3DTV, will it take off?
Discussion
What do you guys think?
I have very poor vision in my right eye, so am fairly sure I won't be able to see it based on the experiences I have had in the past so personally won't bother.
Anybody fancy a crack at answering some of the below for me.
Won't screens need to be huge?
What are viewing angles like?
Will the increased resolution sacrifice SD and HD picture quality?
Can you get up and walk about with the glasses on without falling down stairs etc? I'm thnking specifically about pubs and football.
Most importantly, will it ever actually take off and improve the viewing experience in the average persons home? or is it purely a new fad to help sell more TV's?
Sorry for all the questions, I tried to write a nice structured post and it was about 3 pages long.
I have very poor vision in my right eye, so am fairly sure I won't be able to see it based on the experiences I have had in the past so personally won't bother.
Anybody fancy a crack at answering some of the below for me.
Won't screens need to be huge?
What are viewing angles like?
Will the increased resolution sacrifice SD and HD picture quality?
Can you get up and walk about with the glasses on without falling down stairs etc? I'm thnking specifically about pubs and football.
Most importantly, will it ever actually take off and improve the viewing experience in the average persons home? or is it purely a new fad to help sell more TV's?
Sorry for all the questions, I tried to write a nice structured post and it was about 3 pages long.
All seems a bit gimmicky to me, and a bit before it's time.
The home applications will sacrifice clarity for 3D, it's not something extra so much as a trade off. A lot of people like that clarity; it adds depth and realism. I wonder if this is more important to the devoted home cinema nut than the flashiness of 3D?
Also, 3D wont "take off" unless there's media to support it, there's only so many times you can replay avatar no matter how impressed the mates you're showing it to are. Given the slow release of blu-ray movies -which are relatively simple to remaster from HD film- how long will it take before there's a significant quantity of 3D films to buy? And can films be remastered in 3D, as is the apparent plan, and not look contrived?
I wondering myself if it'll be another DCC or DVD-A, another product too many too soon for the public. The sky sports applications look "interesting" but pretty ambitious, as I understand it 3D movie filming takes painstaking attention to detail to look right, something requiring time you don't have during a live sporting event?
The home applications will sacrifice clarity for 3D, it's not something extra so much as a trade off. A lot of people like that clarity; it adds depth and realism. I wonder if this is more important to the devoted home cinema nut than the flashiness of 3D?
Also, 3D wont "take off" unless there's media to support it, there's only so many times you can replay avatar no matter how impressed the mates you're showing it to are. Given the slow release of blu-ray movies -which are relatively simple to remaster from HD film- how long will it take before there's a significant quantity of 3D films to buy? And can films be remastered in 3D, as is the apparent plan, and not look contrived?
I wondering myself if it'll be another DCC or DVD-A, another product too many too soon for the public. The sky sports applications look "interesting" but pretty ambitious, as I understand it 3D movie filming takes painstaking attention to detail to look right, something requiring time you don't have during a live sporting event?
Yes.
I had a long answer but it was three pages long.
Seriously though, expect the pattern to be like HD. It won't really 'take off' until it gets to a tipping point. That tipping point is that there is enough 3D output out there for people to want a 3DTV and there is enough demand for 3D content for 3D consumers.
For the first few years it seems the 'glasses' method is the way it will go. The bigger the screen the better. The better the screen the better the effect.
Like HD, the screens will just get better and better.
One day, 3D will be the standard, like widescreen.
I had a long answer but it was three pages long.
Seriously though, expect the pattern to be like HD. It won't really 'take off' until it gets to a tipping point. That tipping point is that there is enough 3D output out there for people to want a 3DTV and there is enough demand for 3D content for 3D consumers.
For the first few years it seems the 'glasses' method is the way it will go. The bigger the screen the better. The better the screen the better the effect.
Like HD, the screens will just get better and better.
One day, 3D will be the standard, like widescreen.
okgo said:
Go and watch avatar in 3d at an Imax and tell me you wouldn't want everything to be broadcast that way.
I have, was sat in the perfect spot to appreciate it, and much as it was simply stunning it gave me a headache after a few minutes. The question would I buy a TV solely because of this feature is a resounding no. A projector I could see selling on this feature but a TV is simply too small for it to be effective enough to justify the price tag - the benefits don't outweigh the detriments - eye strain, headaches, nausea, etc. Also the image quality is actually quite poor when compared to normal HD / Film.It will take off, but mainly because its easy to implement in the hardware and people will always be buying TVs to replace their old ones.
I think it will have limited uptake.
I can see the applications in sports events mainly, where the depth perception really adds to the appreciation of the event. Football, tennis, rallying and F1 I can see the point of 3D.
