3D TV - a second thought

[The_Lhc]

Just reading Dominic's blog regarding the Sky 3D Arsenal game and his comment about the wider football shots not really working with 3D got me thinking about what the best non-movie 3D viewing experiences are likely to be:

Snooker - alright, not action packed but as a demonstrator it should be brilliant, especially with the shots played directly to a camera. I wonder if they could squeeze a 3D pocket-camera in the pockets? That'd be awesome!

Golf - not sure about this, maybe the close ups of the putting with the ball rolling towards the hole, do they do handheld 3d cameras? I had a feeling they were too bulky?

Tennis - that could work especially with the lower angle shots.

F1 - not sure, a lot of the camera angles are from distance, similar to football, the camera looking down the main straight might be good. Be nice to get it in HD first though (cheers Bernie...).

Indoor Cycling - get a couple of cameras down by trackside, see Will Hoy in all his glory (one for the ladies there, I've thought of everything!).

Any other ideas? I wonder if 3D would actually make squash watchable...?

 

[visionary]

Still not convinced it will improve the viewing experience once the novelty wears off

 

[professorhat]

Agreed, just seems a bit gimmicky to me...

 

[scene]

Boxing and wrestling will work pretty well, especially if someone gets thrown out of the ring at the 3D camera - can see everyone ducking.

Any sport where you need a wide angle shot to take in the action - i.e. pretty much any team-based ball sport - 3D is pretty much a waste of time. Try standing in the terraces with one eye closed - doesn't really make any difference to the view of the game...

 

[Big Aura]

I am confused as to why new TVs are needed for it.

Do you not simply need to broadcast a blurry version of a picture? I can see why special cameras are needed, but once they broadcast that - if the signal has that ghosting effect, surely any sky box or other recieving equipment can accept the image and pass it on to any television.

Where's the 'science bit'?

Cheers

PS - Avatar 3-d gave me a headache, and there was just too much information to take in so that I spent too long trying to appreciate each scene and then it was gone. TV should be possible of being a passive experience, rather than something you need to fully concentrate on!

 

[Frank Harvey]

the_lhc:F1 - not sure, a lot of the camera angles are from distance, similar to football, the camera looking down the main straight might be good. Be nice to get it in HD first though (cheers Bernie...).

Just HD would be nice thanks!

Indoor Cycling - get a couple of cameras down by trackside, see Will Hoy in all his glory (one for the ladies there, I've thought of everything!)

You've touched on something there (pardon the coin of phrase) that I/we didn't really want to think about - not sure I want to see 3D 'lunchboxes'.....

Any other ideas? I wonder if 3D would actually make squash watchable...?

There are many sports I hate, mainly because they're boring. I don't think 3D would make any of them watchable....

Ladies naked mudwrestling? Celebrity naked ladies mudwrestling? Cheryl Cole vs Kelly Brook anyone?

 

[scene]

Big Aura:
I am confused as to why new TVs are needed for it.

Do you not simply need to broadcast a blurry version of a picture? I can see why special cameras are needed, but once they broadcast that - if the signal has that ghosting effect, surely any sky box or other recieving equipment can accept the image and pass it on to any television.

Where's the 'science bit'?

Cheers

PS - Avatar 3-d gave me a headache, and there was just too much information to take in so that I spent too long trying to appreciate each scene and then it was gone. TV should be possible of being a passive experience, rather than something you need to fully concentrate on!

Well the "blurry" picture wouldn't work, you need different picture information to each eye to generate a stereoscopic effect. Sky (in pubs) is using differently polarised images, which I'm fairly certain a standard screen couldn't do. However, when you start talking about shuttered glasses synchronised with the left and right images being transmitted alternately, then the only issues are refresh rate - need an absolute minimum of 24ps, as persistence of vision is approx 1/12s - and latency of the screen. You'd also need to turn a lot of picture processing / smoothing options off to prevent the TV trying to blend the left and right images - no Pixel Plus, 200Hz smoothing, etc.

Otherwise, get a good Plasma panel (say), with a refresh rate of 60Hz (say) with the signal from a "3D receiver" which sent the synch signal to your glasses, with some tuning allowed to introduce delay to allow for circuitry issues in the TV - and I agree - there's no reason why you should need a new display. It's the manufacturers who need you to have the new display...

 

[rob_981]

the_lhc:

Indoor Cycling - get a couple of cameras down by trackside, see Will Hoy in all his glory (one for the ladies there, I've thought of everything!).

Who's Will Hoy??

 

[The_Lhc]

rob_981:the_lhc:Indoor Cycling - get a couple of cameras down by trackside, see Will Hoy in all his glory (one for the ladies there, I've thought of everything!).

Who's Will Hoy??

A late British Touring Car driver it appears. I meant (Sir) Chris Hoy of course, although I kept thinking "Rob Hoy", then realised I meant Rob Roy, thought of a different name and arrived at Will.

