Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Consumer 3D Television Moving Forward

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the don't-tag-this-porn dept.

Television 127

TheSync writes "Hollywood Reporter claims that SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) will 'establish an industry task force to define the parameters of a mastering standard for 3D content distributed via broadcast, cable, satellite, packaged media and the Internet, and played-out on televisions, computer screens and other tethered displays.' Already, Japanese Nippon BS viewers with Hyundai 3D LCD sets can watch an hour of 3D programming daily. Even your existing DLP TV set might be 3D capable today with the addition of LCD shutter glasses." Reader DaMan1970 makes note of another developing television technology; telescopic pixel displays. "Each pixel consists of 2 opposing mirrors where the primary mirror can change shape under an applied voltage. When the pixel is off, the primary & secondary mirrors are parallel & reflect all of the incoming light back into the light source."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Use (3, Funny)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285215)

Porn.

Why else would you want a 3D experience?

Not all porn should be 3D (3, Funny)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285439)

Why else would you want a 3D experience?

Goatse and Tub Girl in 2D was disturbing enough.

Re:Not all porn should be 3D (2, Funny)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285675)

I'm waiting for tub girl in smell-o-vision.

Re:Not all porn should be 3D (1)

nabasu (771183) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286155)

You do!?

Re:First Use (-1, Redundant)

Jurily (900488) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285493)

Porn.

Yup, Slashdot alright.

Re:First Use (1)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285557)

Many years ago (about 25 if memory serves) I saw 'Emmanuelle 4' in 3D. It was very... strange. I am sorry to say that absolutely nothing and no-one came flying out of the screen.

Re:First Use (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289119)

With a touch-screen interface?

Moving forward?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24285217)

Aaargghhh... MBA-speak has invaded my last bastion, Slashdot.

I vote we ban TheSync and put Soulskill on probation (if nothing else but for their nicknames as well).

Re:Moving forward?!?! (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285531)

Aaargghhh... MBA-speak has invaded my last bastion, Slashdot.

Seconded. Irked me too. Although "going forward" would have been a more direct hit.

I have other 'favourites' but it hurts to recall them (and type them).

Format Wars and Standards (3, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285225)

I wouldn:t buy this until IEEE is on board...

Re:Format Wars and Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24285399)

I wouldn:t buy this until IEEE is on board...

I wouldn't buy this until ISO is on board...

Re:Format Wars and Standards (3, Funny)

legallyillegal (889865) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285483)

I wouldn't buy this until Microsoft submits the standard...

This was CLEARLY a joke! (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286069)

Man, those moderators get weirder en weirder...

Re:This was CLEARLY a joke! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288121)

I put a humor warning on my posts. They seem to be losing their sense of humor rapidly, gone are the days of using hardcore sarcasm with no hints :(

On-topic: I don't see 3D TV having any chance replacing regular TVs in many homes unless it has a good viewing angle, doesn't require any headgear, and the picture looks the same to all the viewers.

The whole 3D TV idea screams GIMMICK, (and that means a lot coming from someone who owns a lot of silly gadgets such as a P5 glove) so it won't be adopted unless there are some serious advantages. I've watched 3D movies, and while the special effects are really awesome, it didn't really add anything to the viewing experience.

What I would like the see is 3D video games. That cheesy Terminator 3D movie at Universal Studios had an awesome scene where a little robot appeared to be floating right in front of your face, imagine playing augmented-reality Quake through 3D glasses like that! Well maybe not such a great idea in our "post-9/11 world," but you get the idea.

I actually recommend the Terminator 3D movie BTW. The special effects are awesome and the storyline is hilarious. "OH NOES ITS TEH 1-MILLION!!!!!ONE"

Re:This was CLEARLY a joke! (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289025)

I put a humor warning on my posts. They seem to be losing their sense of humor rapidly, gone are the days of using hardcore sarcasm with no hints :(

I have found the safest way to avoid +1 funny mods is to declare your jokes.

Re:Format Wars and Standards (2, Funny)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286109)

I wouldn't buy this until the Queen of England knights the inventors...

Re:Format Wars and Standards (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289969)

I won't be on board with this until they buy ISO

FTFY

Ah finally!! (1)

Izabael_DaJinn (1231856) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285281)

Now Robot Monster [imdb.com] can be seen at home the way it always should have been!

TV used to be so relaxing (3, Interesting)

Mutio (1204504) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285293)

When I sit down at my computer i am engaged and am accomplishing something(most of the time), but when i sit down to watch TV i want to be completely relaxed and just watch. If this means i will have to be more aware of my TV then im not for it. Also my TV is often on in the background, which means I'll have to wear the special glasses all the time which isn't gonna happen.

Re:TV used to be so relaxing (2, Funny)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285323)

indeed. TV is "noisy wallpaper" to me.

I grew up in a loud household, and silence is uncomfortable.