Likewise computer games- it's a natural progression to enhance the rendering of 3D worlds into 3D rather than flatten them back down to 2D. It's also very easy to do - ever since we've had 3D game engines rendering in 3D has been simple, displaying it less so. It's also NOT the reason Gran Turismo 5 is delayed!
But Eastenders in 3D? News in 3D?
So I envisage a situation where like today, some people have home cinema for films and Sky HD for sports, some people will pay a bit extra for 3D subscription services, and the majority don't bother and are happy with 2D TV.
Incidentally, with high refresh rate HD TV's and appropriate players, is there any reason a current telly can't be 3D ready with LCD 'shutter' glasses? Any PC monitor can be made 3D with glasses, I don't see why a modern tv is any different.
I can see the applications in sports events mainly, where the depth perception really adds to the appreciation of the event. Football, tennis, rallying and F1 I can see the point of 3D.
Likewise computer games- it's a natural progression to enhance the rendering of 3D worlds into 3D rather than flatten them back down to 2D. It's also very easy to do - ever since we've had 3D game engines rendering in 3D has been simple, displaying it less so. It's also NOT the reason Gran Turismo 5 is delayed!
But Eastenders in 3D? News in 3D?
So I envisage a situation where like today, some people have home cinema for films and Sky HD for sports, some people will pay a bit extra for 3D subscription services, and the majority don't bother and are happy with 2D TV.
Incidentally, with high refresh rate HD TV's and appropriate players, is there any reason a current telly can't be 3D ready with LCD 'shutter' glasses? Any PC monitor can be made 3D with glasses, I don't see why a modern tv is any different.
Phahhhh to 3D..... got Final Destination (the last one what ever it was) in 3D.... waste of time not impressed... and the glasses were so uncomforatble.....
as said most people happy with their 2D stanadard def..... it will take years 3d to go mainstream..... I know a lot of people who have only just got rid of their CRT TV's.... so I can't see alot of people upgrading until their new tv's give up the ghost.... 5-8 years maybe.
Most people still don't have HD in their homes....... recession / unemployement / pay cuts... all have a toll on paying for luxuries
as said most people happy with their 2D stanadard def..... it will take years 3d to go mainstream..... I know a lot of people who have only just got rid of their CRT TV's.... so I can't see alot of people upgrading until their new tv's give up the ghost.... 5-8 years maybe.
Most people still don't have HD in their homes....... recession / unemployement / pay cuts... all have a toll on paying for luxuries
Hoover. said:
Most people still don't have HD in their homes....... recession / unemployement / pay cuts... all have a toll on paying for luxuries
That might provide a stimulus when we finally start to pull out of the recession though, by then a lot (most?) of the TVs on sale will be 3D compatible and those people who're starting to feel a bit better off will naturally buy one, even if they're not yet paying for the content.
I'm 50/50 at the moment.
I think it will be more of a success in the cinema then at home. Avatar was impressive, but it still made my eyes hurt and by the end of the 3 hours it had given me a headache. The synthesised 3d stuff is terrible. You'll find them easy to spot, it's the kind of film where things leap out of the screen at you which is the main cause for headaches with 3d movies. Forcing the eyes to focus on near and far objects and changing rapidly between the 2 is not a good thing.
At home I'm really not sure. 80% of the population haven't got their heads around widescreen and how to view it properly, let alone HD. The amount of bad advice you hear being dished out in the big high street shops shows that people don't really know what HD is. I think a 3d movie channel could work, as with some well produced docos, music shows and drama it could work. Sports (which is an industry I've worked in since 1998) I'm not sure on. The fact that all the infrastructure on venue needs to be doubled as you produce one feed for left eye and one for right means the cost is nuts. The kit that we build is 3d ready, but we have to halve the capacity of them to make it work (same with 1080p at the moment, but that's another topic).
Also you have to consider that the way sport is directed has to be looked at in a different way. No more cutting between wide and close up shots (see point above about moving the point of focus) and things like graphics and replay wipes will have to be reconsidered. The other issue is that I think there is only 1, maybe 2 football directors in the country who are good enough to understand this, lucky for Sky they both work for them!
So what do you do as a broadcaster? Do you offer the '3d safe' cut as a 2d feed as well? Even though it will appear odd? Do you cut it as 2d and suffer the headache moaning? Or do you produce 2 feeds as they are doing at the World Cup in SA this year? The final plan isn't an option outside the biggest events (World Cup and Summer Olympics)
My final reason I don't think it will take off would be that what's the business model for somebody who doesn't make an income from the broadcast platform. This is the same argument I have for why the uptake for HD has been so slow. In an industry that's struggling for cash due to drop of income from advertisers why does 3d (or HD) work? You have to invest in paying the production companies more to produce stuff in 3d or HD, for what benefit? A small increase in audience, many of whom are tough to target as lots of them are curiosity customers or the must have it early adopters. Compare the business model of 3d / HD to that of a larger online presence or another ITV 2/3/4 which you can fill up with cheap classic TV and sell a chunk more advertising space? I don't see the BBC or ITV investing too much and this is what we've seen at work. However with Sky as they own the broadcast platform and can charge extra for it, they are going full steam ahead.