 

[Anonymous]

Big Aura:
I am confused as to why new TVs are needed for it.

Where's the 'science bit'?

I know what you mean Chris - but from what I know, the TV/Display itself needs a converter chip with the necessary software inside to separate the images for both left and right eyes, and then sync these images with the glasses shutters (left and right opening and closing alternately).

Even though the current TV's are capable of displaying the image, there is no way for our TV's to send this sync information to the glasses.

 

[Anonymous]

Sports are rubbish - couldnt care less if they are in 3D or not, as never watch them. Except the snooker.

Horror and sci-fi films on the other hand, bring it on. Imagine Blade Runner and The Shining in 3D! Phewee.

 

[Anonymous]

bennyboy71:
Sports are rubbish - couldnt care less if they are in 3D or not, as never watch them. Except the snooker.

Horror and sci-fi films on the other hand, bring it on. Imagine Blade Runner and The Shining in 3D! Phewee.

I'm from the same school as you Benny, bar the snooker. I find watching any sport as interesting as listening to opera !

 

[Frank Harvey]

bennyboy71: Horror and sci-fi films on the other hand, bring it on. Imagine Blade Runner and The Shining in 3D! Phewee.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

 

[The_Lhc]

THE_FORCE:bennyboy71:
Sports are rubbish - couldnt care less if they are in 3D or not, as never watch them. Except the snooker.

Horror and sci-fi films on the other hand, bring it on. Imagine Blade Runner and The Shining in 3D! Phewee.

I'm from the same school as you Benny, bar the snooker. I find watching any sport as interesting as listening to opera !

Tell you what then, given I started this thread specifically to discuss sport in 3D why don't the pair of you go and find something else to talk about?

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:

Tell you what then, given I started this thread specifically to discuss sport in 3D why don't the pair of you go and find something else to talk about?

Take a chill pill Lhc. Just because we don't watch and like sports, doesn't mean to say that we wouldn't have any idea of what sports would or wouldn't work in the wonderful world of 3D - does it ?

Back to the topic - I can't see one sport being any more apt for 3D viewing than the other. It's where the camera is placed in the field of play. If you've got a long shot with nothing in the foreground as a point of reference then it's going to look rather flat regardless.

 

[The_Lhc]

THE_FORCE:the_lhc:Tell you what then, given I started this thread specifically to discuss sport in 3D why don't the pair of you go and find something else to talk about?
Take a chill pill Lhc. Just because we don't watch and like sports, doesn't mean to say that we wouldn't have any idea of what sports would or wouldn't work in the wonderful world of 3D - does it ?

Well, you tell me. so far the sole contribution to the topic from the pair of you is "sports are rubbish".

Doesn't exactly push the topic along does it?

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:

Well, you tell me. so far the sole contribution to the topic from the pair of you is "sports are rubbish".

Doesn't exactly push the topic along does it?

Wrong. My first post was to answer Big Aura's query about the need for a new 3D display, and secondly I've made an addition to my previous post. Happy now ?

 

[The_Lhc]

THE_FORCE:the_lhc:Well, you tell me. so far the sole contribution to the topic from the pair of you is "sports are rubbish".
Doesn't exactly push the topic along does it?

Wrong. My first post was to answer Big Aura's query about the need for a new 3D display, and secondly I've made an addition to my previous post. Happy now ?

Oh yes, brilliant, the first post answers a different question to the one I asked and the second just sidesteps it completely.

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:THE_FORCE:the_lhc:Well, you tell me. so far the sole contribution to the topic from the pair of you is "sports are rubbish".
Doesn't exactly push the topic along does it?

Wrong. My first post was to answer Big Aura's query about the need for a new 3D display, and secondly I've made an addition to my previous post. Happy now ?

Oh yes, brilliant, the first post answers a different question to the one I asked and the second just sidesteps it completely.

Ermm sorry, but Big Aura's question was a very valid one ! You may have created the topic - but others are allowed to ask questions and have them replied to aren't they ?

I don't think my second point sidestepped it at all. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Anonymous]

Big Aura:
I am confused as to why new TVs are needed for it.

Do you not simply need to broadcast a blurry version of a picture? I can see why special cameras are needed, but once they broadcast that - if the signal has that ghosting effect, surely any sky box or other recieving equipment can accept the image and pass it on to any television.

Where's the 'science bit'?