I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is) just so jon stewart pops out at me.

Re:TV used to be so relaxing (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285395)

I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is) just so jon stewart pops out at me.

In Soviet Russia, you pop out at Jon Stewart.

Re:TV used to be so relaxing (0, Redundant)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285555)

I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is)

Nah that's dumb.

just so jon stewart pops out at me.

.. omg that would be great ;)

Re:TV used to be so relaxing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24285601)

Shut up, you fuck.

Re:TV used to be so relaxing (1)

k31bang (672440) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290243)

Also my TV is often on in the background, which means I'll have to wear the special glasses all the time which isn't gonna happen.

If someone develops special shutter contact lenses, would you wear those?

Unfortunately hard to take-off (5, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285345)

I have a pair of e-dimensional 3d glasses (yes, they DO work if you have the right set-up and some patience*), and can say after showing them to a few people, several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:

Motion sickness
Astigmatism
Eye strain
The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes
Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
Looking like a nerd

There's some serious patience required to adjust to it, its not natural to focus your eyes direction at one depth, and change the actual focus to another. When what your looking at is far away (like a movie screen), its a lot easier. When its a TV or computer screen that is just a few feet away, its harder to adjust to, and for a lot of people if they don't instantly "click" with something then its hard to get them to want it.

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures of a static object side by side with the camera pointing towards a certain object (make sure its the same object in each one!). Put them next to each other, then slowly cross your eyes until they merge. It'll form a 3d picture, full color, no special equipment required, no red/blue glasses to give people headaches. The further apart the pictures are taken, the more pronounced the 3-d effect. You'll want to use the cross-eyed effect as opposed to the "looking into the picture" effect because it allows for a larger picture.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (5, Interesting)

JoeRW (1227144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285709)

Well if you use a compatible DLP projector (such as those listed here: "http://www.stereo3d.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?3177/3347") instead of a pc screen with the shutter glasses, and make the screen very large, the 3d effect is just as if you are looking just as you would normally. Space faring games such as Eve or X3 look the most impressive since it appears that you are floating in infinite space and very massive objects are in your neighbourhood. The cave exploration scenes from Half Life 2 episode 2 were also quite gobsmackingly fantastic; if you put the room light on it appears as though there is a cave system adjunct to the room! And the imposing obsidian combine walls do cause claustrophobia. Stalker had the most detailed 3d models I've seen however, I stood walking around the busted old bus shelter for hours in amazement at it's realism. So did my friends and even my mother, so I think it does help to have a very large screen.

Fake 3D (2, Informative)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285747)

I agree that stereoscopic vision is not going to hit the mainstream big time. It's more of a gimmick than anything else, for all the reasons you name. Television programming isn't nearly as accessible when you have to plunk on some headgear every time you want to see what's on the channel.

True 3D means holographic video, which is existing technology (albeit not in the "help me obiwan kenobi, you're my only hope" sense). What's annoying is that any standard based on stereoscopic vision will be incompatible with holographic needs, assuming we switch to holographic video once the bandwidth reaches the necessary capacity. I would much rather see plain old high definition 2-dimensional TV remain the sole medium for broadcasting until holography is ready to take it's place.

The one advantage stereoscopic vision has for commercial programming is that every viewer sitting in any (reasonable) position will see the exact same picture, from the exact same perspective. That's desirable to directors for framing a shot. However, stereoscopic vision is very limited, and if it doesn't succeed even modestly (which I don't believe it will), pushing it forward now will sour the opinion that both broadcasters and viewers have of 3D media generally. That will retard interest and investment in true 3D technology, which is something that could really reshape our media experience.

In short, holographic video is to current television as the television was to radio. Stereoscopic vision, in contrast, is more like smell-o-vision. Unfortunately, funding for holography is usually split among all other "simulated 3D" technology, and will suffer from the deflected focus.

Still, stereoscopic vision might be a boon for the porn industry, if it doesn't end up making your eyes water.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285929)

slowly cross your eyes

No matter how technologically advanced porn gets it's still bad for your eyesight.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286049)

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures.

Whenever I feel stupid, I'll make sure to picture myself staring at a monitor with my eyes crossed and my hand down my pants.

What about stereoscopic games and movies? I mean, I don't have shutter glasses, but I have several widescreen LCDs that could easily fit two images.

Current trends... (2, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286465)

several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:
{...}
The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes

Colour blindness hasn't stopped the introduction of colour TV. (BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

Astigmatism

This is a problem of using correct prescription glasses/contact lenses. In short, nothing to do with a stereo screen.

Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
Looking like a nerd

Well, if you have followed the trend on /. recently, it seems that most hardware maker are working toward cheap auto-stereo display (things that look 3D without glasses, just like the lenticular holograms on some DVD boxes). Which just look like plain simple LCD screens.

Motion sickness
Eye strain
{...}
When what your looking at is far away (like a movie screen), its a lot easier.

