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!

UK's Channel 4 To Broadcast In 3D

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the out-of-thin-air dept.

Displays 126

fatnickc writes "The UK's Channel 4, from the 16th of September, will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D, the full list of which can be found here. While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert aren't exactly groundbreaking, this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity, paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future. In partnership with retailer Sainsbury's, Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses so that as many people as possible can watch them, although it's unclear which of the various types they'll be. "

cancel ×

126 comments

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

Can't be true (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030424)

I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.

Re:Can't be true (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030458)

Then just pull a couple of clones out of cold storage and film them from different angles. Do I have to think of everything?

Re:Can't be true (1)

3waygeek (58990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031124)

Someone didn't watch last night's Family Guy -- Miley Cyrus is an android, not a clone.

Re:Can't be true (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033350)

DO you have ANY idea how much it costs Disney to raise those clones? You're talking years on the island, learning dance moves and lipsyncing, before they're even ready for the mouseketeer phase, much less full-on popstar deployment. They can't just "thaw them out," anymore than they can just thaw out Disney himself.

Re:Can't be true (2, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033522)

My daughter and I watched Miley's concert in 3D. She's definitely not 1D or 2D. More like DD. It was fun watching her bounce... and wiggle... and gyrate...

Ooops gotta go.
Something came up

Even Hannah Montana hates her. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30031050)

Anyone catch that interview where Hannah was talking shit about Miley?

Re:Can't be true (1)

valriedeleon (1674580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031106)

A bit of logic is a refreshing change from the weak logical fallacy-ridden arguments fundies usually spew here. Premium White Pro [ezinearticles.com]

Re:Can't be true (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031336)

Wouldn't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory? I say, put her in the LHC and see what happens.

Re:Can't be true (2, Insightful)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031406)

So this is the way the world ends, not with a whimper, but with a skank.

Re:Can't be true (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032230)

> I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.

I guess you are unaware of the power of modern CGI tools to fix this :-)

16 Sept 2010? (4, Informative)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030428)

No, 16th November

BBC (4, Informative)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030464)

Why is this tagged BBC? Channel 4 is independent of the BBC and runs adverts.

Re:BBC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030626)

Well, it was an honor to be in on this awakening. It is tagged BBC because the BBC is the most recognizable name involved in this cluster-fuck of state supported media outlet dog and pony show of media the Brits call news. You can go read Wikipedia for all the details, but the Brits basically suck corporate cock until it comes all over their faces by paying a per-household television license fee which is passed on to a controlled number of television content producers to keep the populace sedate and controllable.

I don't know which is more disgusting, the state of British media or the fact that my own country counts these people as allies.

Re:BBC (0, Offtopic)

fremsley471 (792813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030672)

Is that you Rupert? Or is it young James?

HURR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030702)

DURR!

i trol u!

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030776)

Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance. England only has one TV channel right?!?!??!?!?!?

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030878)

Might be a troll, but it is always fun picking holes in trolls.

I'm guessing you are an American, going by your spellings.

You are calling the Brits out for having craptacular media?
You do realize that the media in the US is awfully biased, right?
Oh.. wait... never mind then.

Also, get back to 4chan while you are at it.

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030882)

Calm down. A nice long suck on a sedative cock should do it.

Re:BBC (3, Informative)

IndieKid (1061106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030630)

Agreed, although the BBC has dabbled with 3D in the past (I seem to remember a 3D episode of Eastenders for either the Children in Need or Comic Relief charity event) this is a completely separate broadcaster.

Re:BBC (1)

malf-uk (456583) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030902)

Dimensions In Time which was a Doctor Who/Eastenders crossover for Children In Need.

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

To wind up a Doctor Who fanatic, all you have to do is tell them that you believe that the story is canon.

Re:BBC (1)

IndieKid (1061106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031064)

Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking of - I was only 11 at the time so my memory of it is a little hazy :-)

Re:BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30031162)

I doubt your favourite Dr. Who will be in 3D, they struggle to find a budget to film using HDCAM. They have only just moved from filming with Digi Betacam.

Re:BBC (2, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031198)

So Red Dwarf WASN'T The first Sci-fi show to ruin itself by cross-polinating itself with a soap opera...

Re:BBC (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030970)

The BBC is still dabbling in it. I saw the BBC Research labs demonstrating two different 3D display technologies at IBC in Amersterdam back in September. With the advent of 3-D for Blu-ray, and TV manufacturers pushing 3-D, I imagine we will see more from them.

