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!

Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the you're-our-only-hope dept.

Television 218

adeelarshad82 writes "In a surprising endorsement for 3D display technology, Sony Corp. of America, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corp. have announced plans to form a US television network entirely devoted to 3D programming. The three parties have signed a letter of intent to form the unnamed venture, which is scheduled to launch in 2012. The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to purchase 3D-enabled TVs." Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage, which points out that this prospective network won't be the first: "Earlier Tuesday, ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D' in June 2010. The channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year."

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

Lame start... (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663350)

They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this. It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights. Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?

Re:Lame start... (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663430)

Wait...what world cup?

Re:Lame start... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663502)

Soccer I suppose.

Re:Lame start... (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663538)

Football, I suppose.

Re:Lame start... (4, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663598)

I don't understand why the standards org for soccer is called FIFA... shouldn't they have an S for soccer somewhere in that name?

Re:Lame start... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30663638)

Association football == soccer. A bit of research into the etymology of said sport might help you.

Re:Lame start... (0, Offtopic)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663918)

This isn't redundant. It came before the other reply, and it clears up the fact that the sport is known properly as "Association Football", and not just "football" (because "football" means soccer, gaelic football, Aussie rules, American football, rugby, etc.)

Re:Lame start... (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664162)

What do they call "WHOOSH" over there?

Re:Lame start... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664460)

Football is Football everywhere in the world except in the states where you have fancy names like Association Football ... Rugby is Rugby, nobody in its right mind would put them together ...
As for your Armored Football, only Americans could invent a sport that looks like organized medieval warfare ...

Re:Lame start... (5, Funny)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663696)

We only call it Soccer in the US. Everywhere else they call it Foccer.

Re:Lame start... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664868)

We only call it Soccer in the US. Everywhere else they call it Foccer.

Somebody was recalling their favorite Johny Carson moments on a nostalgia TV show. On one of the early episodes that were live, a WW-I ace came on as a guest. He was telling a war story, and said something like, "And then one of those fokkers came right at me; I swung around and was determined to blast the fokker...". Johny was going crazy signaling for a commercial break. After seeing Johny's expression, the guest clarified that "fokker" was a kind of German plane. (Unfortunately, I think they said it was a time before they taped the show. I'd love to see Johny's expression.)
     

Re:Lame start... (4, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664058)

Probably the same reason that the old USSR called itself CCCP.

Bloody foreigners.

Bloody foreigners (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664316)

"Boy, those Bloody foreigners! They have a different word for everything." - Apologies to Steve Martin

Re:Lame start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664782)

I don't understand why the standards org for soccer is called FIFA... shouldn't they have an S for soccer somewhere in that name?

Soccer is short for Association Football. FIFA stands for Federation Internationale de Football Association. Here is your "S" in the middle of "A"

Re:Lame start... (1, Insightful)

madnis (1300099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663998)

Wait...what world cup?

Hopefully not the one involving two girls... That was bad enough without three dimensions.

Re:Lame start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664294)

They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this. It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights. Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?

To heck with 3D foot ball, I want 3D tennis and 3D volley ball! The only sports worth staring at for hours, its the unclad truth.

Re:Lame start... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664444)

...3D beach vollyball.

Re:Lame start... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664506)

There are a few sports shown on TV where it isn't immediately obvious why it could be interesting to watch. For reference, see http://bash.org/?146497 [bash.org]

and 1% buys it like hte HD crap (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664464)

yup pandering to the rich niche market dont work and i'm not buying into it and ill stick with regular and guess what FREE TV

go fraking broke dummies is all i have to say trying to invent a wheel and peeps tried this when the 3d glasses came out YEARS AGO and it failed then and it will fail now

anything to justify a cost increase MY GOD WHEN DO WE START SEEING ANYTHING GET CHEAPER
IM SICK A THIS SHIT

Re:and 1% buys it like hte HD crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664650)

why don't you and YOUR GOD go eff yourself, I want 3D porn already.

Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (-1, Redundant)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663406)

Ok now your thinking "out side the box" big media (3D TV Network can't be copied and give the same user experience). I still don't think 3D TV will work, standard media will do, and I think you will still screw up the execution of it.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663474)

Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663678)

What about 3D cinema.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663716)

Sony and IMAX are more known for doing movies... but it's Disney's Pixar and Viacom's DreamWorks that's doing most of the HD movies. IMAX tends to like to upconvert major releases, but they've got limited processing power so they can't do everything... yet.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (3, Informative)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664034)

Stop me if I am wrong, imax cameras can be used by any studio.
The list below was quickly trawled up on google, I dont discount you could be right.

My main point is media companies seem to see 3d as some saviour giving a unique selling point whilst protecting demand (profit) from pirates.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663908)

Sony certainly is, if you're going by Big 5-6 movie studios, being larger than either of NBCU, Newscorp or Disney in 2008 according to wikipedia. Arguably, Sony might historically have had a stronger identity in its electronics branch, but after Howard "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet" Stringer took over it seems to be shifting over from not being entirely competitive in the electronics market to trying to be a 'media company'. Which may not exactly be a brilliant idea these days. And with a CEO like that, they've certainly become a company I avoid handing any money to as far as far as possible.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664174)

Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.

Right, because Sony is one of the big content companies, so, you are right, they aren't owned by one of the big content companies.

Re:Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664244)

Sony is a minor player in television, most of what they do there is game shows.

Party like it's 1999 (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663424)

This is about the point where HD was in 1999. Announced, but not quite online yet and only limited programs are being broadcast. Channels are so light on content they sign off rather than take up bandwidth when they've got nothing to show. This will make more sense when the devices are out and priced like an HD set is today... we're just not there yet.

Re:Party like it's 1999 (2, Insightful)

warmflatsprite (1255236) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663932)

... we're just not there yet.

And we never will be unless someone bites the bullet and starts publishing 3D content. I have a feeling that the adoption curve for 3D television will be much quicker than that of HD television since the latter relied on scaling up the world's LCD production facilities.

ugg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30663446)

If I have to use stupid red/green or red/blue glasses count me out. now, the weird polarized glasses (or whatever) they use in theaters now would be awesome.

Re:ugg (4, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664166)

Well, the light output of an LCD is naturally polarised, so an LCD using polarised glasses is actually far easier to make than a temporal interlacing design (using shutter glasses). Also, shutter glasses require ridicorously high refresh rates and still cause eye strain, not to mention the glasses are powered and thus are heavier and can run out of batteries.

One thing I think will be interesting is whether there will be enough time for the fixed-perspective "3D" to really take off before "true" 3D becomes practical (using screens whose pixels can emit different light colours in different directions, a la HoloVizio [gizmodo.com] ). Generating a display like this is tractable (I presume they're using a lenticular sheet system with multiple columns of pixels behind each lenticular strip) but capturing live video in such a manner will prove an interesting challenge.

The Chicken or the 3D Network (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663462)

Which cam first
the 3D TV or the 3D Network ?

Re:The Chicken or the 3D Network (1)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664314)

Easy, the TV. Why? Because it's easy to implement with LED's, and we already have LED TV's. Even if no 3D programs are available (and with movies coming out in 3D at least DVD/blu-ray stuff should be soon...) some people will pay extra for the "3DTV" (or whatever) printed on the box.

Great! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30663468)

I heard from a trusted source that it's going to be called ADHD3DTV.

Won't be needing 3D TV (1, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663470)

Won't be needing 3D TV ... ever.
Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.
I'll be skipping blu-ray.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663530)

We're starting to hit the point where those with damaged eyes who can see somewhat but not perfectly are getting lost. 3D is useless to the people who have lost depth perception... and HD requires a big enough TV for any additional pixels to be meaningful. At this pace, only teenagers will be subscribing to the highest definition TV services.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663758)

exactly 3D movies are useless for me as my eyes don't focus in the "right" way.