And the current trend with the recent introduction of HD TV is to have as big screens as possible. I now the average /. geek like to look movies in the privacy of his laptop. But the average joe 6-pack want to look at movies on the biggest possible honking LCD in his living room.

So to sum up, there aren't as much barriers to the introduction of stereo 3D TV.
And with the current trends in hardware it will be the easiest moment to introduce the technologie (unlike for example after several years, once DVB-T and other handheld TV reaches critical market share. Much hard to implement decent, simple and non nerdy stereo 3d on those devices).

Given the market potential for Porn (obvious reasons) and Sports (given the popularities of tech hacks to help joe 6 pack follow the match, or even systems like Hawk Eye - putting the viewer *inside* the match in 3D would probably be very much enjoyable) the demand for this kind of technology could be good enough to justify considering it.

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures.

...I've seen Japanese hentai comic book featuring all sort of exotic "bonus artwork". Including even random-dot stereograms. I can ask the friend who owns the books if you want some references.

Re:Current trends... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288631)

(BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

Yes. Are there places where it is impossible for someone lacking stereo vision to get a license?

Re:Current trends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24289791)

(BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

Yes.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286793)

I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures of a static object side by side with the camera pointing towards a certain object (make sure its the same object in each one!). Put them next to each other, then slowly cross your eyes until they merge.

That never ever worked for me. Different coloured glasses are what it takes for me to see reliable 3D from 2D printed material. (3D cinemas can use polarization, or could except I tend to watch films with my head at a slant...)

However, I have seen a 3D display which worked by projecting different images at different angles, so that you could see things without any glasses or other special stuff. It worked really well. This was with display technology that was hot stuff back in 1993 or '94, so I'm sure we can do better than that now.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290977)

Looking like a nerd

Thankfully none of us have to worry about THAT!

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off (1)

MrSteveSD (801820) | more than 6 years ago | (#24291327)

I have a pair of e-dimensional 3d glasses (yes, they DO work if you have the right set-up and some patience*), and can say after showing them to a few people, several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:

I've tried shutter glasses for games in the past and it wasn't a great experience. I think you really need to use a proper HMD with built-in screens. Although the field of view of HMDs is still far too pathetic to convince you that you are in a 3D game world, the FOV of some of them is perfect for watching movies. The Indicube [indicube.com] portable movie player is coming out soon and it has glasses that are equivalent to a 17 inch desk monitor. It's not geared up for 3D but once that sort of thing becomes widespread, 3D is sure to follow.

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures...

This is an old but effective trick. They even used to make cameras geared up for it. Harold LLoyd took lots of 3D pictures of Marilyn Monroe and other celebrities. You can even buy a book of his work. A lot of people have trouble viewing the pictures unaided though. You can get little plastic viewers to help, but they restrict the size of the pictures you can see. If TV goggles become widespread, maybe 3D photography will get a boost too.

Excellent! (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285371)

I will finally be able to watch the Simpsons in all its HD 3D glory.

Back in my day we had 1D television.... (3, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285543)

... and we were happy!

Re:Back in my day we had 1D television.... (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285581)

1D! Oh, to stretch out! Back in MY day, we lived in the 0th dimension and counted ourselves lucky. We didn't even have television. All we did was hang out at the point.

Re:Back in my day we had 1D television.... (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285617)

You still had it good, back then we lived in a negative dimension which means

negative dimension which means (1)

S3D (745318) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285715)

You still had it good, back then we lived in a negative dimension which means

which means that you lived in the hole [citebase.org] in the mandelbrot [wikipedia.org] fractal [wikipedia.org]

Re:negative dimension which means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24285877)

Here in the complex dimension the Mandelbrot set resembles Pamela Anderson, you just have to squint a bit.

aaplay applied to your favourite movie should give a similar effect (remember to squint!).

Re:Back in my day we had 1D television.... (1)

benhattman (1258918) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289937)

All we did was hang out at the point.

The point? We would have killed to have our own point to hang at back when we were sitting around all day just off center and eating cold nondimensional matter for breakfast.

Theaters must win on features, not performance. (4, Insightful)

Vegan Pagan (251984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285465)

The big news in the movie theater business is that Regal, AMC and Cinemark are closing a deal with Hollywood to pay for digital 3D projectors going into many of their theaters so the big summer movies of 2009 can look better than anything an HDTV can do. But if HDTVs will do stereoscopic 3D in a few years, then Hollywood and the theater chains have just blown a huge amount of money on tech that'll only get customers out of their homes for a few years.

