3D TV could be on sale next year

Sover_99 · 05-03-2009, 17:47

Just read this

Quote:

Film makers, broadcasters and manufacturers are all throwing their weight behind 3D television. Sky has claimed that the technology could be in UK homes in time for the London Olympics, while at January’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, every manufacturer from Sony to LG was showing off 3D sets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...dimension.html

Not an expert by any means on this, just wondered what everyone's thoughts were.

emptybox · 05-03-2009, 17:51

Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step.

grasshoper · 05-03-2009, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sover_99

Just read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...dimension.html

Not an expert by any means on this, just wondered what everyone's thoughts were.

Very excited at the thought of it and hope it comes soon.

Sover_99 · 05-03-2009, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptybox

Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step.

I wasn't going to bother with HD at all as I'm perfectly happy with the picture I have, but 3D does sound an attractive proposition.

Gae41 · 07-03-2009, 16:17

Well, for a 3D aficionado like myself, constantly buying 3D movies and downloading 3D clips and photos off the Net, one year is too long a time to wait before 3D technology and 3D media becomes more readily available.

I need more to feed my addiction.

Oh, and I refuse to buy an awful and misogynistic film like "Scar", just because it happens to be the only 3D film released in the past few months.

Give us more 3D content I say.

Gae41

callum9999 · 07-03-2009, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptybox

Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step.

Does it matter?

r_mitchell85 · 07-03-2009, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sover_99

I wasn't going to bother with HD at all as I'm perfectly happy with the picture I have, but 3D does sound an attractive proposition.

I agree.

Having seen HDTV demonstrations in peoples homes, and in electrical stores... I found the difference pretty negligible.

But yeah... 3D, now that sounds interesting. (as long as it's decent)

I've been to universal studios, and seen some of the 3D shows, such as the honey I shurunk the audience thing... and was blown away!

be more pacific · 07-03-2009, 18:35

Quote:

Why is it pushing a new technology so hard? Hollywood studios reckon, privately, that there is three times as much profit in a 3D DVD than in a conventional one.

The average price most people are willing to spend on a film has pretty much stayed at £10 since pre-recorded VHS cassettes really took off in the 1980s.

If anything, inflated prices have held Blu-ray back as a niche product for videophiles. I can see the manufacturers and studios totally cocking up the new format with their profiteering.

David (2) · 07-03-2009, 18:45

first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well.

Going back to a point made before, can we not all have digital tv, before we think about 3Dtv. Digital tv is shockingly difficult to get around here. We need to complete one task before starting another. HD is still new, and still limited to satellite + Cable as well.

Dave

Deacon1972 · 07-03-2009, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well.

Going back to a point made before, can we not all have digital tv, before we think about 3Dtv. Digital tv is shockingly difficult to get around here. We need to complete one task before starting another. HD is still new, and still limited to satellite + Cable as well.

Dave

Phillips have 3D TV where glasses are not necessary.

http://www.business-sites.philips.co...cts/index.page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-PMN3aK8g

David (2) · 07-03-2009, 20:17

thats a step in the right direction, but lets get Ch5 to the whole of the UK first!

Dave

roddydogs · 08-03-2009, 07:48

No glasses, but surely u will have to sit directly in front?

ianflo · 08-03-2009, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

thats a step in the right direction, but lets get Ch5 to the whole of the UK first!

Dave

Having seen what's on 5 and 3 why bother?? Increasing choice doesn't seem to have improved programming unless you are under 30. With budget cutbacks schedule will be more repeats and more quiz shows. Will that be improved by 3D??

Gae41 · 08-03-2009, 14:47

I don't understand this philosophy of AV enthusiasts having to wait for everyone to get on board Digital TV or HD before a new technology is introduced. Why should we have to wait for the people who have less interest in new technology? So long as the introduction of new technology doesn't affect normal services, then it should be introduced whenever the technology is ready.

Their are 3D formats being designed that get around the 2D/3D viewing problem too. One is a 3D dual stream technology which can be viewed in both 2D and 3D at the same time depending on your setup. That is the way to go. Introduce new technology but without penalising those who don't buy into it. Simple.

