Japan Will Start 3D TV Programming This Summer 105
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?"
Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first manufacturer to produce a 3D display that works over a wide viewing angle without glasses is going to make a fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
If they keep improving, I don't see that you can just dismiss them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
touché
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What about conveying other sensations?
Either NBC has been working hard at smell, or I have a failing selenium rectifier...
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's just the stench of the NBC programming you're getting there...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.
Bearing in mind that approximately 40% of all Star Trek: The Next Generation stories revolved around something going wrong with the holodeck, I'll wait a bit longer until they get the wrinkles sorted out...
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner than you may think! NSFW
http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/
High Def, 3D, all meh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
That's how all digital media is. It either works or it doesn't.
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
Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (Score:5, Informative)
As usual, Wikipedia has more on the techniques and options. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The glasses I got for Avatar don't seem to be linearly polarised.
Re: (Score:1)
Gonna be fun for the tetrachromatics.
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few movie cameras and renderers that support 4 primary colours (e.g. R,G1,G2,B, or R1,R2,G,B - depends on what sort of tetrachromat you are too
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can read, some of them did it that way, but most used circular polarization.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
In theaters, the recent trend has been to use circularly polarized glasses.
Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:1)
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:2)
Precisely like the DAB radios on beta test in Malta right now. Next year we will have DAB+ and people will have to throw away their radios.
Sell them on Amazon UK, then. We formally adopted the 90s-tech DAB system here some time back, unfortunately. Though it's never taken off quite as much as it should have, and there's still talk of DAB+.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:1)
What *you* do at certain points can determines exactly what happens in the movie!
Tilt head to not die!
Polarised != Pulfrich (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
ESPN will launch [usatoday.com] a 3D network in June, though content will be limited.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am very excited and plan to be an extremely early adopter.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would football be better in 3D? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, if it takes 10-20 years until a proper standard is deviced, it is actually not a bad idea to buy a 3D system now. 10 years is a pretty good life span for
Re: (Score:2)
Glasses (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it'll take off (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Moving to Japan (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be quite nice, but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not everyone can see 3D... (Score:2)
...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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Anyone remember the VR hype back in 1994? (Score:2)
Well, that and no one wanted to wear bulky headsets for hours.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Great. (Score:1)
Could be worse, I suppose. Could be British comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse, I suppose. Could be British comedy.
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The difference between British comedy and American comedy is, British comedy isn't funny because nobody understands it; whereas, American comedy isn't funny even though you can understand it just fine, even if you have roughly the same intelligence quotient as a jar of mayonnaise.
Japanese OTA 3D already exists (Score:1)
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.
This can be dangerous (Score:1)
3D? Bah, humbug (Score:3, Funny)
I'm still waiting for home Smell-O-Vision [wikipedia.org] programming.
Re: (Score:2)
I fart in your smell-o-cam's general direction
How are they going to do this? (Score:2)
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??
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them are already in 3D [wikipedia.org].
3D-D wrapup (Score:3, Informative)
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]
B/W (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with Black and White TV.
All this colour nonsense is nonsense.
kick 3D (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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? (Score:1)