This is why theaters need to stop pushing performance and start pushing features. With digital projection, movie theaters can theoretically show everything that's popular on TV: live sports, live news, talk shows, religious shows, long running scripted dramas and comedies. It's even technically possible for theaters to connect video game hardware to the projector and run controllers down to the audience so people can play a video game on the big screen. Of course, it'll be hairy for theaters to get the rights to show any of these things, but the relentless progression of home market tech, especially when it comes to screen size and picture quality, means it's just too expensive for theaters to stay ahead. Theater digital projectors are big and not mass produced, so even if they only perform a little better than home market projectors, they're vastly more expensive and won't come down in price. The last thing theaters need is to blow a huge wad of cash on a new projector, then have to buy another one in a few years.

What's much smarter for theaters to do is buy the least expensive Hollywood-approved projector they can (Christie's CP2000-M is 2.2 megapixels and is bright enough for screens up to 35 feet wide), then feed it with every conceivable kind of content. News reels died in the 1960s not because people don't want to drive to theaters to watch the news (the communal setting actually improves news just as much as it improves movies), but because only TV could show news live. Now theaters have most of the tech they need to show live news, but it hasn't occurred to them to ask the TV networks for content. Theaters still think Hollywood is the only sugar daddy they have.

It's great news that HDTVs will soon get stereoscopic 3D. I just hope Hollywood and movie theaters don't use it as an excuse to replace their projectors yet again. They need to compete against the home market creatively, not by throwing more dollars at the projection booth.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285527)

Have you been to a gas station recently?

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

muzip (1220080) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285751)

I will never ever go to a movie theater to watch news or a talk show... I can watch them at home freely, and the joy of watching them (if there is any!) would never increase on the big screen, putting aside all the effort to go to a theater.

However, if they can invent a game which would let 100 people play simultaneously on a single screen and can keep everybody playing for about 90 minutes, I might consider that.

If the technology goes to 3-D, and it looks it does, I believe they are on the right track making deals about 3-D projectors now, and they might make some money out of it until it becomes common in every new TV set.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285775)

I think theaters will just die.

They will work for a while until prices of large screens go down. It's not a big deal, the money will go to a different business model, the space will be used for live performances of whatever else. And the world will go on.

It has a long tradition and has had a great impact but, let's face it, putting hundreds of people in a single room just to see recorded media only makes sense until people can see that same media in a quality similar enough, at home.

The key is in the "similar enough" part. 50" 1080p is quite cheap already but still expensive for a large part of the public. Also taking into account that 50" is only perfect for a relatively small room. However, larger screens go down in price and have no limit in this progression, while theaters have, at the very least, all the costs of a public building.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (4, Insightful)

Apotsy (84148) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285799)

People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285977)

People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

I think it's a matter of amount of difference. People said that before because the ability to actually see the movie seemed to be the main function. Then we discovered that quality was important enough to grant going to the theater for the best products (movies) and leaving the rest for the home systems.

To dodge the new menace of equal quality we would have to discover the other thing about theaters that make it worth to keep going. And here we reach your other point:

Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

Let's see if theaters could reach the timelessness status of restaurants:

- You can't get the same product at home, or it's much more expensive in most cases: This was true for theaters, but as they rely on technology (not on human service), it can end.

- You can't have the same environment at home: Theaters abandoned that route a long time ago. I concede that really nice and pretty theaters could last eternally as an elegant way of spending an afternoon. The rest would have to throw out more than half the clientele, the ones with phones, kids, or an inability to shut up.

- Having the same product at home means some work on your part: This won't help theaters unless your friends really make a mess with the popcorn.

Maybe they'll survive as holographic rooms when people move to smaller and smalled homes, but that's the only chance I see for theaters in 50-100 years from now.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24287047)

People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

Actually, theaters have long since passed the quality threshold such that I've stopped going. Sticky floors, cell phones, and god-knows-what in my chair. Until theaters start giving a damn about their customers' viewing experience again, I'm staying at home.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24291489)

When they started playing advertising commercials mixed in with the previews (and doing this after the time the movie was supposed to start) is when I stopped going.

they went away for me (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287835)

I watch over 100 movies a year -- less than 1% at a theatre, if that. It's just not worth paying 10X what it costs to get it on netflix to NOT be able to piss, pause, smoke, drink, adjust the lighting, sound, or viewing time. My 52-inch HDTV (which is my only computer monitor as well) which I sit about 5 feet away from is quite sufficient. I've seen about 6 theatre movies in 3 years, and mostly regretted them. Many feel the same. It's been covered here before. Movie theatres are struggling. That's why the multiplex ones are so popular.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (2, Interesting)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287563)

I think theaters will just die.

What, you don't like sticky floors, being locked in with hypercaffeinated brats who yap on their cell phones all the way through the picture, and the chance of acquiring whatever airborne maladies the sickest of your fellow theatergoers might be suffering from? Man up - what kind of consumer are you? (j/k)

The idea of using a central location to display entertainment content won't die out entirely until one or more of the following happens:

1. The viewing experience can be convincingly replicated at home (minus the negatives I outlined above of course). As home monitors get larger and more technologically advanced, this day is coming.