Re:BBC (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030638)

And won't be a patch on Channel 4's Red Triangle-badged 'mature themes' films season from the late 80s. That was progress

Re:BBC (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033622)

Oh, I don't know about that.

Part of the 3D season is 'Flesh for Frankenstein'.

Re:BBC (-1, Troll)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031298)

Channel 4 is a British broadcasting corporation, is it not?

It's not the British Broadcasting Corporation granted - but the definite article was not included in the tag.

Re:BBC (1)

ChowRiit (939581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031380)

And we should tag all airtravel news related to the USA with American Airlines, and of course any space stories with NASA. I mean, after all, they're all launched by SOMEONE's national space agency...

Re:BBC (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031486)

And all cops are in a CIA, and INTERPOL is a FBI, and there's an NSA in North Korea.

Red Green 3D (1, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030468)

It's got to be Red/Green for the glasses, only tech which will be universal for all TVs.

Besides which, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "greatest ever 3D moments". Any 'greatest' list that includes Jaws 3(D) and the American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist.

Still, I love Udo Kier so I'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein (and once against try to place his accent)

Re:Red Green 3D (3, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030634)

I picked up a pair in Sainsburys yesterday. They are blue and yellow.

Re:Red Green 3D (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031520)

What/how much do you have to buy to qualify for a pair?
Or can I just walk in, pick a pair up, and walk out?

Re:Red Green 3D (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032086)

They were between the checkouts and the door. You can just walk in and pick a pair up.

Re:Red Green 3D (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033364)

>>>American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist

Okay I'm sick of hearing this again-and-again-and-again over the last two decades.

Yes it aired on FOX, an american network, but it was written by a BBC writer, starred a BBC actor, was funded almost-entirely by BBC money, and first aired on BBC TV. If you don't like that mid-90s series pilot, fine, but don't blame americans since it was largely the BBC in charge of it.

ALSO: remember it was the British that produced the abomination that was the spoon-playing bumbling idiotic fool known as the seventh doctor - that is the second-lowest point in Who universe (the lowest point being the year that never happened-1985). Anyway blaming Americans for the BBC-written, produced, acted 90s-tv-pilot is as colossally stupid as if you tried to blame us for the ~100 pound TV tax. It makes no logical sense to blame us for BBC actions.

Blue and Yellow glasses. (0)

daid303 (843777) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030472)

Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Blue and Yellow glasses. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030720)

Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.

Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Blue and Yellow glasses. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033492)

Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.

Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about. [wikipedia.org]

Apparently he knows more about it than you do. Try watching something with them. The blue side's so dark it causes a big shift in what you're seeing. The result is very monochromatic and not very believable to boot.

Re:Blue and Yellow glasses. (1)

craigbeat (706827) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030978)

I picked up the glasses at the weekend and tried them out on the official colorcode 3-d website. The effect works, but the colour is bizarre, as the right eye only sees blue. I tried boosting the contrast and saturation, which does help a bit, but still not brilliant. I don't think it will catch on.

Producing free 3D glasses (0, Redundant)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030488)

Sure, I'd like to see that.

Why don't just everybody produce thing for free?

Blue / Orange 3D glasses (4, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030500)

They're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of "Chuck" in this system. I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first. They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.

Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.

From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.

Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030820)

From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.

Bloody insensitive clods. I have only one eye.

Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031066)

The only effective glasses for viewing "Chuck" are ones that make you blind.

Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031192)

The C4 3D thing will use the same "ColorCode" kind of glasses.

Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses (1)

koro666 (947362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032758)

That would explain what I thought was poor image quality (yellow/blue jaggies around stuff) in that particular episode.

Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip.

poke the one eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030522)

I'm blind in one eye. What will this get me?

Re:poke the one eye (2, Funny)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030614)

Monochrome telly with none of the headaches that this 3d nonsense gives the rest of us!

Re:poke the one eye (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030728)

hear hear! Who shops in Sainsbury's in this financial climate either?

they should have teamed up with Lidl

Re:poke the one eye (2, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030968)

hear hear! Who shops in Sainsbury's in this financial climate either?

People who can no longer afford to shop at M&S or Waitrose.

(I shop at Sainsbury's. The alternative is Asda. Whereas Lidl cut costs by not having enough staff and not stocking much range, Asda seem to cut costs by selling poor quality tasteless food.)

Re:poke the one eye (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031182)

Asda sells food?!

Admitedly, there isn't a Lidl within walking distance of my house, but I used to live next to one hence my outburst :D
I shop at Morrisons now as the only alternatives are a Sainsbury's, an M&S Simply Food, and a Tesco Express (Which doesn't even sell Weetos).

