Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Displays Media Entertainment

Japan Will Start 3D TV Programming This Summer 105

Posted by timothy
from the but-that-takes-up-more-room dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Japan HD TV operator Sky Perfect will start 3D programming this summer, with focuses on live events and sports events. As more Hollywood movies are shot in 3D, and 3D TVs are expected to come onto the market in the very near future, Sky Perfect is hoping that people will switch to 3D TV just like people switched from black and white to color. How about 3D TV in other countries?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan Will Start 3D TV Programming This Summer

Comments Filter:
  • Meh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @04:14AM (#30968796)

    If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot&hackish,org> on Sunday January 31, 2010 @04:28AM (#30968848)

      Yeah, that's why it doesn't seem quite analogous to me. There's no real practical downside to a B&W->Color switch. There is some artistic interest in B&W over color, but it's fairly niche. But 3d TV requires glasses, which 2d TV doesn't, a big practical difference. And I think the number of people who find 3d annoying / motion-sickness-inducing / etc. to watch, and prefer 2d even just aesthetically, will be greater than the number who prefer b&w over color.

      Here's what a 1997 review article [toronto.edu] (from Displays 17(2):100-110) concluded:

      [A] broad range of fairly mature 3-D equipment is already on the market. The available systems, however, suffer from the drawback that users have to wear special devices to separate the left eye's and right eye's images. Such "aided viewing" systems have been firmly established in many professional applications. Yet further expansion to other fields will require "free viewing" systems with improved viewing comfort and closer adaptation to the mechanisms of binocular vision. The respective technologies are still under development.

      ...which is pretty much the state of technology in 2010 as well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DrXym (126579)
        I remember going to some trade show some 15 years ago where a variety of 3D devices were on display and to be honest the state of the art has barely advanced since then. The displays may have changed from CRT to LCD / plasma / DLP but they still require special glasses to watch 3D.

        The first manufacturer to produce a 3D display that works over a wide viewing angle without glasses is going to make a fortune.

      • Huh? I saw a couple of glasses-free 3d televisions last week and they didn't seem that bad; in fact they looked better than the glasses-wearing ones (which had poor encoding on the content they were playing, leading to artefacts).

        If they keep improving, I don't see that you can just dismiss them.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Asclepius99 (1527727)
          I actually wonder if quickly improving 3D TV could hurt the market. I think this will definitely be a market people are going to be very wary entering into it and companies constantly saying a newer better 3D TV will be out in a year or two (pretty soon to be changing TVs) might confuse people about when exactly they should jump in.
        • by hazydave (96747)

          How did they look with your head tilted 45 degrees? 90 degrees? That's the big problem with glasses-free 3D technologies. I'll admit wasn't at CES this year... I have not seen the latest stuff.

      • Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)

        by mattr (78516) <.mattr. .at. .telebody.com.> on Sunday January 31, 2010 @09:07AM (#30969784) Homepage Journal

        But 3d TV requires glasses

        False. Some displays do not require glasses.

        Just google for: 3d tv no glasses
        1 [timesonline.co.uk] 2 [tomsguide.com] 3 [engadget.com] 4 [engadget.com] 5 [neowin.net]

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        There is some artistic interest in B&W over color,

        I know you were trying to give at least some credit to B&W TVs, but but you can still do B&W on a color display. So that isn't an advantage that they held.

      • by hazydave (96747)

        Unless this is just a crazy gimmick, it's going to work something along the lines of the new Blu-Ray 3D standard(Multiview Video Coding). You need a 3D-aware player/receiver to fully realize the 3D information, older players will just see a clear 2D display, not some mess of overlapped 3D images.

        This is also, wisely, done from a data centric viewpoint -- your player gets the 3D data, and does SOMETHING with it to present it to the viewer. That may be 3D shutter glasses if I want to watch 3D via my PS3 on to

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

      Probably not enough to make it viable. Do you remember quadrophonic sound [wikipedia.org] from the 70's? Another cute technology that turned out to have an unfavorable benefit to pain-in-the-ass ratio. Those kind of things don't tend to catch fire in the commercial market. Wake me up they figure out how to do it without the glasses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa (526365)
        That's a good example... now that almost all movies on DVD or Blu-ray offer 5.1, and we've figured out how to get pretty good sound quality from small speakers, people are installing surround systems en masse. More and more people are opting for a Home Theatre rather than just having a TV in the living room.

