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!

Japan Will Start 3D TV Programming This Summer

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-that-takes-up-more-room dept.

Television 105

An anonymous reader writes "Japan HD TV operator Sky Perfect will start 3D programming this summer, with focuses on live events and sports events. As more Hollywood movies are shot in 3D, and 3D TVs are expected to come onto the market in the very near future, Sky Perfect is hoping that people will switch to 3D TV just like people switched from black and white to color. How about 3D TV in other countries?"

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

Meh (5, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968796)

If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968802)

You will. Biggest skeptics jump in first as always.

Re:Meh (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968848)

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

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

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

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

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969030)

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

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

Re:Meh (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969376)

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

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

Re:Meh (2, Informative)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969696)

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

Re:Meh (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986234)

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

Re:Meh (3, Informative)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969784)

But 3d TV requires glasses

False. Some displays do not require glasses.

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

Re:Meh (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972776)

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

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

Re:Meh (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977734)

And you can still do 2d on a 3d tv...

Re:Meh (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#30984936)

touché

Re:Meh (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986200)

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

This is also, wisely, done from a data centric viewpoint -- your player gets the 3D data, and does SOMETHING with it to present it to the viewer. That may be 3D shutter glasses if I want to watch 3D via my PS3 on today's DLP television (it's all technically possible using 60p output, assuming 30p per eye doesn't give me a headache). But assuming I had a new player and, say, a DLP projection TV with a circular polarizer filtering rig built-in, I could see RealD-style images, just as in the theater, using only passive glasses... like sunglasses. If someone comes up with a reasonable no-glasses 3D technology (for a TV, that's hard... what happens if I'm watching off center, head tilted, or even lying down... that's actually ok with either RealD or LCD glasses, a big problem with most non-glasses schemes in the works today).

Of course, what you don't get is a mix... if you're watching in 3D, it's going to be a mess for anyone without glasses.

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969142)

If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

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

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969472)

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

Maybe 3d will go the same way. Unlike most other movies that tried 3d in the past, Avatar used the technology to good effect. If more content follows, and more programming is made available over the air, perhaps people will pick it up, since the technology is not as cumbersome as before. Especially if it's optional: either watch the same content in 2d, or put on the glasses and watch 3d. One thing that has advanced a bit is the technology used for the glasses. Circular polarisation (probably not usable for TV, but maybe dual beamers...), shutter glasses that are actually comfortable to wear, or Infitec [infitec.net] glasses, which might be usable with televisions but are hideously expensive. I found all of these to be perfectly comfortable to wear even for an extended period of time.

Re:Meh (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986366)

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

Sometimes the idea is just dandy, but the implementation is stupid. That's kind of how quadraphonic was. 3D has been around since the 1950's, but it was a stupid gimmick back then. "Avatar" is one of the fist films to show that it works as just another enhancement... you still believe it's 3D, even if you don't have something shooting directly at you every five minutes. Plus, I'm not fan of shutter glasses, but the polarizer technologies (like RealD) work just dandy, and can be used at least in new DLP designs, if not LCD necessarily. Maybe this is another failed attempt, or maybe it's the time they finally get it right. We'll see.

Though I was a big fan of quadraphonic... not because of the quadraphonic thing itself, SQ LPs and all that stuff, but I was a teenager when they killed it. For a short time, you could get a quadraphonic amp for about 1/5th the price of a normal stereo amp, as they blew them all out at fire sale prices. So I had a surround sound system back in the mid 1970s. Ok, no material for it, but more loud as good (50 amps per channel into four speakers). And when, in college, I did actually blow the front channels, the unit worked just fine, back-channel only (they were fully symmetric... two sets of stereo amplifiers int he same box).

Re:Meh (3, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969264)

I already have to wear glasses to see the TV. Am I expected to wear a second pair because the ones I've seen wont exactly fit over the glasses I'm wearing now? No one seems to be answering this question.

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

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

Meh indeed.

Re:Meh (2, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969344)

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

Re:Meh (2, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969478)

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

Re:Meh (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969524)

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

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

Re:Meh (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977484)

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

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

3D TVs use a more active system - because they have to use the same screen to display both images, they alternate between the two images. The active glasses black out the eye that's not supposed to see that image. So the TV displays the left image, the glasses black out the right eye, then the TV displays the right image, then the glasses black out the left eye. They have a little IR transmitter that tells the glasses which eye to blank out.