2. The producers of content (i.e. the studios) stop artificially propping up the horse-and-buggy system of central theaters and make their content directly available to the consumer on a zero-day basis. Again, this is already happening on a small scale. And consumers are starting to force the issue by utilizing P2P to download 1-day movies (invariably with crappy video and sound). So the lesson learned here is make your product available directly to the consumer on zero day the way you want to present it, and you get the twofer of having a new revenue stream as well as destroying the pirate's raison d'etre.

3. The idea of premiering movies at a central location will probably never die out completely because of the promotional value involved in staging premieres. Superfans in costume make great eye candy for the 10 o'clock news. There has to be some way of transferring the paradigm of the world premiere to everybody's living room. I just wish I had the answer to that.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285893)

Of course, it'll be hairy for theaters to get the rights to show any of these things,

Honestly, if there's money to be made, I expect this problem will solve itself.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285997)

Have you ever been to a theater with a digital projector? I'm not sure about all theaters, but the Famous Players Theater near me has them and the ghosting is atrocious! My laptop has a better refresh rate than those pieces of crap.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24286547)

The big news in the movie theater business is that Regal, AMC and Cinemark are closing a deal with Hollywood to pay for digital 3D projectors going into many of their theaters so the big summer movies of 2009 can look better than anything an HDTV can do.

I just finished pimping out a flyer for Comic-Con about a movie that uses this technology, the licensing company is called Real D. [reald.com] Its pretty nifty stuff.

By the way, if you are attending Comic-Con this Thursday, check out the panel for the movie "Quantum Quest," its a 3D all CGI film with major talent on-board (both Kirks - Shatner and Pine, Neil Armstrong, James Earl Jones, Samuel Jackson, Amanda Peet, Mark Hamil, Brent Spiner, Sandra Oh, Robert Picardo, and many more). It is 3:30pm-4:30pm in ballroom 20.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289429)

This is why theaters need to stop pushing performance and start pushing features.

No, they need to start pushing sanitation.

Ok, my geek jones told me I had to go see Batman opening weekend. Well, the theater was jam-packed. The idiots beside me decided to bring their entire extended clan of rugrats who proceeded to talk through the entire movie. The bathroom floors were running with urine, the toilets brimming with feces. (I guess props should be made that number two's made it in, even if number one's did not.) And this is in a nice theater in a nice part of town. The general public consists of mouth-breathing animals incapable of the most simple courtesies, let alone hygiene practices. And it's not just us guys who are filthy pigs, the smell coming out of the women's room was enough to knock a buzzard off a shit cart.

I don't have a problem with paying for my movies but I'll be damned if I set foot in another theater again. And this is troubling because the new Bond is coming out soon and it promises to be as unsucky as the previous one. Telesyncs don't cut the mustard. Must discover a way to see the movie without having to wade into a diseased shitbox to do so.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290019)

Maybe it's just the people you live around.

I just went to see Hancock, and the theater was at full capacity, and it was also the opening night for batman... and I had none of those issues you are talking about. Clean restrooms with no smell. Courteous people. No talking kids.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance. (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290505)

> Ok, my geek jones told me I had to go see Batman opening weekend.

Idiot. Did you think that it wouldn't stay around if you waited a weekend or two? Instead, you got the worst possible experience because of the slavering hordes who only attend the first weekend (are they a variant of gnurr, I wonder, coming from the release out?). Wait a weekend, and you should still be able to see it three times (or how ever many times that you normally see the ones that you really enjoy rewatching), and without the overcrowding that you described.

Well, enjoy the next Bond on your small screen (small compared to the THX screen in a multiplex, at least). Anyways, unless one of the actors turns in a great performance and then dies, I doubt that you will get the frenzy that Dark Knight had.

To hell with this "3D TV" crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24285497)

I want my damn SED TV. Hear that, Canon?

Besides--TVs as they are now are more than sufficient; I don't see a need for 3D any time soon.

And just when we got rid of flicker (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285573)

After decades of annoying flicker, strobing, and bad pans at 24FPS, we finally got LCD panels that don't flicker at all. Some monitors even time-interpolate to get the frame rate up, and framefree compression [framefree.com] is just starting to work. Now people want to crud it up with alternating-frame stereo. Bleah.

Stereo vision doesn't really do much beyond about 4m or so, and it scales badly for anything that isn't its real size.

There are some very cute 3D systems that are sensitive to head position, so you can move your head and have the scene adjust accordingly. But that doesn't work in theaters.

why? (3, Interesting)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285641)

I don't get why people want this. Most real-world 3D perception (the kind of scenes you see in movies) derives from motion parallax, not binocular stereo. Trying to use stereo for those scenes is completely unrealistic and visually disturbing.