Re:poke the one eye (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031264)

>Asda seem to cut costs by selling poor quality tasteless food.)
Asda are owned by Walmart - go figure.

Re:poke the one eye (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031910)

Asda pizzas are awesome though and they usually have some good booze offers. I'm not posh enough to live near a Sainsbury's anyway.

Re:poke the one eye (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030706)

Very angry.

Re:poke the one eye (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030888)

A poke in the other one !

My lawn is *not* accessible to the disabled

Re:poke the one eye (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032088)

You can't see depth anyway unless you move your head sideways and back a lot.
You could manually do this with the handed out glasses. Create some stable holder (aka your mother) for the glasses and move your eye to switch between red and orange.

This is scary (2, Funny)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030644)

if they transmit a 3D boxe match, remember to stay very far from the TV screen, or you will be seriously injured.

Re:This is scary (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030730)

Or just use a very small television.

Re:This is scary (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030754)

MIDGET FIGHT!

will it really pave the way for anything? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030698)

This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television. The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993, among them a Dr. Who special [wikipedia.org] , but the experiment didn't catch on then. Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago, also.

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030986)

iirc, the system they used back then was based on movement with one of the lenses being polarised. so the effect would only be visible if the camera kept moving. which works for action like Dr. Who, with all it's running, but was a bit contrived when the did a eastenders special with people walking around the square.

i remember being impressed though (for the 10 year old i was)

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031120)

If it's broadcast TV it can't be based on polarisation, since no one has a TV that can superimpose two images with different polarisations.

TV can use glasses with different colour lenses, i.e. the classic red and blue , or in this case Blue and Amber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_glasses#ColorCode_3-D_.28blue-amber_method.29 [wikipedia.org]

There are other options, e.g. the Pulfrich effects.

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031400)

More to the point, broadcast TV can't carry polarisation information in any of the current specs. Polarisation and shutter based 3D displays will be supported by new broadcast standards, but they'll work by broadcasting a stereo video image and leaving it up to the receiving equipment to convert it into anaglyph, polarisation, or shutter controlled 3D

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033830)

Well yeah, there is that too.

What I think is odd is that (as far as I know) neither Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or HDTV have a 3D mode. With a bit of foresight they could have made 3D one of the killer features to get people to buy those.

Disney made Ghosts of the Abyss in 2003, and Blu-Ray wasn't finalized until 2004. At that point there were quite a few 3D films in production and cinemas were being fitted with the gear to show them.

You'd think someone would have put a 3D mode into Blu-Ray. I think it would be possible to get polarization based 3D into high end LCD screens. LCDs are based on polarization after all.

Then pricey home cinema systems would show films in 3D if they were 3D at the cinema. From what I've read take up on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD was a bit disappointing because most people couldn't see the difference between a DVD and the new formats. Adding 3D would might have helped.

That being said, it seems like there is a plan to get 3D into Blu-Ray retroactively.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1303 [blu-ray.com]

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30031460)

looking it up it is Pulfrich effect.

cut some slack, i was 10!

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (4, Interesting)

uuddlrlrab (1617237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031068)

Well, TV's have already hit the 1080p pinnacle, Blu-Ray won the format wars, and the whole HD-media-over-wireless... Yeah, well, I've yet to hear about it panning out in a cost-effective form while retaining decent quality along with the tech being over a year or two old now, so I guess the media covering home theater needs something to tout as the Next Big Thing (TM). Until viable high-quality, consumer holographic displays show up along with a viable need/demand in the mainstream market, this [johnnylee.net] is the most interesting thing I've seen in regards to 3d type stuff. And even that is old by internet standards. [encycloped...matica.com]

To be honest, I've not watched any "new" 3d movies. I've heard that it looks really nice, but then you also need to wear the glasses--srsly, I already wear specs. Hate them, don't want another pair. As far as in home theaters, do you need a special tv that can display it? Or does the movie have to be specially formatted for 3d? Either way, it sounds like paying at least a small (per movie) to large (for a special tv) amount extra over the non-3d version. Until I watch such a film and find myself in need of a fresh pair of pants and my ambulatory extremity undergarments expelled from my personage via sheer amazement, I remain skeptical.

Movie studios won't be pleased (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031454)

I'm sure that movie studios are spitting with rage over home 3D. It's about the only qualitative USP that cinema has over home theatre right now.

Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031156)

I'm not surprised it caught on. The screen has to be in constant motion in one direction for the effect to occur which makes it an interesting novelty but little else.

The technology is only part of the problem (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031956)

This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.