Depending on the glasses/goggles, they may or may not work with prescription lenses. Just remember to change the batteries... Supposedly though, there's a standard for the glasses so you can use one pair for multiple TVs.

Re:Meh (1)

dara (119068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972468)

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

Dara

Re:Meh (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986444)

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

It's also possible to do this using passive glasses, just like in the 3D theaters. Using circular polarizers in the display itself, you need the same on your eyes. That's a pair of something that looks just like sunglasses, or clip-ons for your existing glasses, or prescription 3D glasses (which also work as sunglasses) if you want to get serious about it. Basically, the same choices you have about sunglasses.

Unfortunately, this is an easy slam-dunk to design into a DLP TV, but, not being flat-panel, DLP has fallen out of favor recently in the home (they're used quite extensively in the digital theater world, in fact, the system I describe with polarizers is exactly what you usually see in a theater when you see a 3D film, driven by a DLP projector with a 3D add on device).

Re:Meh (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971108)

What about conveying other sensations?

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

Re:Meh (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986464)

No, that's just the stench of the NBC programming you're getting there...

Re:Meh (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972054)

You have to wear headphones to use portable media, and that doesn't seem to have been a deal-breaker.

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

Re:Meh (1)

GavinStrife (1734300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973770)

Has anyone thought of wearing contact lenses that would create the difference needed for 3d viewing. I know contacts bother many people, but I can pop them in and out, no problem. And it would be great to have complete peripheral vision...

That means that within a year... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968798)

... we'll have 3d pr0n.

Re:That means that within a year... (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968828)

Probably not. 3D cams and production are still very expensive.

Re:That means that within a year... (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969112)

but... porn. I must sadface now.

Re:That means that within a year... (2, Insightful)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968840)

ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.

Re:That means that within a year... (2, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969976)

ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.

Bearing in mind that approximately 40% of all Star Trek: The Next Generation stories revolved around something going wrong with the holodeck, I'll wait a bit longer until they get the wrinkles sorted out...

Re:That means that within a year... (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973646)

i quite like that moriati chap.

Re:That means that within a year... (1)

Brainless (18015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968988)

Sooner than you may think! NSFW

http://www.avclub.com/articles/caligula-director-to-bring-audiences-38ddd-in-3d,37651/

Re:That means that within a year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969032)

Is it wrong of me to be bothered by the fact they're using Montagues and Capulets from Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet for the background music?

The entire time I'm thinking, "THAT'S NOT RIGHT. GET SOME CALIGULA MUSIC INSTEAD" in my head. Well, whatever.

Re:That means that within a year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969186)

Allready avalible. On youtube, which you probably didnt know had various 3D support did you? Just check the uploader's site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRhgyiwADw

Re:That means that within a year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969248)

There are already pics like this one [tinypic.com] , that you can see in 3D if you cross your eyes right. It's actually not that hard, but I don't know about a whole movie like that.

High Def, 3D, all meh! (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968816)

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

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

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (2, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968882)

I don't think you understand the technology you are railing against.

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

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

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

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

Though I done completely agree that home 3D is little more than a novelty. If it becomes a fad, I hope it dies quickly like VR did.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (4, Informative)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969008)

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

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969016)

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969082)

That's cause they used two different frequencies for each primary color, and what you wore had filters which only allow one primary color per eye to pass through. The difference in perceived color was then adjusted with a colored layer.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969500)

Gonna be fun for the tetrachromatics.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971104)

Not much diff to them anyway - most of the existing displays and video recording technologies will appear to be missing colours to them.

There are very few movie cameras and renderers that support 4 primary colours (e.g. R,G1,G2,B, or R1,R2,G,B - depends on what sort of tetrachromat you are too :) ).

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972836)

From what I can read, some of them did it that way, but most used circular polarization.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969096)

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (4, Informative)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969240)

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

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (2, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969902)

They were (at least here).

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

rreay (50160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969388)

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

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969652)

They say this, but the truth is that of course you still have to keep your eyes perfectly horisontal in order for the 3D effect to work. If you tilt your head, the two images will be separated at a slanted angle, which is seriously annoying.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968890)

Precisely like the DAB radios on beta test in Malta right now. Next year we will have DAB+ and people will have to throw away their radios. It's a similar scheme for early adopters. I agree with you on this 3d tv. It's not feasable at the moment.