Also, flat images are kind of scale free, but 3D scenes are not. If you watch Jurassic Park in 3D on your television, you really do see a bunch of 8 inch toy dinosaurs fighting in a little box. Ooh, scary.

Re:why? (2, Interesting)

Prune (557140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285943)

That's why you need retinal projection, since with a fast response focusing control you can invoke the additional 3D perception sense the eye generates through accommodation.

Re:why? (1)

makapuf (412290) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286037)

and LASIK@Home on channel 5 !

Exactly... (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288297)

A science-fiction author pointed that out in the late 'Sixties, I can't remember the author (the story involved aliens who eat "animals" that look exactly like us, but which/whom they claim aren't sentient).

"Realistic" is largely a function of your brain, and often having _less_ information gets you more involved. [INSERT CANONICAL COMMENT ABOUT RADIO EMPLOYING THE WORDS 'THEATRE OF THE MIND' _HERE_]

The original run of "Star Trek" looked _much_ more realistic to me in black-and-white and with bad sound, because my brain was better at special effects (and acting) than the show; I find it really easy to get infatuated with female DJs over-the-air.

One exception (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288455)

Big {1:1 scale} wall units would work well for teleconferencing and video gaming---particularly nice when added to the late Mitsubishi DiamondTouch system or MS's equivalent (rip-off?): imagine you've got two tables "joined" at the wall, like the shared desk in "Brazil" but more benign...you could play virtual "air hockey".

Re:One exception (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289411)

imagine you've got two tables "joined" at the wall

Oh, I don't have to imagine.

SELECT * FROM table1,table2 WHERE table1.wall=3 AND table1.wall = table2.wall

HDTV is overrated (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285659)

Never thought HD was a big step. Just a concession to the cable companies.

Need to perfect TV before you move onto 3d. Need 'photographic tv with higher resolutions and better colors'. Needs to be magazine quality.

Re:HDTV is overrated (2, Insightful)

makapuf (412290) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286031)

nope, features (portability, simplicity, stereo, 3D, ...) always (often) beat Quality.

Think Tapes vs cassette, Cinemascope vs VHS, DVD Audio (and HiFi even) vs MP3, LCDs vs. CRT (much better image vs flat screens )...

Maybe SHD is better for you : there will be Audiophiles for 2D (maybe they will be called Pictophiles), but if (and there are many good reasons it might not) 3D catches on, Super ultra 2D high def will be a niche.

Now if only ... (3, Funny)

krkhan (1071096) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285661)

... they'd start supporting AIGLX/Xgl, we may have real-time Compiz-Fusion effects! I mean, consider this: Me: *Checking my email* Brother: *Walks into the room* Me: *Shouts* GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!! You have stepped in my message box! NO, NOT THERE YOU DUMBASS, that's my 2nd workspace, here *rotates cube* OH DAMN, now you're in the goddamned file manager *Ctrl+Alt+Backspace* Phew, that's better.

What I want... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285717)

Is holographic TV. Time and time again we have seen them try to sell 3D that needs some stupid glasses,and time and time again it has failed. there are simply too many problems inherent with the glasses,especially with battery operated ones like this. And can you imagine trying to keep your kids from messing these stupid glasses up? Not going to happen. With a holographic TV I don't have to worry about glasses,my family trying to get these things on around their eyeglasses, worrying about someone losing or sitting on the stupid glasses,etc. I predict this will catch some buzz for awhile and then die out,just like the other times they tried to sell glasses based 3D.

Speaking of glasses based 3D,didn't they try to sell us those things for playing computer games back in the day? I seem to remember somebody selling a decoder card with glasses back when Mpeg 2 cards were still around. You plugged this card into your PC and had a pair of glasses and it gave you a "kinda" 3D effect. It may have used a similar kind of tech,but it has been so long ago I can't remember off the top of my head. But just like this I seem to remember there being a big buzz about 3D gaming,and then the thing just died off. I'm guessing just like that 3D gaming card this will be a toy for early adopters for awhile and then it will just peter out. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

You're our only hope... (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285779)

Holographic TV, that's just what we need. So millions of geeks can watch Star Wars - and chuckle amusingly to themselves when they see a holograph of a holograph. Someone just shoot me now.

Re:You're our only hope... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285951)

They'll be too busy trying to grope the female characters for that.

Re:You're our only hope... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286065)

Aaarrgh... you just made me remember the episode with Barkley and the Holo-Troy... :-)

Re:You're our only hope... (1)

bn-7bc (909819) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288579)

Carrect me if I'm wrong, but the episode you refer to was from star trek tng not star wars.

Re:You're our only hope... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289477)

Holographic TV, that's just what we need. So millions of geeks can watch Star Wars - and chuckle amusingly to themselves when they see a holograph of a holograph. Someone just shoot me now.

No, what I like is when they have commercials for TV's on your TV and say "Look at how much superior the picture on this new unit is compared to your old one." It's like "Hey, wait a second..."