        Maybe 3d will go the same way. Unlike most other movies that tried 3d in the past, Avatar used the technology to good effect. If more content follows, and more programming is made available over the a
      • by hazydave (96747)

        Yes... we will never be in an era in which people will regularly listen to 4+ speakers in a surround pattern. Oh wait... that happend... I actually have eight speaker sound in my media room.

        Sometimes the idea is just dandy, but the implementation is stupid. That's kind of how quadraphonic was. 3D has been around since the 1950's, but it was a stupid gimmick back then. "Avatar" is one of the fist films to show that it works as just another enhancement... you still believe it's 3D, even if you don't have some

    • Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Sunday January 31, 2010 @07:07AM (#30969264) Journal
      I already have to wear glasses to see the TV. Am I expected to wear a second pair because the ones I've seen wont exactly fit over the glasses I'm wearing now? No one seems to be answering this question.

      Will I have to buy yet another pair of prescription glasses? I already own an indoor pair and pair of tinted outdoor glasses. Prescription glasses aren't cheap.

      Or, as I suspect, people without 20:20 vision will be discriminated against, forced to wear contact lenses, forced to have laser eye treatment, or forced to give up the TV. Three people in my house wear glasses, 50% of the people at work wear glasses, figures on the internet talk about millions of people having less than perfect eyesight.

      Meh indeed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by antifoidulus (807088)
        I have the same problem, in fact I cannot watch 3d movies out of both eyes if I have my glasses on(and at least in a theatre, I cannot see jack shit without them). I can actually watch it out of one eye at a time, but squinting for 2 hours is hardly the definition of fun.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by KDR_11k (778916)

        My eye alignment is so bad I can't even see 3D. Was really fun during the military fitness tests, the 3D vision tester didn't accept "can't see shit" as an answer.

      • I wear glasses, but I find that most 3d glasses (including Imax glasses and the Avatar ones) fit comfortably over my own pair, which admittedly are fairly small.

        What do you pay for glasses? Since you will not using these TV specs all the time, you can use cheaper lenses without all those fancy coatings, and more importantly you can get a cheap-ass frame. And you don't need to get the prescription exactly right either if you do not watch 3d for more than 3 hours or so. $50 should be enough for that.
        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          I wear glasses, but I find that most 3d glasses (including Imax glasses and the Avatar ones) fit comfortably over my own pair, which admittedly are fairly small.

          IMAX and theatre 3D is done using polarized (circularly) glasses - they have two frame synced projectors simultaneously projecting two views and the glasses select the "right" one for each eye.

          3D TVs use a more active system - because they have to use the same screen to display both images, they alternate between the two images. The active glasses b

      • by dara (119068)

        I don't wear glasses (but I'm close), but I wonder if we will start to see prescription eyeglasses with circular polarization if 3D TV really takes off. I forget the logic of polarizing sunglasses for glare - something about reflections off water to be more likely to be polarized a certain direction. I suppose the is a 3 dB hit in light intensity, so the glasses would pass less light (maybe not as good for reading glasses). But a photo-chromatic pair of circular polarized sunglasses that got reasonably c

      • by hazydave (96747)

        If you use some of the first systems, you'll probably need LCD shutters, either over or attached to your glasses. That's the kind of 3D you can have added to existing hardware (at least some of it) right now.

        It's also possible to do this using passive glasses, just like in the 3D theaters. Using circular polarizers in the display itself, you need the same on your eyes. That's a pair of something that looks just like sunglasses, or clip-ons for your existing glasses, or prescription 3D glasses (which also wo

    • by camperslo (704715)

      What about conveying other sensations?

      Either NBC has been working hard at smell, or I have a failing selenium rectifier...

    • by timeOday (582209)
      You have to wear headphones to use portable media, and that doesn't seem to have been a deal-breaker.