I see some effects but just get a headache. I think it is some 5-10% of the population suffers from the same problem. That will limit any major 3D tv tech.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663814)

How is your depth perception generally? Are you okay with ball games like tennis?

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664324)

medicore. baseball, tennis, are tough. However I can play both acceptably. well as long as it is only as serious as who buys the beer.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664374)

not to mention people that are colour blind.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (4, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664094)

Wow, you gave 3D an entire movie experience before deciding it's fate?

And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh. I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664446)

bluray will due. it has NO market acceptance. no, you geeks don't count, you don't buy enough of these.

for everyone else (non geeks) dvd works, works fine, is cheap and plays everywhere.

sorry, but fanboys of sony can claim that BD is here to stay but wait until sony wants to re-re-remilk the video market.

you BD fans are the suckers, truly. a movie is a movie. it does NOT gain anything (in the storytelling) by being in so-called high def. its a sucker play and in this economy it will simply die, over time. it will never even get to 25% of dvd rentals or sales (mark my words).

downloading drm-free is the future. drm-laden bd can kiss my ass.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

daath93 (1356187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664580)

Physical media sales will die out in a few years once the content providers figure out which on-demand service they can lock down and make squeal. Then they can charge you a few bucks every time you want to watch it instead of selling you a disc you can watch an unlimited amount of times. BD is an antique before its even fully accepted/adopted.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664614)

i can tell you don't know shit. a large portion of the films coming out and making money are remakes. if the masses really only cared about the story line do you really think they would have needed to remake stuff like "the in-laws"?

pull your head from your ass.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664622)

> And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh. I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.

I'm wondering if this will be happening any time soon. I own a Blu-Ray player and a fairly large Sony Bravia, and I honestly can't see any significant visible difference between my blu-ray titles and a reasonably well-mastered DVD. And I'm fairly picky -- I never did go the VHS route, preferring to suffer with Laserdisc until DVD became available. Laserdisc blew VHS away, and DVD was a significant improvement over Laserdisc, but Blu-Ray doesn't seem to give the same quantum improvement over DVD.

But I'm a geek, so I have one. There may be enough geeks to keep the format alive, but certainly not enough for it to take over DVD.

My friend with the 100" front-projection set says there's a significant difference between Blu-Ray and DVD. I bet he's right, on his high-end equipment. But are there enough people with TVs good enough to tell the difference to support the format?

What about Fred and Ethyl Six-Pack, who probably still have a tube set, or just got their first flat panel at Costco but have no idea how to set it up. Do their jaws drop the first time they see the blu-ray version of Bad Boys II? Of course not.

I look forward to the day when Blu-Ray players are available for $34.99 at Wal-Mart, as DVD players are today. Fortunately, our DVDs will still play fine, and there will still be no reason to replace them with their Blu-Ray counterparts.

In the case of 3D TV, if done properly, it could be the quantum leap that HDTV was over NTSC. So.... how long did it take for HDTV to go from concept to generally available? And then, how long did it take to become affordable enough for Fred and Ethyl to consider buying one? I forget, how many converters were sold the year NTSC stopped transmitting?

Personally, I think 3D is an interesting novelty in the theater. I bought the Bravia in 2009, and typically keep my TVs for ten years or more. Let's talk about 3D around 2019, shall we? With the length of time for standards struggles to be resolved and decisions to actually be made, 3D should be just about ready for prime time by then. Or maybe a little later.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (4, Interesting)

Mad Quacker (3327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664296)

Won't be needing 3D TV ... ever.
Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.
I'll be skipping blu-ray.

Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind? Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience. It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air. No flicker, no headaches, no red/blue tinting.

I am not easily impressed.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (2, Insightful)

daath93 (1356187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664600)

Really? People trying to grab things from the air? I don't know if that is a testament to the 3D or the stupidity of the average theater goer in your area.

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664612)

Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind? Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience. It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air.

That's because it's fairly new. But I have to agree with my fellow "flatlander" above: it doesn't add that much to the experience. Good use of movement-based parallax produces almost the same depth cues as direct 3D, and doesn't require special goggles. As a novelty, 3D is cool, but the novelty wears off. Producers should perfect the art of parallax instead. It's pretty cool if used right.