Let's rework a failed technology (1)

jr76 (1272780) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285839)

Ok, maybe it's just me but i've seen 3D technology on TV screens and in film and the effect of the whole stereostopic way they do it comes off just too damn crude and is somewhat annoying. For that simple reason alone, it's just a little "oh that's interesting" ... and people just move back to regular TV over and over again.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we will eventually come to a TRUE 3D design for image rendering, something that doesn't require silly glasses and that you can walk around and look in all different directions for three true dimensions, like that omnidirectional multiprojection device that Microsoft borrowed for a promotion event last year at some sort of consumer electronics show. Now, that was a step in the right diretion.

Re-inventing the failed 50s, "3D drive-in glasses?"

Asinine.

Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (2, Interesting)

viking80 (697716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24285925)

You need:
1. A PC with support for two monitors (most)
2. Two projectors
3. Polarizing filters for the projectors (standard from photography store)
4. Polaroid sunglasses (lightweight and cheap)

I suggest circular right and left polarizes. Now set the two projectors next to each other, and superimpose the two images, put on glasses, and voila, you have a great 3D movie theater.

It it great that video standards are emerging, but it you can also DIY.

Still:You could use two cameras, but one camera in "rapid shoot" from a moving vehicle works beautifully; just take two sequential pictures on the two monitors.
Video: More of a hassle, but basically shoot the scenes with two cameras separated like your eyes, and play them. You will have to use special effect to merge the two videos together to get one that spans both monitors, or use video editing tools to synchronize two separate video signals.

Have fun

The new video 3D video standards will help making this easier.

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286087)

Now all I have to do is glue two video cameras together and sell it as a "budget 3-D video camera"...

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (1)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286851)

You'd also need to rotate one of the lenses in the glasses by 90 degrees, which could be tricky if they're not completely round.

I've wanted a gaming set-up like this for years. Maybe one day someone will start to produce projectors with two polarised DLP chips built in.

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287039)

If there were video drivers that supported it (nVidia's could, if they did a little work on them) then I'd be very, very tempted to do this for gaming.

In fact, I'm not 100% sure nVidia's don't already support it... After a little research, I'm left confused about it. It would be really awesome.

Use circular polarizing filters (1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287727)

You should use circular polarizes. One with left and one with right polarization. This way they will work independently of angle. If you use linear polarizes you will also get a funny effect when you twist your head while you watch.

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287797)

The GP is talking about circularly polarised lenses. In which axis do you propose rotating the circularly polarised lenses 90 degrees?

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24289151)

as far as physics is concerned, LCD projectors already have the light polarized so I assume this wouldn't work .

Which projectors did you use?

Re:Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater (1)

3D-nut (687652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290035)

Best to use DLP projectors. LCD projectors are already polarized, and sometimes in odd ways (like magenta perpendicular to green) that will make using linear polarization impractical. Peter Wimmer sells great software for running your projectors, cheap - called Stereoscopic Player. You'll also need a screen that preserves polarization - aluminized "silver" screen is cheapest.

Screen material (1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290255)

Used Costco's DuPont interior latex. Polarization is maintained fine. Use "eggshell" rather than "flat" to get brighter screen. More shiny paint does not give a flat image.

Instead of a gray screen, use a high quality white paint. Remember you are taking away half the light in the polarizing filters.

In related news,... (3, Funny)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286455)

great strides are being made in the use of 3-D DRM. Says Chester Smith of the MPAA, we are now faced with 2 more dimensions to the problem, but I am certain we will prevail.

Re:In related news,... (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289795)

I think I meant one more dimension. x, y, and t are already covered. Now we need z.

Of course if you make a cylindrical or spherical LCD TV, you may have a different set of dimensions. Just don't start talking about String Theory TV. There has been a constant "string" of lousy TV shows going on for years and we don't need physicists to make it even worse.

String Theory Visualization! More Ds, please! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286589)

Wow! All that we need is another fistfull of Ds, and then we will be able to visualize String Theory!

You know what this means. (1)

Zwicky (702757) | more than 6 years ago | (#24286653)

3D ads!

Can you just imagine this [youtube.com] in 3D? *cringe*

Seriously there are so many ads on TV these days[0] that by and large I just don't bother[1]. A gimmick like 3D TV is highly unlikely to change that. Television just isn't a viable use of my time anymore (if it ever was).

Using 3D for movies would work, but I don't buy any these days and these special discs would probably be priced up as double the regular discs or something anyway.

That's a shame because I could see the potential otherwise.

[0] Just yesterday we canceled our satellite subscription because there are just too many ads; so many that we didn't think it was acceptable to be paying to see them.

[1] If there is anything I'm specifically interested in, I tape it even if I would be free to watch it, just so I can skip the ads. I even avert my eyes so I don't have to look at them too much, because doing so reminds me too much of their patronizing me. Sadly even this can't always save you from the Cillit Bang!s of this world.