      After watching Avatar in 3d, I am delaying my next TV purchase to when 3d settles out. If in the end I can get a 3d-capable TV for an extra $100 or so, which also works perfectly well in 2d mode, I wouldn't mind donning the glasses for make-popcorn-sit-down-and-turn-out-the-lights movie watching.

    • Has anyone thought of wearing contact lenses that would create the difference needed for 3d viewing. I know contacts bother many people, but I can pop them in and out, no problem. And it would be great to have complete peripheral vision...
  • by kimvette (919543) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @04:19AM (#30968816) Homepage Journal

    I've upgraded three televisions to High Def (all three panels are Samsung) and while I do like high definition, the high def aspect was not the primary motivation. The motivation is that the televisions are not 200lbs behemoths that take up a lot of space, plus I gain HDMI/DVI and reduction of the typical home theater rat's nest. Most "high def" programming isupscaled, or through cable, overly compressed, often completely negating any improvement in clarity. OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing, or completely unwatchable random MPEG blocking and stuttering in the sound stream. I LOVE high def on blu-ray though.

    3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction, or red/blue glasses, which screws with color perception and is often not very convincing (and practically unwatchable without the glasses), or through shutter goggles which are cumbersome, prone to breaking, and expensive - or prototype models which feature prismatic screens similar to 3D photos, which depend heavily on being on-axis with the screen (sit to the side, for example, you will only see one side of the prism). For 3D TV to become mainstream, there really needs to be a monumental leap forward in display design. There needs to be a holographic or similar solution which isn't confined to a narrow field of view, doesn't require goggles, and doesn't become unwatchable (or degrade at all) when viewed on a conventional receiver.

    Until then 3D TV is just a novelty only designed for early adopters to pay to be beta testers and lose out when a real standard is introduced (at which point your receiver proves incompatible) and to show off how you throw money away. IMHO of course.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Itninja (937614)
      I don't think you understand the technology you are railing against.

      OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing

      That's how all digital media is. It either works or it doesn't.

      either polarizing glasses (which...through psychological effects...gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)

      That's completely wrong. There is nothing 'psychological' about how polarizing 3D works. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen the two words together. It's just fancy stereoscopy.

      Tho

      • by emurphy42 (631808) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @05:25AM (#30969008) Homepage
        How polarizing 3D does work (I got to see and hear about this at a conference last year):
        1. You're shown two overlapping images. One, corresponding to what your left eye should see, is polarized (say) horizontally; the other, corresponding to what your right eye should see, is polarized vertically.
        2. The lenses are oriented so that the left one only lets horizontally-polarized light through, and the right one only lets vertically-polarized light through. Thus, each eye sees what it should, and fails to see what the other eye should.

        As usual, Wikipedia has more on the techniques and options. [wikipedia.org]

        • The glasses I got for Avatar don't seem to be linearly polarised.

          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            In theaters, the recent trend has been to use circularly polarized glasses.

          • by bertok (226922) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @06:57AM (#30969240)

            The glasses I got for Avatar don't seem to be linearly polarised.

            That's because they used circular polarizers. One clockwise, and one counter-clockwise. They're more expensive to make than linear polarizers, but don't resulting in ghosting if you tilt your head. I guess they got the filters cheap enough.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Cyberax (705495)

            They were (at least here).

            I wear polarizing anti-glare glasses and I was stupid enough to forget to take non-polarizing glasses to the movie. So I could either watch Avatar with one eye or watch it without my glasses.

          • by hazydave (96747)

            The linear polarizing systems are kind of on the outs, because they start to fail as soon as you tilt your head a little. Many of the theaters, including the IMAX theater where I saw "Avatar" in stereo, use the RealD system. They use circular polarization, clockwise for the right eye, counterclockwise for the left eye.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_Cinema [wikipedia.org]

        • by rreay (50160)

          Modern 3D uses circular polarized glasses. Linear Polarized glassed require that your head uncomfortably still because if you tip your head you got ghosting.