But hey, if it stimulates the economy for a while, then go ahead and blow wods of cash on 3D equipment. Personally, I'd rather it go toward fixing potholes; they are 3D too. Some are so fscked I think they are 4D.
 

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

baptiste (256004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664388)

Agree 100% Saw Avatar in 3D. great movie, but would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D I expect. Have no desire to watch sitcoms or football or soccer with 3D glasses on. Just annoying. Ok for an occasional movie, but viewing at home? Meh - not until they can project it :)

Re:Won't be needing 3D TV (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664602)

I thought that 3D added a *LOT* to Imax Avatar. It was extremely well done- visually. The story was so-so, but the visuals were beyond compare.

Would I enjoy 3D HDTV? Sure- but only if the refresh were high, and only if they keep the bitrate up. As it is, the bitrate on Cox for HDTV is horrible, there are all kinds of artifacting on my 52" LCD. Over-the-air is *MUCH* better.

A few featured shows: (2, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663476)

The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"

-with apologies to Michael Kupperman [twitter.com] , the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from

Re:A few featured shows: (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663784)

The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"

Last week's "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head" was killer. This young guy was at the $1,000,000 dodge and still has his Hide In the Audience lifetime, but got too cocky and fell back to $25,000.

Re:A few featured shows: (1)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664194)

When I went to see Avatar 3D they had a preview for Alice in Wonderland 3D. It was all flashy "look-at-me, I'm in 3D!" showy rubbish. I despaired at having to sit through almost three hours of Avatar if it was going to draw that much attention to the special effects. Fortunately, the effects were used much more effectively (excuse the pun) in the movie proper.

headaches welcome? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663480)

Yay headaches? :(

Why is 3D somehow better? They cause eye strain, and the average house watches how many hours of TV a week? This might not just be a bad marketing gimmick -- it could actually be a public health hazard.

Re:headaches welcome? (3, Insightful)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663534)

Because it's IN THE THIRD DIMENSION!

Also, it's a shame HTML doesn't have a <reverb> tag.

Re:headaches welcome? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663844)

In theory 3D should be possible without these issues. Have you seen Avatar in Imax 3D? I've heard tell it's not headache-inducing.

I'm willing to believe that the headaches on the tech demoes I've seen are the result of poor filmography or hardware (both of which are tricky.)

Of course I would be surprised if healthy hardware is ready for the home by 2012.

Re:headaches welcome? (1)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664192)

The first two "modern" 3D movies I saw (Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth) both gave me intense headaches, but Avatar seems to use a different process (at least the glasses were different) and gave me no problems. I don't know how the 3D televisions work, but it is certainly possible to have 3D with pain.

Re:headaches welcome? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664940)

The first two "modern" 3D movies I saw (Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth) both gave me intense headaches, but Avatar seems to use a different process (at least the glasses were different) and gave me no problems. I don't know how the 3D televisions work, but it is certainly possible to have 3D with pain.

I do not believe that 3D will be successful in the long run if it requires wearing special glasses. There have been previous successful 3D movies, but when the studios tried to follow it up with another 3D movie, people weren't interested.

3D will be much more meaningful in the computer (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663878)

side of entertainment. 3d Video games can already provide the experience with a 3d monitor with little rewriting and so could the OS. Then there will be CAD like programs.

I don't know why the industry is trying to push it from the TV side of things, 1st adopters are usually computer geeks. Push stuff out there and see if people want it.

I like 3D movies, but until they have holograms down, I don't want to be watching TV with glasses or even see 3D all that much to begin with.

Re:headaches welcome? (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664702)

3D does not cause eye strain nor headaches when it is done PROPERLY (like it was done with Avatar 3D Imax).

Now, with 30/60Hz flicker-glasses, yeah, that could be an issue. And since that is the technology they will have to use with home TV, I am not overly optimistic... but I will reserve judgment until I experience it.

Thank you for watching. (2, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663482)

You're tuned to the Headache Channel.