Re:You know what this means. (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287665)

It couldn't be any worse than this [youtube.com] .

mod 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24287285)

there are some todAy. It's about

Of course... (3, Funny)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287393)

Of course consumer 3D television is moving forward. Up/down and left/right are already well taken care of by existing 2D television.

Still Waiting (1)

ArmyOfAardvarks (1281154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287495)

I'm still holding out for a set the doesn't require the glasses. I'm not going to put on a pair of 3-d glasses just to sit down and watch TV.

Great (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24287995)

I just bought a HDTV a year and a half ago, and already it's been made obsolete by 1080p. And now a fucking 3D set is on the horizon?!?! It's hard to be cutting edge these days.

In Defence Of We Lazy Fat Bastards.... (3, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288377)

How's this for an idea?

How about all you entertainment and media companies just assume that after a hard day's work, all I really want to do is just sit there and BE ENTERTAINED. Yes, you can have a wedge of my cash for the privelige of doing so and if you make it appealing enough to me then I might just drag my fat lazy ass into the car so I can drive to the local cinema to go see what you have on offer.

But please stop with all this "interactive" and gimmicky shit, okay? I can quite happily sit here in front of my computer for the occasionally half-hour and be thoroughly entertained by a 20-year-old 48kb game called "Jet Set Willy" and then be equally entertained by pounding alien heads in Half-Life 2. I don't ALWAYS need whizzy graphics & 8GB of installed game to be immersed, sometimes simple shit does fine.

Likewise, I don't need to "Pick N Mix" my own songs for my own CD compilation because I'm more than happy to accept that an army of musicians, producers & media types are a whole heap better at that shit than I am - most of the time, I just want to give you some money, take a shiny disk in exchange, throw it into my hifi and let it play, okay?

So please don't think I am sat here waiting for 3D TV because somehow I need to be "more immersed" in your shit, okay? Believe it or not, most of the time a 2D TV, a pizza and a few beers is enough to keep me happy.

How about we make it simple? You keep offering good quality shit at a reasonable price and I will just BUY it so I can watch/read/listen to it.

Just DANCE FOR ME MONKEY BOY! Okay?

Science/Tech/Business porn (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 6 years ago | (#24288399)

For reasons others and I have stated above, I don't think this will actually fly that well for home-use, not even for porn---"3D" != "More realistic"

I think a standard would be a great, though, because it would lower the price of 3-D displays used in research and development.

Also, with rising energy prices, I can see this feeding into the video conferencing industry---"Fahrenheit 451"*-style rooms for feeling like you're facing your associates far away as they whine and pointlessly argue just like they were there.

*The live-in soap opera part, not the book burning, though some of my corporate overlords seem like they'd like that part.

lots of auto-stereo TVs at SIGGRAPH (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289529)

No special glasses necessary. Their resolution isnt too great. See SIGGRAPH in L.A. next month.

Real Genius (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#24289983)

When the pixel is off, the primary & secondary mirrors are parallel & reflect all of the incoming light back into the light source.

Just remember to make sure your optics are clean.

LCD is already polarized (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#24290931)

LCD is already polarized. Hold a linear polarizing filter in front of an LCD screen and turn it and you can see. So it's just a matter of subdividing each pixel (that is already divided into 3 color subpixels) yet again, and designing the polarizing filter so half of each pixel has one polarization angle, and half at 90 degrees to that. I recommend 2 diagonal polarizations at 90 degrees. The new difficulty is that you can't just use a single flat polarization filter like you can with a plain LCD. But once this is solved, the 3D glasses are trivial.

The next problem is doubling the bandwidth of the HDMI link. 1920 x 1080 x 3 is easily done in HDMI. But twice that is a bit beyond its range. And unlike DVI, HDMI does not have a dual-link feature. One option is to increase the clock rate on it to use the same cable. Another option is an extended HDMI. Or just use a dual-link DVI-I cable and run the audio (digitally) over the analog video wires (the ones around the funny large pin on one side). The final option is to have 2 HDMI cables.

And of course they'll need to double the bandwidth of TV transmissions. That can be done easily enough with over-the-air 8VSB in the USA with a reduced frame rate of 24 Hz at the 720 line resolution. Cable has twice the capacity, so it should be possible to do 3D sports (that needs a faster frame rate) at 60 Hz and 720 lines. Satellite service can probably find a similar arrangement for double bandwidth TV.

This will start to push the limits of even Blu-Ray. But there is new technology on the way in optical media, and solid state flash storage looks like its converging to a usable price/capacity point in a decade or so.

The fun begins when we roll out "super wide stereoscopic cinema" with 5120 x 2160 (64:27) at 120 Hz in 3D. That is sure to be encumbered all to hell with DRM. Try running that uncompressed through your HDMI.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?