So personally I'd say no, I see it being a niche thing which will work on Sky, the BBC will dabble with it and ITV will be slow on the uptake.
I think it will be more of a success in the cinema then at home. Avatar was impressive, but it still made my eyes hurt and by the end of the 3 hours it had given me a headache. The synthesised 3d stuff is terrible. You'll find them easy to spot, it's the kind of film where things leap out of the screen at you which is the main cause for headaches with 3d movies. Forcing the eyes to focus on near and far objects and changing rapidly between the 2 is not a good thing.
At home I'm really not sure. 80% of the population haven't got their heads around widescreen and how to view it properly, let alone HD. The amount of bad advice you hear being dished out in the big high street shops shows that people don't really know what HD is. I think a 3d movie channel could work, as with some well produced docos, music shows and drama it could work. Sports (which is an industry I've worked in since 1998) I'm not sure on. The fact that all the infrastructure on venue needs to be doubled as you produce one feed for left eye and one for right means the cost is nuts. The kit that we build is 3d ready, but we have to halve the capacity of them to make it work (same with 1080p at the moment, but that's another topic).
Also you have to consider that the way sport is directed has to be looked at in a different way. No more cutting between wide and close up shots (see point above about moving the point of focus) and things like graphics and replay wipes will have to be reconsidered. The other issue is that I think there is only 1, maybe 2 football directors in the country who are good enough to understand this, lucky for Sky they both work for them!
So what do you do as a broadcaster? Do you offer the '3d safe' cut as a 2d feed as well? Even though it will appear odd? Do you cut it as 2d and suffer the headache moaning? Or do you produce 2 feeds as they are doing at the World Cup in SA this year? The final plan isn't an option outside the biggest events (World Cup and Summer Olympics)
My final reason I don't think it will take off would be that what's the business model for somebody who doesn't make an income from the broadcast platform. This is the same argument I have for why the uptake for HD has been so slow. In an industry that's struggling for cash due to drop of income from advertisers why does 3d (or HD) work? You have to invest in paying the production companies more to produce stuff in 3d or HD, for what benefit? A small increase in audience, many of whom are tough to target as lots of them are curiosity customers or the must have it early adopters. Compare the business model of 3d / HD to that of a larger online presence or another ITV 2/3/4 which you can fill up with cheap classic TV and sell a chunk more advertising space? I don't see the BBC or ITV investing too much and this is what we've seen at work. However with Sky as they own the broadcast platform and can charge extra for it, they are going full steam ahead.
So personally I'd say no, I see it being a niche thing which will work on Sky, the BBC will dabble with it and ITV will be slow on the uptake.
Consider 1995. Try telling someone how you think TVs will go:
What? What's wrong with my 24 inch screen? Are you telling me people will buy screens 4 times the size!? Why? Where would you put it?
So you are telling me that everyone will have a TV which is 'widescreen'. Why? For years everything will be stretched until it catches on.
Speakers *behind your head*? I could never get used to that. Besides no-one will broadcast in 'surround sound'.
'High definition' - why? I'm happy with how it is. Anyway, how will they show all the old films in HD?
I think if you thought about it, you will have to be pretty bold to say that 3D will never catch on.
All of these advances were specifically made to make the viewing experience more detailed and more like real life. We have a wide area of vision, so a big screen. We see in a 'letterbox' aspect, so widescreen. We hear in surround sound, so we get surround sound speakers. High definition because we see in great detail.
3D is the final step. The holy grail. It is only a matter of time.
What? What's wrong with my 24 inch screen? Are you telling me people will buy screens 4 times the size!? Why? Where would you put it?
So you are telling me that everyone will have a TV which is 'widescreen'. Why? For years everything will be stretched until it catches on.
Speakers *behind your head*? I could never get used to that. Besides no-one will broadcast in 'surround sound'.
'High definition' - why? I'm happy with how it is. Anyway, how will they show all the old films in HD?
I think if you thought about it, you will have to be pretty bold to say that 3D will never catch on.
All of these advances were specifically made to make the viewing experience more detailed and more like real life. We have a wide area of vision, so a big screen. We see in a 'letterbox' aspect, so widescreen. We hear in surround sound, so we get surround sound speakers. High definition because we see in great detail.
