brain?

Perhaps it's just the limited bit rate available to fta broadcast sources. Even using active shutter technology the basic frame starts with a 960 x 1080 image with a refresh rate of 25 fps. Not having 3D it's just a theory.

I have just bought a new TV and looked at all the 3D models in various showrooms..
in the end we settled for a good quality Non3D set..
You do not mention any noises from the crowd etc..
My theory is that we are more sensitive to ambient spatial sound clues than the '3D' Entertainment industry has hitherto acknowledged..
The world's experts have said for decades that sound is 50% of the Immersive experience of TV and cinema..
even more so when another dimension is added perhaps?
As a lifetime endurer of BPPV i can appreciate your nausea and your brain's confusion..
Watching animals at night in IR shows how sound is critical to their existence and deep down we are but animals...

I have now got Raydon's firmware installed and it's quite slick.

Shows up in Network and one can play all the videos etc.

I copied a couple of videos with the ftp server and this is interesting !

A Dads Army that i recorded, plays perfectly and sound is perfect also.

The 3D tennis plays perfectly, BUT>>>NO SOUND..

and I don't have any cluse as to why not...

I tried two different ways to connect, one with a ethernet cable directly to my router and the transfer speed was about 35 Mbits per sec.

The second way I tried was connecting the HDR to a wireless extender and that works fine also, except the transfer rates is much lower, around 20 Mbits per sec.

So I am back to copying the 3D videos with a ext3 disc...at least until the sound is sorted.

At a guess it's down to the AC3 sound track on the HD recording.

If you load it into AV2HDR what does the info say about the audio ?

It shows 2 channels...copied below

Audio #1
ID : 5501 (0x157D)
Menu ID : 6940 (0x1B1C)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Duration : 3mn 2s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 384 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Surround: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Video delay : -832ms
Stream size : 8.33 MiB (4%)
Language : English

Audio #2
ID : 5502 (0x157E)
Menu ID : 6940 (0x1B1C)
Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 2
Duration : 3mn 2s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 256 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
Video delay : -795ms
Stream size : 5.56 MiB (2%)
Language : nar

That's normal, the second one is the stereo audio described track. What are you using as a media player ?

Give splash lite a test run (it's free and plays HD on quite lowly specced computers)

http://mirillis.com/en/products/splash.html

[quote=grahamlthompson;51188851]That's normal, the second one is the stereo audio described track. What are you using as a media player ?

Discovered my problem...playing with a media player that does not support AC3 !!

Played the video in PowerDVD and it plays fine. First time that has happened to me...

[quote=kingsmeadow;51188928]
It had to be simple, the two methods must produce identical files

Try Splash lite it plays back HD on an old laptop I had that none of the other players I tried would playback smoothly.

The pro (not free) version has an excellent snapshot capability - used to grab the 3D stills.

I have been doing research with 3D for about 30 years now, and I have met a few people who just cannot "see" 3D. It seems that for some unknown reason they cannot fuse the two images in the brain. It ends up giving them a headache. I suspect there also a few people that "see" 3D at various levels of this.

You could be one of these, unfortunately

[quote=grahamlthompson;51189016]

Thanks I shall give it a try..

by the way I am transferring a video file right now with Ubuntu, and it's much slower than FTP, but we have to try everything

An interesting observation. I was watching in my local cinema and surprisingly the audio was only 2.1. I'm sure that surround sound would have enhanced the 3D experience.

You're not alone. With active shutter glasses it was too dark (Samsung here). There were plenty of shots where it looked like I was watching midgets on a table. I ended up sitting much closer than normal so the TV filled my field of vision, which helped make people look closer to the right size. Unfortunately at this distance the reduced resolution was quite visible, and it didn't really look like HD.

I thought the 3D effect itself was fine - especially in-play. I was pleasantly surprised that virtually the whole programme was in 3D - made me wonder how many 3D cameras they've had around for the whole tournament.

The slower cutting style of the coverage was far better than the quick cutting style of the music video on the preview loop. No quick-depth-change induced headaches with Wimbledon.

I thought the graphic overlays (score card) and the Wimbledon logo that nearly hit you in the face were very annoying. The 3D court graphics worked well.

It was a relief to switch back to full-HD full brightness 2D. Caveat: I'm more interested in Maria Sharaopva than the tennis itself , and not fantastically interested in either.

I also realised that tennis is very easy to follow in 2D; 3D didn't add anything to "understanding" what was happening. You already know where things are on a tennis court, without needing real 3D to help figure it out.

Whereas the 3D (especially animated) films I've seen at the cinema were quite different - there, the 3D effect really helped to understand what was in the scene, and where it was.

Cheers,
David.

I can see 3D TV all right I just don't think very much of it. Apparently at least 10% of people cannot see 3D TV at all either because they literally are blind in one eye or have one eye dominant. My 3D depth perception is fine in real life & I can see those random dot Magic Eye stereogram posters OK.

Only six genuine 3D cameras on the actual Centre Court - compared to 18 for the 2D coverage. Some were converted to give a reasonably convincing 3D effect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern..._wimbledo.html

I guess they carried some of those six cameras around Wimbledon to get some of the outside + crowd shots that they used during the introduction. Or else the 2D>3D conversion was pretty good!

Cheers,
David.