Cheers

PS - Avatar 3-d gave me a headache, and there was just too much information to take in so that I spent too long trying to appreciate each scene and then it was gone. TV should be possible of being a passive experience, rather than something you need to fully concentrate on!

i agree re.avatar , i didnt get a headache , but i did find myself wondering what part of the image to focus on , maybe the brain is conditioned to interpret tv in 2d ,as thats what were all used to , and the extra dimension was therefore confusing ..

if thats the case then maybe after watching a certain amount of 3d , it will feel more natural and immersive , one would assume this was the case during prolonged trials ..

maybe it will be a little easier to take it all in on a tv , as opposed
to a cinema screen ...

i do think 3d sport will be a big attraction , and some will look better than others , snooker , tennis , rally cross , should be fun , but at what price ??? hmmm.

 

[The_Lhc]

THE_FORCE:the_lhc:THE_FORCE:the_lhc:Well, you tell me. so far the sole contribution to the topic from the pair of you is "sports are rubbish".
Doesn't exactly push the topic along does it?

Wrong. My first post was to answer Big Aura's query about the need for a new 3D display, and secondly I've made an addition to my previous post. Happy now ?

Oh yes, brilliant, the first post answers a different question to the one I asked and the second just sidesteps it completely.

Ermm sorry, but Big Aura's question was a very valid one ! You may have created the topic - but others are allowed to ask questions and have them replied to aren't they ?

I don't think my second point sidestepped it at all. It makes perfect sense to me.

Ok, so we've got one answer to a different question and one answer which is no help whatsoever. I just don't understand the mentality behind answering a question on a topic that you have no interest in and (presumably) no frame of reference to base your answer on.

I mean, I don't listen to headphones, ever, haven't done for 20 years, but you don't see me leaping into all the headphone threads to offer people the "benefit" of my "wisdom" do you?

Of course if you want to make a joke at the topic's expense go ahead, I do that all the time I have to admit, but something a bit more original than "x,y and zee is rubbish!" is going to be required in that case.

It's the Melchett school of argument; "Ballet is rubbish!", "have you ever been to the Ballet sir?", "NO!"...

 

[Anonymous]

I just find it a little sad that the whole 3D tech push was started by films and is being hijacked by the sports agenda, that's all. Guess thats where the real money lies though eh, particularly from a marketing and advertising perspective.

 

[scene]

bennyboy71:I just find it a little sad that the whole 3D tech push was started by films and is being hijacked by the sports agenda, that's all. Guess thats where the real money lies though eh, particularly from a marketing and advertising perspective.

Is it being hijacked? There's a fair few cinemas showing 3D films, and (to date) we've had a couple of test transmissions of 3D sport by Sky to a few pubs. Sky are going to launch a 3D TV channel, not a 3D Sports channel - though I'm sure they will - and the 3D Blu Ray spec (for movies) has been completed. This doesn't sound like the hijack of 3D by sports, just sports getting on the bandwagon along with everyone else.

Sure sports have lots of money, but can they match the (alleged) $250 million avatar cost. For one film. The average Hollywood movie costs over $100m. And the global returns on a successful film, with associated franchising, marketing, etc. are vast.

I think the real money, and the people most trying to push the tech are the manufacturers of displays and BD players - they need the tech. As seen elsewhere on this forum, you can already get BD players sub-£100 and BD discs at £6-7 and once you've bought your stonking 50" HD TV, you won't need to buy a new one for 5 years, unless...

Unless you've want to get 3D...

 

[hammill]

scene:

bennyboy71:I just find it a little sad that the whole 3D tech push was started by films and is being hijacked by the sports agenda, that's all. Guess thats where the real money lies though eh, particularly from a marketing and advertising perspective.

Is it being hijacked? There's a fair few cinemas showing 3D films, and (to date) we've had a couple of test transmissions of 3D sport by Sky to a few pubs. Sky are going to launch a 3D TV channel, not a 3D Sports channel - though I'm sure they will - and the 3D Blu Ray spec (for movies) has been completed. This doesn't sound like the hijack of 3D by sports, just sports getting on the bandwagon along with everyone else.

Sure sports have lots of money, but can they match the (alleged) $250 million avatar cost. For one film. The average Hollywood movie costs over $100m. And the global returns on a successful film, with associated franchising, marketing, etc. are vast.

I think the real money, and the people most trying to push the tech are the manufacturers of displays and BD players - they need the tech. As seen elsewhere on this forum, you can already get BD players sub-£100 and BD discs at £6-7 and once you've bought your stonking 50" HD TV, you won't need to buy a new one for 5 years, unless...

Unless you've want to get 3D...

Five years? I had my last one thirteen and it was still going when I gave it away on freecycle. I will be very upset if my Kuro does not last at least ten years, whatever happens with 3d.

 

[The_Lhc]

scene:
bennyboy71:I just find it a little sad that the whole 3D tech push was started by films and is being hijacked by the sports agenda, that's all. Guess thats where the real money lies though eh, particularly from a marketing and advertising perspective.

Is it being hijacked?

No it isn't, anymore than HD hasn't.

For 3-D in the home to work it'll have to cover everything, thinking otherwise is pretty daft really.