Gae41

ianflo · 08-03-2009, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gae41

I don't understand this philosophy of AV enthusiasts having to wait for everyone to get on board Digital TV or HD before a new technology is introduced. Why should we have to wait for the people who have less interest in new technology? So long as the introduction of new technology doesn't affect normal services, then it should be introduced whenever the technology is ready.

Their are 3D formats being designed that get around the 2D/3D viewing problem too. One is a 3D dual stream technology which can be viewed in both 2D and 3D at the same time depending on your setup. That is the way to go. Introduce new technology but without penalising those who don't buy into it. Simple.

Gae41

My previous post was meant to be comment on the standard of content not refusing new technology. I think it would be hard to fit any more data OTA as freeview seems full to capacity.

Freesat could handle it but thats more investment for punters. Ironing out differences between systems will take a while and will companies push 3D in current economic climate??

Also, not keen on thought of home movies on 3D as I look bad enough in a mirror!!

emptybox · 08-03-2009, 19:06

I was worried that broadcasters would forget about increasing the woefully inadequate amount of hi def transmissions in favour of something shiny and new (and probably crap).

However I think all these 3D systems are going to be based on hi def resolutions anyway. So you won't be able to have one without the other. So you HD refuseniks are out of luck.

On a more serious (and selfish

) note, I've never been able to see 3D using these red/green glasses.

My eyesight is OK using spectacles, but my eyes are too different (one is long sighted, the other short sighted), and I don't have proper stereoscopic vision, even with specs.

Using red/green glasses I see either a red image, or a green image, but my eyes/brain can't bring them together to form one 3D image.

I doubt this new 3D technology, that essentially relies on tricking the eyes, would be any good to me?
Or to anyone who only had the use of one eye, for instance.

Real 3D telly will be based on holography.
Better spend time developing that IMO.

r_mitchell85 · 08-03-2009, 19:10

I dont think it would involve wearing red and green glasses...

emptybox · 08-03-2009, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by r_mitchell85

I dont think it would involve wearing red and green glasses...

No, but the principle is the same.
You are sending slightly different images to each eye, and relying on the person's brain to bring those images together.

Gae41 · 09-03-2009, 15:49

Quote:

Using red/green glasses I see either a red image, or a green image, but my eyes/brain can't bring them together to form one 3D image.

I doubt this new 3D technology, that essentially relies on tricking the eyes, would be any good to me?
Or to anyone who only had the use of one eye, for instance.

But maybe your particular problem is a colour one. Other 3D methods don't involve colour. For example, field sequential 3D films show a seperate image to each eye. Surely you would be able to decode these as it's very similar to receiving seperate images from the real world. The images are just slightly from different angles and not color coded.

Gae41

njp · 09-03-2009, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gae41

But maybe your particular problem is a colour one. Other 3D methods don't involve colour. For example, field sequential 3D films show a seperate image to each eye. Surely you would be able to decode these as it's very similar to receiving seperate images from the real world. The images are just slightly from different angles and not color coded.

He said he didn't have proper stereoscopic vision even with spectacles, so I don't see how any system would work for him. The anaglyph system just makes his processing deficit (if that is what it is) more apparent.

It's an interesting one. I'm quite short-sighted in one eye, but for many years had normal vision in the other. I didn't get glasses until I discovered I needed them to fly a plane solo. Up to that point my brain had been totally ignoring the blurred image from my right eye for distance viewing, but switching to it for close-up work, completely seamlessly. However, without binocular vision I hadn't been seeing the world in 3D. Putting glasses on for the first time was almost a sensory overload as all the new information came flooding in. Now, however, I can put my glasses on and take them off again without really noticing a change in 3D-ness. It's just less blurry.

Gnewman2k9 · 09-03-2009, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by r_mitchell85

I agree.