This happens every 10-15 years (just like it does in the cinema). I remember Channel 4 (I think) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan (which, unlike red/green gave some, limited, colour).

Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as "never gonna catch on" - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message. Even if the systems improve, that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving, 3D scene with a 20" window without giving the viewer a migraine every time an object gets clipped.

You'd pretty much have to rewind to the early "point a couple of cameras at a stage-play" era of movie making and start re-inventing the "language of film" from scratch.

The only thing that might have changed this time round is that more people have large/wide screen TVs which might make it marginally more impressive.

I guess the reason that 3D has flared up in the cinema again now is the popularity of computer-animated movies, which must be relatively easy make in 3D. Probably quite cool, too, if you're in Pixar HQ, sitting 2' away from a high def monitor wearing your LCD shutter specs.

Lack of clarity, or lack of will to find out? (3, Insightful)

TheBogBrushZone (975846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030742)

"it's unclear which of the various types they'll be"
It has in fact been clear what type they'll be for several months, since this was announced mid-August in fact: ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters. Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury's yesterday (and possibly before). http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn [t3.com]

Re:Lack of clarity, or lack of will to find out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30033274)

Yes, the colorcode glasses are a big improvement over the old red-green combination. The banding is a lot less noticeable if you're not wearing glasses.

I've grabbed a load of them (from Sainsbury's) and started rendering 3D animations with blender. For people who want to try, follow the Red-Green anaglyph tutorials with this alteration:

For the left eye, use the red and green channel instead of just red. For the right eye: just use the blue.

This seems to work well, although you can sometimes see artefacts. If you want to experience particle storms like never before, try this. I can sit for hours watching swarms of boids with these glasses, the depth is truly amazing.

Live 3D Broadcast (1)

KamuZ (127113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030764)

A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert, you had to have 3D glasses of course, first time i have seen something like this live. After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it, 96% (or 94%?) said yes.

You can see the video in YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y [youtube.com]

The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start (so you can safely skip 45 seconds).

Re:Live 3D Broadcast (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031378)

I imagine that the people who couldn't see 3D didn't stick around to see the phone-in number after the show.

Out with the old, in with the new (3, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030792)

Yay! Goodbye brainless 2D crap, hello brainless 3D crap and migraines!

Re:Out with the old, in with the new (1)

juletre (739996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030824)

I like your positive attitude!

downside... (4, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30030910)

Sooo, presumably the downside is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance. Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses, or who strongly dislike wearing them (for instance, glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses); for these people, the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program.

Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!

Re:downside... (1)

quarkoid (26884) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031172)

what on earth are they thinking?!

That's an easy one.

From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the statement of programme policy [channel4.com] , attached to the Channel 4 licence:

“[channel 4 shall] foster the new and experimental in television. It will encourage pluralism, provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen”.

Nick.

Re:downside... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031300)

They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years. Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content. It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario.

Re:downside... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031310)

They are thinking that it is a great way to advertise.... and since this is on /. it worked ....

It's a gimmick and nothing else.... all these 3D system's are low resolution, eye strain inducing, and will put people off who don't have the glasses, or cannot use them

In a 3D cinema you expect to wear glasses and expect to sit through a movie length presentation ... at home you channel surf and get on with other things while watching ....try that with glasses ...

When 3D at home is without glasses and can be viewed easily by most people then it will be more than a gimmick ...

Re:downside... (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032676)

essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit

A phrase which describes a lot of the output from Channel 4, so no change there.

(Deal or No Deal, The 50 Greatest..., The 100 Greatest..., Wife Swap, Come Dine With me, How to Look Good Naked, Real Housewives of New Jersey, Gok's Fashion Fix, Gordon Ramsay (anything he's in really)...and the liost goes on!)

Re:downside... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033684)

Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!

Where's your sense of fun? We get a couple of hours of entertainingly tacky gimmickry, and then once we've had our fun, things go back to normal.

I'm thinking back fondly to the time the cinema I worked at did had a midnight showing of Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D.

This gets interesting (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30030974)

1) Give to slashdotters a 3D TV 2) Transmit a 3D TV show featuring Natalie Portman 3) ??? 4) Profit!

Flat is flat ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30031130)

Miley Cyrus, 3D ... How will we be able to tell. It will still look pretty flat to me. If you are doing 3D atleast put something on screen that will stand out.

Why, oh why? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031152)

Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.

But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique can't be imitated on TV panels. Instead they're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.

Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?

In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.

Re:Why, oh why? (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033052)

Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.