Re:Thank you for watching. (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663566)

Stay tuned next for Headache News, annoyance you can count on.

This is like launching HDTV in 1996... (2)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663578)

Seriously, this launch is a bit premature. Sure, such technologies exist, but with no market for it.

Unless they're requiring red and blue glasses, no one can watch it in 3D -- 3D broadcasting requires 240hz televisions alongside enough shutter glasses to cover a 20+ person sports gathering.

The American consumer is already tapped out on debt, since they maxed out their credit cards on flat-panel HDTVs in the age of subprime lending, and are probably only using them to watch low-res basic cable now that they have to pay the bills.

It'll be a good 10-15 years before 3D broadcasting will even be considered normal. Yet it's not entirely stupid -- in the business world, people still fall for the "Reagan Star Wars" tactic. Just convince the competition you're revolutionary and they'll waste all their cash trying to catch up to something infeasible...

Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996... (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663668)

During the early days of HD, NESN (the Boston-area sports network with Red Sox games) rented out movie theaters and sold tickets to see the HD broadcast (complete with commercials) in the local movie theater for several away games. We'll likely see a repeat of this stunt by the 3D rights holders.

The first HD broadcasts of a Space Shuttle launch were only available at Best Buy stores. No HD sets had been sold at that time, and Best Buy was rolling out the first unbranded disaster of an plasma HD set for $10,000 and all of those were eventually recalled.

Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996... (1)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664408)

Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate aren't the only options. There's also differential polarization and double the resolution. All we have to do is turn half the LED's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the "polarization" channel and half the resolution instead of the "color" channel. And lets face it, you wouldn't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization.

Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664452)

if you knew jack shit out marketing you wouldn't be hanging out on slashdot.

First Day Schedule Released (5, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663610)

12:00 am to 6:30 am: 3D infomercials
6:30 am: 3D National Anthem
6:35 am: Scripture Study with Rev. Harlon Stereo
6:45 am: Davey & Goliath in the Land of Three Dimensions
7:00 am: Bwana Devil
9:00 am: House of Wax
11:00 am: Treasure of the Four Crowns
1:00 pm: Pixar Trailer Compilation
2:00 pm: House of Wax
4:00 pm: 3D National News from the rim of the Grand Canyon
6:00 pm: Simpsons 3D episode
6:30 pm: Viewmaster Travelogue Presents: Beautiful Holland.
7:00 pm: House of Wax
9:00 pm: Stetson's Hangout (premiere) Sitcom featuring the wacky exploits of the Tosser Family. In this epiode, Stetson Tosser throws snakes, soiled diapers and a bowl of Jell-0 at the camera.
9:30 pm: Lacrosse championships from Watertown, NY. In 3D.
11:00 pm: Late News hanging from a platform on the side of the Empire State Building
11:30 pm: Viewmaster Showcase: Bible Stories

replace 3D infomercials with Push PPV HD 3D movies (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664390)

replace 3D infomercials with Push PPV HD 3D movies

You forgot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30665032)

3D World Series of Poker.

Excellent idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30663842)

We all know how much people tend to spend in recessions. People are sure to go out and buy incredibly expensive 3D television sets!

Yawn. Fad is Over (2, Insightful)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663900)

Ask yourself this: When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what? This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."

Every time I watch porn (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664038)

Sorry, try your "I hate the future" speech a little bit more.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664078)

Avatar is what people are saying.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664086)

The IMAX in Melbourne is booked solid into next week for Avatar. I have never seen it more than 30% full in the 15 or so years it has been open.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665044)

But its available in normal cinemas in 3D too, like crown.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665128)

Yeah. I got some cheap tickets from work before Christmas. I will probably go along this week.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664574)

"Better in 3D" is a bit misleading for Avatar. It is more accurate to say that Avatar is just a display of 3D effects, so seeing it in 2D is silly.

Re:Yawn. Fad is Over (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664134)

Man, I know exactly what you mean! This reminds me of that lame device with "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad". [slashdot.org] Who the hell is going to buy that!?