Having seen HDTV demonstrations in peoples homes, and in electrical stores... I found the difference pretty negligible

Aye, I've though that as well, nae exackly a brilliant improvement, I saw it for the first time properly over the weekend, bit better, but nae the bells and whistles everyone makes it out tae be

ianflo · 09-03-2009, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnewman2k9

Aye, I've though that as well, nae exackly a brilliant improvement, I saw it for the first time properly over the weekend, bit better, but nae the bells and whistles everyone makes it out tae be

Try watching football match on SD then switch to HD, the difference is there for most people to see.

I had demo in shop and HD picture was superb. Enough to make me consider switching to sky/freesat.

Ian

daveyhairbear · 09-03-2009, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well.

The system Sky use apparently doesn't need special glasses-you just look at the screen in the normal way and it's HD3D!!

Sky have already started filming some events with 3D cameras, IIRC they were at a recent football match?

_ben · 09-03-2009, 20:00

I'm astonished people can't see much difference with HD. Its the difference between less than half a megapixel (720x576) and 2 megapixels (1920x1080), you could put it on a screen twice as high and twice as wide as yours and it would still look as good as SD currently does. I find the extra detail you get adds enormously to the sense of involvement, its almost like being there, and comparable to what you get at the cinema - in fact most digital projectors in cinemas are only 2k (2048x1080). When people say its not much different I'm flabbergasted.

_ben · 09-03-2009, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveyhairbear

The system Sky use apparently doesn't need special glasses-you just look at the screen in the normal way and it's HD3D!!

The system Sky uses transmits a 3D picture to a modified Sky+ HD box, whether or not you need glasses depends on what type of 3D TV you plug it into.

05-03-2009, 17:47	#1
Sover_99 Forum Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Swansea Posts: 4,346	3D TV could be on sale next year Just read this Quote: Film makers, broadcasters and manufacturers are all throwing their weight behind 3D television. Sky has claimed that the technology could be in UK homes in time for the London Olympics, while at January’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, every manufacturer from Sony to LG was showing off 3D sets. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...dimension.html Not an expert by any means on this, just wondered what everyone's thoughts were.

05-03-2009, 17:51	#2
emptybox Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scottish Borders Posts: 11,995	Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step.

05-03-2009, 17:57	#3
grasshoper Inactive Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 472	Quote: Originally Posted by Sover_99 Just read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...dimension.html Not an expert by any means on this, just wondered what everyone's thoughts were. Very excited at the thought of it and hope it comes soon.

05-03-2009, 17:59	#4
Sover_99 Forum Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Swansea Posts: 4,346	Quote: Originally Posted by emptybox Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step. I wasn't going to bother with HD at all as I'm perfectly happy with the picture I have, but 3D does sound an attractive proposition.

07-03-2009, 16:17	#5
Gae41 Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 318	Well, for a 3D aficionado like myself, constantly buying 3D movies and downloading 3D clips and photos off the Net, one year is too long a time to wait before 3D technology and 3D media becomes more readily available. I need more to feed my addiction. Oh, and I refuse to buy an awful and misogynistic film like "Scar", just because it happens to be the only 3D film released in the past few months. Give us more 3D content I say. Gae41

07-03-2009, 17:36	#6
callum9999 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,932	Quote: Originally Posted by emptybox Can we not get everybody on to HD first before we start thinking about the next step. Does it matter?

07-03-2009, 18:30	#7
r_mitchell85 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,884	Quote: Originally Posted by Sover_99 I wasn't going to bother with HD at all as I'm perfectly happy with the picture I have, but 3D does sound an attractive proposition. I agree. Having seen HDTV demonstrations in peoples homes, and in electrical stores... I found the difference pretty negligible. But yeah... 3D, now that sounds interesting. (as long as it's decent) I've been to universal studios, and seen some of the 3D shows, such as the honey I shurunk the audience thing... and was blown away!

07-03-2009, 18:35	#8
be more pacific Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 16,034	Quote: Why is it pushing a new technology so hard? Hollywood studios reckon, privately, that there is three times as much profit in a 3D DVD than in a conventional one. The average price most people are willing to spend on a film has pretty much stayed at £10 since pre-recorded VHS cassettes really took off in the 1980s. If anything, inflated prices have held Blu-ray back as a niche product for videophiles. I can see the manufacturers and studios totally cocking up the new format with their profiteering.