If only it worked for me when I tilt my head over on one side. Yes, it's a silly habit I picked up somewhere, but I really do have an issue with the 3D systems based on polarization because it's really hard for me to stop. Color works better, but then you're watching in (effective) monochrome.

The best system I've seen was a special monitor (this was back in a lab in 1994!) that directed a different image at each of about 16 directions at once. This meant that your eyes picked up different images naturally, and the net effect was an apparent 3D object that you could move your head from side to side to look round. Not that that is something which would work with cinemas though. IIRC, the main limitations at the time were display resolution, speed and brightness, all of which have improved since then. (OK, it was monochrome too, but there's no reason for that to have stayed as a limitation since they weren't using colors to encode spatial information.) I wonder what happened to that.

In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.

With the proliferation of channels/bandwidth, it should be possible to transmit the same program in 2D at the same time.

3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual (4, Funny)

bziman (223162) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031262)

I avoid 3D movies, and I'll avoid 3D video. Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway. And regardless of how good the effect is, I am not wearing any moldy 3D glasses out of the 1980s for any reason.

Re:3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031574)

"Gag effects" can be quite fun, though, and I'll always take 90 minutes of vertigo and manhandling my "duck" reflex over 3 hours of robots arguing about matrices and sparks when it comes to winding down my brain on a Friday night. My Bloody Valentine also showed occasional flashes of what might be possible, from an artistic perspective, once you start playing around with depth: one dialogue scene was staged as though for the theatre, using the 3D to support the movement of the characters through the space to great effect.

Re:3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032712)

Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.

Be at least honest. Thats not the fault of ANY 3D technology. This WILL have to end, if 3d wants to really stay alive.

2 birds 1 stone (1)

severn2j (209810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031700)

Maybe OT, but Sainsbury's are also selling Modern Warfare 2 for £26 (less than half RRP), so now there's two reasons to shop there...

red/blue 3d sucks (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031746)

Real 3D, as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen, is mind-blowing. Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible.

Polarized TVs will be next (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30031878)

I don't know if they're being developed but I suspect that we'll see TVs/monitors that are capable of producing differently polarized light for each eye. It's much better system since you don't get the awful color distortion of the blue/orange system. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to do since LCD screens already operate by manipulating the polarization of light to tune the intensity of each pixel. One more liquid crystal layer and a quarter-waveplate would do it so the technology is clearly there.

Re:Polarized TVs will be next (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032692)

There was a product designed to do this ; I think it had the existing polarised layer composed of 1-pixel wide vertical stripes of alternate polarization. I'm not sure how well it actually worked.

this tis 6oatsex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30032252)

more grandiose a sad world. At to happen. My tired arguments opinion in other outreach are Bulk of the FreeBSD disaapearing Up its the next round of get how people can

Dr. Tongue's 3D House of ... Miley Cyrus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30032280)

Oooooh, scary! [wikipedia.org]

Fashion from here,nike jordan shoes,coach,gucci, (1)

huangzhixian1204 (1674690) | more than 4 years ago | (#30032830)

In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.

Stereoscopic (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033314)

Not 3D. /pedant

Forget 3D cinema, look to games (1)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033590)

I have a $2500 3D setup at home. 2 720p projectors, each going through polarized lenses, onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light. I took my gaming computer (cost not included), installed the iz3d drivers, and now every game I play is in full 3D. Yeah, I have to wear glasses, but so what? I wear glasses when it's bright outside, too. Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors, polarized sheets, and a teleprompter's mirror. If you have something with a high refresh-rate, you can also use shutter glasses. And there are some monitors that allow 3D without glasses as long as you keep your head in the right position.

Anyways, the gaming experience is unreal. This setup has an unrivaled level of immersion. Horror games are truly terrifying. Racing is a serious adrenaline rush. And even MMORPG's are a little more fun when you're experiencing depth. I just played through Mirrors Edge last month and I'm still grinning about how fun it was.

So, now there is a small but growing group of homes that have 3D gaming rigs; those are the true 3D cinema customers. Right now, they got nothing aside from a few documentaries and dirty movies. While I sympathize a little with the apparent need of consumers for everything to be extremely simple, plug-and-play, and universally compatible, I wish someone would step up and fill the market for those of us who aren't afraid to do something a little more complicated.

Re:Forget 3D cinema, look to games (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30033748)

nVidia looks like they have a nice, simple solution. I'll be buying their monitor + shutterglasses combo soon. My graphics card is a bit dated though (9600 GTX); hopefully it can handle rendering the extra frames. I just need 120hz right, not 120fps?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?