          If you saw 3D in a theater 10, 20 years ago you were wearing linear polarized glasses. If you did you might remember the neck pain you came out of the theater with.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hadlock (143607)

      My question is, once we all own 3D, high def TVs, where do manufacturers go from there? 24" displays with HDMI/DVI in are already in the $120 range (NEW - see newegg), the 30" used market is about to become flooded in the next 2-3 years driving prices down to $100-180. People will continue to buy 40" HDTVs but anyone who works at subway or starbucks can afford or has already bought one. I guess 40" displays break and wear out, but HDTV sales are either going to level out or drop off a very steep cliff in th

    • by Dogtanian (588974)

      3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)

      You're confusing polarising glasses (which someone else explained [slashdot.org]) with those which exploit the Pulfrich effect [wikipedia.org].

      Polarised glasses require the images for each eye to use (differently) polarised light, so they don't work with ordinary non-polarised TV or cinema screens. However, they don't have the limitations you describe here:-

      which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction

      That applies to the Pulfrich system. However, the Pulfrich system does have the advantage of working perfectly fine with ordinary TVs. In fact the BBC used it for several programmes

    • by hazydave (96747)

      RealD-style polarizing (eg, circular polarizers) is just as effective as shutter glasses, and adaptable to some TV technologies (DLP, in particular). But you'll need a new TV.

      The only reasonable add-on to existing hardware are LCD shutter glasses. They're nowhere near as cumbersome as they were back in the 80s, but yeah, still extra heavy compared to passive glasses, and you need the battery, too.

      "Prismatic screens similar to 3D photos" is called lenticular 3D/stereoscopy. It's flawed for the same reason th

  • 3Ality and Sky TV... (Score:5, Informative)

    by longacre (1090157) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @04:20AM (#30968820) Homepage
    ...will be broadcasting [popularmechanics.com] today's Manchester United vs. Arsenal match in 3D, which I believe will be the first live 3D sports broadcast in Europe (though it's only being piped in to nine pubs in the UK).

    ESPN will launch [usatoday.com] a 3D network in June, though content will be limited.
    • I will be the first to say that that a 3D wrestling match on TV is very exciting. I will keep that event and date bookmarked. Yup, wouldn't miss it.
    • Does anyone know if ESPN will have the World Cup in 3D? I know 32 games will be in HD, and ESPN will start broadcasting in June, but nothing I have read had connected the two other than speculation. As a Canadian, I need to know if I need to get a grey market dish.

      I for one am very excited and plan to be an extremely early adopter.
    • by pmontra (738736)
      So everybody in those pubs have to wear 3D glasses. If they don't they'll see double images of the players even before drinking a beer. A theatre is a very different environment, far more controlled. This ManU vs Arsenal game is an interesting experiment in how freely moving crowds can (and are willing to) watch 3D broadcasts.
    • At the distances involved with practically all televised shots, there is almost no difference in view from right to left eye - i.e. we see the actual game as a 2D representation, even when live. 3D becomes more apparent inside about 20 feet (no cite, just experience), which is why in every 3D movie you can say "oooh - they put that right in my face for a cool 3D effect".

      Wrestling? Okay - I can see some application there, as all the action is close up, but for almost all TV, I think it's a waste.

  • One thing I see happening soon will be designer glasses to watch these TVs, etc. I imagine that brands such as Oakley, Police and Ray Ban will offer some damn expensive 3D specs to wear to the cinema, or to keep at home. Of course, being designer labels, they won't offer anything special over the cheap Real3D plastic ones that are dispensed already. They'll just be... fashionable.

    Expect sometime over the next ten years to hear someone talking about his £85 Police 3D shades, to a girl who will suddenl

    • by b1t r0t (216468)
      . . . which still doesn't help those of us who need prescription glasses to see more than two feet away clearly.
  • I'm sure there will be some programming, but I don't ever see it becoming wide spread until the technology progresses. The problem is you've got to wear special glasses. That's a pain for many reasons. While it is feasible to ask people to do that for some movies and such, I can't see it for general TV viewing.

    I mean even if the owner of the TV likes it, there are additional problems. With colour or high def, it just works for everyone in the room. For 3D TV, it is a situation where everyone has to wear the

    • by hazydave (96747)

      Depends on the kind of studio. TV studios, sure, but they actually wanted the HD overall -- it was largely seen as a way to increase viewership.