07-03-2009, 18:45	#9
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well. Going back to a point made before, can we not all have digital tv, before we think about 3Dtv. Digital tv is shockingly difficult to get around here. We need to complete one task before starting another. HD is still new, and still limited to satellite + Cable as well. Dave

07-03-2009, 20:05	#10
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well. Going back to a point made before, can we not all have digital tv, before we think about 3Dtv. Digital tv is shockingly difficult to get around here. We need to complete one task before starting another. HD is still new, and still limited to satellite + Cable as well. Dave Phillips have 3D TV where glasses are not necessary. http://www.business-sites.philips.co...cts/index.page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-PMN3aK8g

07-03-2009, 20:17	#11
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	thats a step in the right direction, but lets get Ch5 to the whole of the UK first! Dave

08-03-2009, 07:48	#12
roddydogs Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,353	No glasses, but surely u will have to sit directly in front?

08-03-2009, 14:37	#13
ianflo Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Durham. Posts: 259	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) thats a step in the right direction, but lets get Ch5 to the whole of the UK first! Dave Having seen what's on 5 and 3 why bother?? Increasing choice doesn't seem to have improved programming unless you are under 30. With budget cutbacks schedule will be more repeats and more quiz shows. Will that be improved by 3D??

08-03-2009, 14:47	#14
Gae41 Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 318	I don't understand this philosophy of AV enthusiasts having to wait for everyone to get on board Digital TV or HD before a new technology is introduced. Why should we have to wait for the people who have less interest in new technology? So long as the introduction of new technology doesn't affect normal services, then it should be introduced whenever the technology is ready. Their are 3D formats being designed that get around the 2D/3D viewing problem too. One is a 3D dual stream technology which can be viewed in both 2D and 3D at the same time depending on your setup. That is the way to go. Introduce new technology but without penalising those who don't buy into it. Simple. Gae41

08-03-2009, 15:00	#15
ianflo Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Durham. Posts: 259	Quote: Originally Posted by Gae41 I don't understand this philosophy of AV enthusiasts having to wait for everyone to get on board Digital TV or HD before a new technology is introduced. Why should we have to wait for the people who have less interest in new technology? So long as the introduction of new technology doesn't affect normal services, then it should be introduced whenever the technology is ready. Their are 3D formats being designed that get around the 2D/3D viewing problem too. One is a 3D dual stream technology which can be viewed in both 2D and 3D at the same time depending on your setup. That is the way to go. Introduce new technology but without penalising those who don't buy into it. Simple. Gae41 My previous post was meant to be comment on the standard of content not refusing new technology. I think it would be hard to fit any more data OTA as freeview seems full to capacity. Freesat could handle it but thats more investment for punters. Ironing out differences between systems will take a while and will companies push 3D in current economic climate?? Also, not keen on thought of home movies on 3D as I look bad enough in a mirror!!

08-03-2009, 19:06	#16
emptybox Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scottish Borders Posts: 11,995	I was worried that broadcasters would forget about increasing the woefully inadequate amount of hi def transmissions in favour of something shiny and new (and probably crap). However I think all these 3D systems are going to be based on hi def resolutions anyway. So you won't be able to have one without the other. So you HD refuseniks are out of luck. On a more serious (and selfish ) note, I've never been able to see 3D using these red/green glasses. My eyesight is OK using spectacles, but my eyes are too different (one is long sighted, the other short sighted), and I don't have proper stereoscopic vision, even with specs. Using red/green glasses I see either a red image, or a green image, but my eyes/brain can't bring them together to form one 3D image. I doubt this new 3D technology, that essentially relies on tricking the eyes, would be any good to me? Or to anyone who only had the use of one eye, for instance. Real 3D telly will be based on holography. Better spend time developing that IMO.

08-03-2009, 19:10	#17
r_mitchell85 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,884	I dont think it would involve wearing red and green glasses...