I mean watching it for hours wouid give you a headache.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970084)

Precisely like the DAB radios on beta test in Malta right now. Next year we will have DAB+ and people will have to throw away their radios.

Sell them on Amazon UK, then. We formally adopted the 90s-tech DAB system here some time back, unfortunately. Though it's never taken off quite as much as it should have, and there's still talk of DAB+.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (2, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969000)

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

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969262)

Then they start integrating motion capture straight into the new sets creating "Interactive Movies". What *you* do at certain points can determines exactly what happens in the movie! So much more fun than just watching it or pressing a button! Also, it's not a video game because we've said it isn't!

Motion capture will be standardized once things like Natal are popularized. Wii was the first step. Natal is the second. Once 3d tech is also worth using and popularized, holodeck tech will become even more possible. All we need to do is figure out that pesky haptics problem.

Heck, maybe it'll go Wii -> Natal -> 3d TV -> haptics -> interactive tv -> holodeck! We can only dream!

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969510)

What *you* do at certain points can determines exactly what happens in the movie!

Tilt head to not die!

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969060)

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

http://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/interference-filters.html [stereoscopy.com]

Guess you've never heard of Interference Filters? They have none of the problems you describe (except for requiring goggles.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969066)

This is going to sound crazy but I swear as an elementary school kid in the 1980s doing door-to-door fundraisers for school I one day went to a house where when I peered inside the guy had a projection type TV with I believe red green and blue light emitters (I don't remember the exact colors) and he had pretty convincing 3D TV that didn't require any glasses. It sounds like I'm schizo but if this was a hallucination it has been the only one I've had (I don't have any outlandish memories and I am pretty close to my family/wife so I'm pretty sure I'm not batshit crazy).

Polarised != Pulfrich (2, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970060)

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

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

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

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

That applies to the Pulfrich system. However, the Pulfrich system does have the advantage of working perfectly fine with ordinary TVs. In fact the BBC used it for several programmes in 1993 (most notably on a Doctor Who "special" [wikipedia.org] ).

Technically, the system worked quite well, although it didn't stop the Doctor Who special being absolutely f****** horrid.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh! (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 3 years ago | (#30986648)

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

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

"Prismatic screens similar to 3D photos" is called lenticular 3D/stereoscopy. It's flawed for the same reason the old horizontal/vertical polarization was... it fails unless you're sitting perfectly straight. That's already pretty much failed in the theater, and is a no-go entirely for the home, I suspect.

The other modern glasses-based technology is Dolby's 3D system, which they call "wavelength multiplex visualization". Basically, they mess with the colors for left vs. right eye, but in very tiny bands, so you don't see any color shifts. Otherwise, it's the same idea as polarization: filter at the projector, filter at the eye.

3Ality and Sky TV... (4, Informative)

longacre (1090157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968820)

...will be broadcasting [popularmechanics.com] today's Manchester United vs. Arsenal match in 3D, which I believe will be the first live 3D sports broadcast in Europe (though it's only being piped in to nine pubs in the UK).

ESPN will launch [usatoday.com] a 3D network in June, though content will be limited.

Re:3Ality and Sky TV... (1)

pennyloafer (1175025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968850)

I will be the first to say that that a 3D wrestling match on TV is very exciting. I will keep that event and date bookmarked. Yup, wouldn't miss it.

Re:3Ality and Sky TV... (1)

piltdownman84 (853358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968910)

Does anyone know if ESPN will have the World Cup in 3D? I know 32 games will be in HD, and ESPN will start broadcasting in June, but nothing I have read had connected the two other than speculation. As a Canadian, I need to know if I need to get a grey market dish.

I for one am very excited and plan to be an extremely early adopter.

Re:3Ality and Sky TV... (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969146)

So everybody in those pubs have to wear 3D glasses. If they don't they'll see double images of the players even before drinking a beer. A theatre is a very different environment, far more controlled. This ManU vs Arsenal game is an interesting experiment in how freely moving crowds can (and are willing to) watch 3D broadcasts.

Why would football be better in 3D? (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970198)

At the distances involved with practically all televised shots, there is almost no difference in view from right to left eye - i.e. we see the actual game as a 2D representation, even when live. 3D becomes more apparent inside about 20 feet (no cite, just experience), which is why in every 3D movie you can say "oooh - they put that right in my face for a cool 3D effect".