      Most production studios were already shooting on film, and editing digitally, so adding HD to that toolchain only meant that you could shoot for more than 10 minutes continuously, and didn't have to get the film processed. Adding 3D is a new camera, probably a new lens (depending on the camera), and some changes to the existing editing. And of course, some studios s

  • Takeshi's Castle will be awesome.
  • Yeah I'd quite like a 3D TV glasses and all. But like many people I've only just got an HD capable TV and it cost quite a lot of money. If I was buying a new TV I'd probably think about getting a 3D capable TV but only if it didn't cost a lot more than an ordinary HDTV. For me it's like bluray. If I didn't have a DVD player I'd probably buy one. But I do, and the amount I use it and the different it makes means that I won't upgrade at any costs. Maybe if my DVD player breaks one day I'd consider it. That
    • by hazydave (96747)

      Pretty much every DLP sold since 2007 has been "3D Ready", and it was just a feature tossed in, no extra money. I know this specifically, because I bought a 2006 model, right before they did this.

  • ...While the 3d effect dawns on me 2 seconds after I wear the polarized glasses, my friend have a real hard time seeing it, this is NOT a perfect technology - I'd say it's not ready for the market yet.

    Some people have reported dizziness after seeing 3D at the movies - this means liability, and you risk massive lawsuits if you publish this technology in it's early immature stages as it is now.

    I'm much more inclined to like the 3D plasma screens shown 4-5 years ago, where you needed NO 3D glasses at all, but

    • by Cochonou (576531)
      Can you really sue someone for dizziness, where you live ? I can't wait to go to the theatre, and have a lawsuit because I have sore eye.
      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        Not dizzyness but that can grow into something else and there have been lawsuits over epileptic seizures already (apparently a big warning on the first page of the manual and a large warning on the box are not enough for US courts).

    • by qubezz (520511)
      and you risk massive lawsuits if you publish this technology in it's early immature stages as it is now

      You risk massive lawsuits from people to stupid to just close their eyes?

      Oh, wait, I forgot we live in a country full of people too stupid to not jam every bit of food they see into their face...
  • The recent hype around 3D TV reminds me a lot of the VR hype back in the mid 90s. The technology just wasn't there yet and it killed the market before it began, as a result home VR never became the panacea that was promised.

    Well, that and no one wanted to wear bulky headsets for hours.

    • by vadim_t (324782)

      Yep, I always thought it was unfortunate that it seemed people tried the hardest back when tech wasn't there yet, but just as it started getting good people lost interest for some reason.

      I remember back then people were experimenting with helmets with *CRTs* mounted in them, and graphics much worse than you could have on a modern phone.

      Maybe it's time to give it another try.

    • by timeOday (582209)
      Graphics have now progressed to about what VR was promising back then. Natal appears poised to add full-body interactivity. What else is left? Wraparound 3d viewing. (And the "wraparound" part is probably not desirable due to VR sickness).

      I am becoming less skeptical about futuristic technolgies eventually "making it." Look at robots and now lasers taking to the battlefield, after decades of always being "one day."

  • Since the Japanese will be producing the 3D programming, we'll get to watch 3D segments of celebrities watching and reacting to 3D segments of celebrities eating and reacting to mundane foods. Have I got that about right?

    Could be worse, I suppose. Could be British comedy.
  • Japan has had 3D over the air broadcast for a while now. Channel BS11 shows several hours of 3D every day. You can get a special Hyundai TV that detects and plays the 3D.

  • you could be hit if you stay too close to a 3D TV showing a boxe match.
  • by guyminuslife (1349809) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @09:47AM (#30969968)

    I'm still waiting for home Smell-O-Vision [wikipedia.org] programming.

  • How are they going to make the 2-D anime into 3-D anime, aren't all of the characters and whatnot already painfully 2-D, won't they need a new herd of writers to add "depth" to the characters??