08-03-2009, 19:13	#18
emptybox Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scottish Borders Posts: 11,995	Quote: Originally Posted by r_mitchell85 I dont think it would involve wearing red and green glasses... No, but the principle is the same. You are sending slightly different images to each eye, and relying on the person's brain to bring those images together.

09-03-2009, 15:49	#19
Gae41 Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 318	Quote: Using red/green glasses I see either a red image, or a green image, but my eyes/brain can't bring them together to form one 3D image. I doubt this new 3D technology, that essentially relies on tricking the eyes, would be any good to me? Or to anyone who only had the use of one eye, for instance. But maybe your particular problem is a colour one. Other 3D methods don't involve colour. For example, field sequential 3D films show a seperate image to each eye. Surely you would be able to decode these as it's very similar to receiving seperate images from the real world. The images are just slightly from different angles and not color coded. Gae41

09-03-2009, 16:30	#20
njp Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 21,646	Quote: Originally Posted by Gae41 But maybe your particular problem is a colour one. Other 3D methods don't involve colour. For example, field sequential 3D films show a seperate image to each eye. Surely you would be able to decode these as it's very similar to receiving seperate images from the real world. The images are just slightly from different angles and not color coded. He said he didn't have proper stereoscopic vision even with spectacles, so I don't see how any system would work for him. The anaglyph system just makes his processing deficit (if that is what it is) more apparent. It's an interesting one. I'm quite short-sighted in one eye, but for many years had normal vision in the other. I didn't get glasses until I discovered I needed them to fly a plane solo. Up to that point my brain had been totally ignoring the blurred image from my right eye for distance viewing, but switching to it for close-up work, completely seamlessly. However, without binocular vision I hadn't been seeing the world in 3D. Putting glasses on for the first time was almost a sensory overload as all the new information came flooding in. Now, however, I can put my glasses on and take them off again without really noticing a change in 3D-ness. It's just less blurry.

09-03-2009, 16:31	#21
Gnewman2k9 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 463	Quote: Originally Posted by r_mitchell85 I agree. Having seen HDTV demonstrations in peoples homes, and in electrical stores... I found the difference pretty negligible Aye, I've though that as well, nae exackly a brilliant improvement, I saw it for the first time properly over the weekend, bit better, but nae the bells and whistles everyone makes it out tae be

DS Forums

3D TV could be on sale next year

09-03-2009, 19:20	#22
ianflo Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Durham. Posts: 259	Quote: Originally Posted by Gnewman2k9 Aye, I've though that as well, nae exackly a brilliant improvement, I saw it for the first time properly over the weekend, bit better, but nae the bells and whistles everyone makes it out tae be Try watching football match on SD then switch to HD, the difference is there for most people to see. I had demo in shop and HD picture was superb. Enough to make me consider switching to sky/freesat. Ian

09-03-2009, 19:57	#23
daveyhairbear Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Yooooo Kaaaaaay! Posts: 1,782	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) first thing is - you need to use those silly specs. As someone who wears regular ones all the time anyway, I guess 3D needing the extra ones is never going to work very well. The system Sky use apparently doesn't need special glasses-you just look at the screen in the normal way and it's HD3D!! Sky have already started filming some events with 3D cameras, IIRC they were at a recent football match?

09-03-2009, 20:00	#24
_ben Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4,727	I'm astonished people can't see much difference with HD. Its the difference between less than half a megapixel (720x576) and 2 megapixels (1920x1080), you could put it on a screen twice as high and twice as wide as yours and it would still look as good as SD currently does. I find the extra detail you get adds enormously to the sense of involvement, its almost like being there, and comparable to what you get at the cinema - in fact most digital projectors in cinemas are only 2k (2048x1080). When people say its not much different I'm flabbergasted.

09-03-2009, 20:02	#25
_ben Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4,727	Quote: Originally Posted by daveyhairbear The system Sky use apparently doesn't need special glasses-you just look at the screen in the normal way and it's HD3D!! The system Sky uses transmits a 3D picture to a modified Sky+ HD box, whether or not you need glasses depends on what type of 3D TV you plug it into.