Sports (1)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665112)

Right now. I'm watching football (Orange Bowl) on my HDTV. This is good, but it would be better if it was in 3D.

Also, nature documentaries. They're beautiful in HD, but they'd be even better in 3D.

Whether I'd pay extra or wear uncomfortable glasses is another matter. But if I had the choice between 2D and 3D for those programs without significant cost or inconvenience, I'd choose 3D every time.

That's the same phenomenon as color, stereo, high definition, and surround sound. At the time that each was introduced it was a luxury and only gimmicky shows made much use of them. But eventually they became cheap, standard, and ubiquitous.

get out your SCTV disks (2, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30663920)

if you can stand Dr. Tongue's "3D House of Stewardesses," this has a chance. lame concept, will have lame execution, even lamer if they play "let's break the fourth wall."

I want 3D M:tG coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30664142)

Think about it... all the excitement and thrills of an M:tG tournament RIGHT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!

Maybe ESPN will do the World Championships again?

First 3D post! (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664204)

tThHiIsS iIsS tThHeE vVeErRyY fFiIrRsStT tThHrReEeE dD pPoOsStT

cCaAuUtTiIoOnN mMaAyY cCaAuUsSeE nNaAuUsSeEaA

Sony products? meh. (1, Offtopic)

andydread (758754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664276)

As a former Sony fanboi I have to say that if the 3D TVs are made by Sony then I _won't_ be buying one. If its a premium pay channel i won't be patronizing it. I am done with Sony and their shenanigans. They are malicious to their customers, They are rabid RIAA/MPAA attack dogs, And they lobby clueless US politicians relentlessly to criminalize normal behavior. And now they want to close the analog hole, intoduce DRM broadcast flags, etc. etc. FUCK Sony. They are ruthless bastards.

Stereoscopic, not 3D (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664434)

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's only 3D when I can walk around the TV and see things from every angle. This is stereoscopic; "3D" from only one viewpoint by tricks of the eyes+brain.

Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664606)

Let's see... we want 1920x1080x1080 rectangular pixels... I think DirecTV could pull that off, if they'd just down all their SD, HD, and Internet offerings at the same time.

Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D (1)

CityZen (464761) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665232)

It wouldn't have to be quite so bad. One possibility is to sense where the viewer is and only send those pixels. Another is to send enough 2D layers such that the 3D scene can be recomputed properly for a wide variety of viewing positions (re: image-based rendering). That is still assuming stereoscopic display, though.

Your idea of using 1920x1080x1080 only permits you to look into a TV-size cube of space. What is more desirable is if the TV represents a "window" into another world of infinite dimension. This calls for a lightfield display, where each pixel sends out different light rays (of varying color & intensity) in different directions. Essentially, each pixel delivers a whole image, directionally dispersed. The resolution of each "pixel image" depends upon the range of viewing angles you wish to support, as well as the fidelity of angular resolution you want, of course. But if you assume an HD "image" for each pixel in an HD image, then you're talking 4 trillion total "pixels" (light rays), 60 times per second.

Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664640)

You're confusing rendering method with result. It's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth. What you're describing is "in the round", while the TV version is more like "bas relief". Both still fall under the category of 3D. The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy, but that doesn't invalidate the result.

Avatar 3D at home? (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664454)

Wouldn't it be great if somebody created a cam capture of Avatar 3D with one camera looking through the left lens of the glasses, and the other camera looking through the right lens? Then they could package them together in some format and people can watch them on existing 3D monitors that use glasses. I looked at some movie sites and they have Avatar "telesyncs" but no 3D versions, too bad. I wonder if any of the 3D TVs at CES will be showing Avatar, that would be good too.

Re:Avatar 3D at home? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664802)

I'm not quite sure why they went with blue people in the plot... wouldn't that kill red/blue 3D tech?