  • 3D-D wrapup (Score:3, Informative)

    by earlymon (1116185) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @03:26PM (#30972594) Homepage Journal

    http://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-news/discovery-communications-sony-and-imax-announce-pl/ [discovery.com]

    Yep - a 24/7 fully dedicated 3D network in the US.

    I think 3D is an epic fail right out of the gate. Autostereoscopy has been on the market already, so the whole add glasses thing is idiotic.

    Samsung showed it at this year's CES, but it didn't get the big exposure... but still, it's out there:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1379458976&play=1 [cnbc.com]

    Autostereoscopic info here (one example) - meaning, 3D without glasses:

    http://www.xyz3d.tv/ [xyz3d.tv]

    In addition - 3D headsets with 1.44 megapixel/eye glasses have been out for some time. All it would take would be a few minor upgrades, and for about a grand, you'd have the equivalent of a 3D 70" set at 13'. See, for example:

    http://www.i-glassesstore.com/ig-hrvpro.html [i-glassesstore.com]

    Oh - and wait for it - the Blu-ray kiddies have decided that the correct term is now 3-D, not 3D, unless it is.

    http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3924 [blu-ray.com]

    A note on spelling

    Earlier this year, the blu-ray.com team unanimously decided to use the spelling "3-D", with a hyphen, for everything related to stereoscopic images, and "3D", without a hyphen, for three-dimensional graphics and animation. We shall continue to do so, except when citing the name of the "Blu-ray 3D" specification, which doesn't use the hyphen.

    OBTW - Did we all notice that the proposed tech is going to eat an additional 50% of bandwidth? For those suffering from compression/decompression artifacting - read: for everyone with digital cable or satellite HD - it's going to get worse as the 3D premiums are added. Woot!

    I loved David Pogue's view (amusing as always) on 3D TV in his Truth Serum video.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1386497920&play=1 [cnbc.com]

    Let's not forget - the Avatar craze was with circularly polarized PASSIVE GLASSES - not Bluetooth'd active shutters!

    http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/164200,3d-tv-buzz-at-ces-2010-just-another-gimmick-or-should-you-hang-onto-those-avatar-glasses.aspx [pcauthority.com.au]

    I think this is a simple case of **I AM** ready for 3D-D ... ready to wait until it dies or makes sense!

    BTW - Let's not forget Johnny Lee's head-tracking system (if you watch nothing else - watch this!!) - at least that was cool:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw [youtube.com]

  • by Whiteox (919863)

    There's nothing wrong with Black and White TV.
    All this colour nonsense is nonsense.

    • When people are stopped being scammed by Sky/Phoney/Sony with this 3D TV the better. A hologram TV is not that far that far away. Sky Murdoch group still insist on selling you High Definition boxes with all the subscription fee's but are now going to force you into 3D TV. My advice is simple, do not pay for it. Here is a good example.... remember betamax video... it was elite but VHS took over. How many of you have updated your VHS collection to DVD? Now you have to replace all of it with Blu-Ray. In two
      • by Whiteox (919863)

        I have a Rega Planar 3 which is really sweet!
        Basically agree with your statements. The fact that most video is available digitised is enough for me.
        Audio is different - pop is ok as mp3/flak etc but anything truly enjoyable I go vinyl.
        Also there are CD versions of LPs that sound absolutely horrible. Eg Japan:Tin Drum - The LP easily shines over the crappy CD. There are a few others IMHO.

        • I have a Rega Planar 3 which is really sweet! Basically agree with your statements. The fact that most video is available digitised is enough for me. Audio is different - pop is ok as mp3/flak etc but anything truly enjoyable I go vinyl. Also there are CD versions of LPs that sound absolutely horrible. Eg Japan:Tin Drum - The LP easily shines over the crappy CD. There are a few others IMHO.

          Excellent, Dad also has a Rega Planar 3 which is really good and as you know already a good deck and stylus will kick any CD arse!

  • Sport events are among the least 3D-compatible TV shows... They focus on characters which are far away from the camera, so the parallax is very low and so is the 3D effect. But well, I guess they don't really have much choice. They can only show thing they film themselves in 3D, because of the special camera it needs.

16.5 feet in the Twilight Zone = 1 Rod Serling

Working...