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

Just another way to fleece the punters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968842)

Over here, Sky is going to transmit the Arsenal vs Man Utd footie match today. Only to certain pubs and will (AFAIK) charge them a hefty surcharge over their normal rates.
As someone who has at last managed to escape from the SKY stranglehold and moved to FreeSat I can't say I'm bothered about 3D TV in the slightest.

Give it another 10 years and they might get it sorted properly.
It took some 20 years for HDTV to become a reality. I saw an impressive Sony setup at Telecom 87 in Geneva. 20yrs later and it is ready for consumer use.

If you have more cash than sense then buy a 3D TV rig. Better be prepared to throw it all away when a decent system is standardised.

Re:Just another way to fleece the punters (2, Interesting)

Xemu (50595) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969074)

Give it another 10 years and they might get it sorted properly.
It took some 20 years for HDTV to become a reality. I saw an impressive Sony setup at Telecom 87 in Geneva. 20yrs later and it is ready for consumer use.

If you have more cash than sense then buy a 3D TV rig. Better be prepared to throw it all away when a decent system is standardised.

You know, if it takes 10-20 years until a proper standard is deviced, it is actually not a bad idea to buy a 3D system now. 10 years is a pretty good life span for home electronics.

Re:Just another way to fleece the punters (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970298)

That only works if modern televisions will last 10 years.

Glasses (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968872)

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

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

Damn... maybe I should start selling some!

Re:Glasses (1)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970496)

. . . which still doesn't help those of us who need prescription glasses to see more than two feet away clearly.

I don't think it'll take off (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968878)

I'm sure there will be some programming, but I don't ever see it becoming wide spread until the technology progresses. The problem is you've got to wear special glasses. That's a pain for many reasons. While it is feasible to ask people to do that for some movies and such, I can't see it for general TV viewing.

I mean even if the owner of the TV likes it, there are additional problems. With colour or high def, it just works for everyone in the room. For 3D TV, it is a situation where everyone has to wear the glasses, or it has to be turned off. The picture is unwatchable without the shutter glasses because it is two images superimposed on each other. So you'd have to have enough glasses for everyone charged and ready, and everyone would have to want to wear them, otherwise you have to switch back to 2D.

Because of that I can't see it ever becoming real popular. I'm sure there'll be 3D programming, but most likely very little of it.

Also you are going to have some trouble convincing studios to buy new equipment. The conversion to HD has already been pricey. It required new camera bodies, in some cases lenses, editing equipment, storage, etc, etc. Well, 3D will require all that again. All new equipment will have to be purchased, that costs even more and is more bulky (since it requires two lenses per camera). Plus it will probably add to editing time. You've got to produce a 3D and 2D version and make sure both look good. While things like cuts and so on will be the same for both, focus and such will not.

3D will not go mainstream in a *long* time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968884)

For reasons already mentioned here. Also, there are those of us who simply doesn't have depth perception for various reasons.

I see a lot more potential for 3D in games than on TV.

Moving to Japan (1)

FatherDale (1535743) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968960)

Takeshi's Castle will be awesome.

Re:Moving to Japan (1)

dafing (753481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30968996)

ha, we have that in New Zealand as the redubbed/edited/something "MXC" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXC [wikipedia.org]

One dimension late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30968984)

As usual, the rest of the world are a whole dimension after the cutting edge Japan.

It would be quite nice, but... (1)

jbb999 (758019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969036)

Yeah I'd quite like a 3D TV glasses and all. But like many people I've only just got an HD capable TV and it cost quite a lot of money. If I was buying a new TV I'd probably think about getting a 3D capable TV but only if it didn't cost a lot more than an ordinary HDTV. For me it's like bluray. If I didn't have a DVD player I'd probably buy one. But I do, and the amount I use it and the different it makes means that I won't upgrade at any costs. Maybe if my DVD player breaks one day I'd consider it. That's the problem with this, most people who are likely to care about this at all only just spent lost of money on a new TV that's probably going to last 10 years. And while 3d would be nice, it's not really worth any significant money to most people. (In my opinion :) )

Not everyone can see 3D... (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969166)

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

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

I'm much more inclined to like the 3D plasma screens shown 4-5 years ago, where you needed NO 3D glasses at all, but where kind of limited to certain angles (but be honest, how much do you need to move back & forth?) these worked very well, and you could move quite a bit in a chair, and the 3D effect where nothing less than stunning.