Makes sense in terms of metaphysics. (0)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664498)

Reality is coiling up in preparation for a big paradigm shift; we've all been seeing the signs, and the collective human awareness, like a fleet of little paddle boats on the sea, is carried along with it. Those little boats which are well constructed, which are not loaded down with excess baggage, which are sensibly captained. . , these can rise with the wave. But those which are leaky and poorly held together and that are pointing every which-way, will capsize. Or so the logic runs. . .

Anyway, the collective subconscious is always many steps ahead of the Now, and is constantly sounding alarms in our conscious lives. The book which falls off the shelf at your feet is the one to read. For some reason, James Cameron is, in my opinion, tuned hard-core into this vibe. His messages have always carried a lot of metaphoric heft. The more one looks at his films, the more one sees. This is even true with a romance like Titanic! With the sinking economy and the ship of state being constantly referred to, I can't escape from the raw images of the Titanic going down with all hands despite its power and grandeur. It offers a touchstone of metaphor which I always have in my head, though I doubt he was thinking of it as such when it was created. But that's how the subconscious works. When the news tells us, "The economy is sinking!", James Cameron has provided the easy visuals for everybody to tap into.

Anyway. . ,

Avatar brings many new and sharp ideas to the surface. There's the whole UFO phenomenon which few ever want to talk about, much less study well enough to be able to talk about it intelligently should they ever choose to. Ignorance rules the day with many. (For the love of Pete, read Richard Dolan!) And beyond that, I suspect that as the finishing touches are put on humanity's complete take-over, we'll begin to understand colonialism from a whole new perspective. James Cameron is tuned right in.

And the interesting thing is that our media reflects the changes in more than just subject. As 3D beings, our ability to communicate through media is largely done by manipulating the levels beneath we have already mastered; 1D and 2D. Switching up a level of awareness will presumably allow for an expansion into power over 3D visual media. That Avatar contained such relevant messages regarding Alien invasion, colonialism, and spiritualism also happened to be wrapped up in a 3D delivery media. . , well, I find that intriguing.

But then, I'm a patterns guy. I see and read and think the stuff few people are capable of getting past their knee-jerk emotional control systems to process without feeling sick, -and who can blame them? (Other than me on a shitty day. Sorry guys.), so I get to play, "Assemble a picture from countless seemingly disparate pieces". -And then put up with the automatic abuse offered by others for not playing with my Lego bricks according to the official rules. But whatever; it's a small and ever-shrinking price to pay for an increasingly useful scope of vision.

So 3D telly in our homes? What does it mean? I can sum it up with one quote:

"The medium is the message!"

-FL

Re:Makes sense in terms of metaphysics. (3, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665296)

I want some of what you're dropping.

Back to the Future 6 (1)

RandomUsr (985972) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664722)

Doc Brown "Great Scott Marty! Can you imagine what this will do for Pron?"
Marty - "I've got MS, who gives a ****?, Wait, is Rachel Hunter going to appear in a Delorean?"

About this 3D stuff... (1)

cigawoot (1242378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664770)

Picture resolution, imho, will allow you to enjoy programming more-so then 3D.

Is this /. ? (2, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#30664778)

There's like a 100 posts and not single mention of 3D porn and not a single 3D porn joke.

Re:Is this /. ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30665166)

suddenly the guy with world's biggest dick has a shot...

Oh, goody. (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665058)

Another fucking ESPN for me to be forced to pay for and never watch.

Well fuck (3, Insightful)

riker1384 (735780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665146)

Just when I caved and bought my 58-plasma, now they're gonna make it obsolete? Will this work on existing TVs?

Re:Well fuck (1)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665304)

Just when I caved and bought my 58-plasma, now they're gonna make it obsolete? Will this work on existing TVs?

You mean to tell me that you're NOT happy shelling out another 6000 dollars or so for a 3D HD Super TV? I was kind of hoping that switch to digital broadcasts would offer some decent competition to cable.

Avatar just gave me a headache... (4, Funny)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30665270)

The 3D effects were blurry and made me feel nauseous.

Furthermore, everyone else in the theater was a nerd. Everyone but me had these big thick plastic glasses on.

I really don't see what the hype was about.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?