Re:Not everyone can see 3D... (1)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969324)

Can you really sue someone for dizziness, where you live ? I can't wait to go to the theatre, and have a lawsuit because I have sore eye.

Re:Not everyone can see 3D... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30970552)

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

Re:Not everyone can see 3D... (1)

qubezz (520511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969616)

and you risk massive lawsuits if you publish this technology in it's early immature stages as it is now

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

Oh, wait, I forgot we live in a country full of people too stupid to not jam every bit of food they see into their face...

Re:Not everyone can see 3D... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971090)

Goddammit! I woke up this morning thinking, "Maybe! Somehow! This will be the day! That one amazing day I've waited my whole life on! This country isn't full of stupid people any more!"

And then I came to Slashdot and get told otherwise.

*Slams head in a car door*

Anyone remember the VR hype back in 1994? (1)

Ransak (548582) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969172)

The recent hype around 3D TV reminds me a lot of the VR hype back in the mid 90s. The technology just wasn't there yet and it killed the market before it began, as a result home VR never became the panacea that was promised.

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

Re:Anyone remember the VR hype back in 1994? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969810)

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

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

Maybe it's time to give it another try.

Re:Anyone remember the VR hype back in 1994? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972350)

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

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

Great. (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969310)

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

Could be worse, I suppose. Could be British comedy.

Re:Great. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969502)

Re:Great. (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977144)

For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of most American comedy either.

The difference between British comedy and American comedy is, British comedy isn't funny because nobody understands it; whereas, American comedy isn't funny even though you can understand it just fine, even if you have roughly the same intelligence quotient as a jar of mayonnaise.

Try to create something stereoscopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30969314)

If you understand something about photography try to take few stereoscopic photos and you'll see how much it limits composition.

Japanese OTA 3D already exists (1)

rreay (50160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969402)

Japan has had 3D over the air broadcast for a while now. Channel BS11 shows several hours of 3D every day. You can get a special Hyundai TV that detects and plays the 3D.

This can be dangerous (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969860)

you could be hit if you stay too close to a 3D TV showing a boxe match.

3D? Bah, humbug (2, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30969968)

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

Re:3D? Bah, humbug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971250)

Wonkavision anyone?

Re:3D? Bah, humbug (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972752)

I fart in your smell-o-cam's general direction

How are they going to do this? (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972070)

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

Re:How are they going to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30973818)

i think by "writers" you mean "3d modelers".

Re:How are they going to do this? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975560)

Some of them are already in 3D [wikipedia.org] .

3D-D wrapup (2, Informative)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972594)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on spelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B/W (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976422)

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

kick 3D (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977370)

When people are stopped being scammed by Sky/Phoney/Sony with this 3D TV the better. A hologram TV is not that far that far away. Sky Murdoch group still insist on selling you High Definition boxes with all the subscription fee's but are now going to force you into 3D TV. My advice is simple, do not pay for it. Here is a good example.... remember betamax video... it was elite but VHS took over. How many of you have updated your VHS collection to DVD? Now you have to replace all of it with Blu-Ray. In two years there will be 3D TV and blu-ray will be redunandant and you have to do it all over again, Stop being victims of technology, wasting your money and buying something you have already bought. Whilst I am am at it, remember CDs were supposed to take over Vinyl nice one SONY/BMG the instigators. I have a LinSondek LP12 turntable and good HiFi equipment and my Vinyl sounds better than any digital crap @44khz 44,000 snap shots per second. You just cannot have purity of sound unless it is analogue which is constant. Really I do not care what people say, if you know your stuff excellent. http://www.linn.co.uk/music_systems_sondek_LP12 [linn.co.uk] it costs a damn fortune. /MOTD do not fall victim to these bastards! love NSN

Re:kick 3D (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977588)

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

No need for broadcasts - YouTube does 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30978304)

YouTube does already 3D, even in HD. See http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yt3d%3Aenable%3Dtrue [youtube.com] for all available videos. There is no need to wait for old fashioned broadcasters to catch up. The Web is the future! (is this the death of TV channels?)

Sport events? (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 3 years ago | (#30979248)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?