3D is the final step. The holy grail. It is only a matter of time.
It will definitely take off.
Why have we seen the resurgence of 3D films at the cinema?
Why do we have a new HDMI specification?
Why have manufacturers put into production a range of 3D panels, after many months of focus groups etc.
Everything is now in place from production through to reproduction.
This isn't a gamble, it's a certainty.
Why have we seen the resurgence of 3D films at the cinema?
Why do we have a new HDMI specification?
Why have manufacturers put into production a range of 3D panels, after many months of focus groups etc.
Everything is now in place from production through to reproduction.
This isn't a gamble, it's a certainty.
I'm waiting for the law suits over strained eyesight to kick in - Its a worry that Nintendo are looking into, but everyone else seems to want to ignore the potential risks.
I wouldn't be bothered by it personally, but I can see it taking off in a big way. As long as the price is right why wouldn't you upgrade when you need a new tv, you can still watch 2d content on them
I wouldn't be bothered by it personally, but I can see it taking off in a big way. As long as the price is right why wouldn't you upgrade when you need a new tv, you can still watch 2d content on them
Plotloss said:
It will definitely take off.
Why have we seen the resurgence of 3D films at the cinema?
Why do we have a new HDMI specification?
Why have manufacturers put into production a range of 3D panels, after many months of focus groups etc.
Everything is now in place from production through to reproduction.
This isn't a gamble, it's a certainty.
The question though is whether people buy on the basis that the TV is 3d capable or whether the TV they buy just happens to be 3d ready? Why have we seen the resurgence of 3D films at the cinema?
Why do we have a new HDMI specification?
Why have manufacturers put into production a range of 3D panels, after many months of focus groups etc.
Everything is now in place from production through to reproduction.
This isn't a gamble, it's a certainty.
theboyfold said:
I'm 50/50 at the moment.
The other issue is that I think there is only 1, maybe 2 football directors in the country who are good enough to understand this, lucky for Sky they both work for them!
My final reason I don't think it will take off would be that what's the business model for somebody who doesn't make an income from the broadcast platform. This is the same argument I have for why the uptake for HD has been so slow. In an industry that's struggling for cash due to drop of income from advertisers why does 3d (or HD) work? You have to invest in paying the production companies more to produce stuff in 3d or HD, for what benefit? A small increase in audience, many of whom are tough to target as lots of them are curiosity customers or the must have it early adopters. Compare the business model of 3d / HD to that of a larger online presence or another ITV 2/3/4 which you can fill up with cheap classic TV and sell a chunk more advertising space? I don't see the BBC or ITV investing too much and this is what we've seen at work. However with Sky as they own the broadcast platform and can charge extra for it, they are going full steam ahead.
So personally I'd say no, I see it being a niche thing which will work on Sky, the BBC will dabble with it and ITV will be slow on the uptake.
Presumably they'd be on Sky's normal Premiership directing team? I haven't been on a Sky Premiership football job for a while so can't think offhand who you're referring to.The other issue is that I think there is only 1, maybe 2 football directors in the country who are good enough to understand this, lucky for Sky they both work for them!
My final reason I don't think it will take off would be that what's the business model for somebody who doesn't make an income from the broadcast platform. This is the same argument I have for why the uptake for HD has been so slow. In an industry that's struggling for cash due to drop of income from advertisers why does 3d (or HD) work? You have to invest in paying the production companies more to produce stuff in 3d or HD, for what benefit? A small increase in audience, many of whom are tough to target as lots of them are curiosity customers or the must have it early adopters. Compare the business model of 3d / HD to that of a larger online presence or another ITV 2/3/4 which you can fill up with cheap classic TV and sell a chunk more advertising space? I don't see the BBC or ITV investing too much and this is what we've seen at work. However with Sky as they own the broadcast platform and can charge extra for it, they are going full steam ahead.
So personally I'd say no, I see it being a niche thing which will work on Sky, the BBC will dabble with it and ITV will be slow on the uptake.
It's an interesting take you have on it. Sky, of course, are throwing a large amount of money at it, and I also believe that very soon Sony will have a proper 3D camera ready to hit the market. At the moment, most of the 3D stuff is produced on 2D equipment that's been modified to suit. Usually meaning that lenses have to be machined to fit closely together, 2 camera bodies are bolted side by side etc. All expensive stuff, but necessary with close quarters footage because of the interocular distance requirements.
On the other hand, a friend of mine has been using a 'standard' stabilised camera platform using two cameras at about 24 inches apart, for doing aerial stuff from a helicopter. Apparently the interocular distance changes as the camera moves further away, making it a bit easier for building an aerial rig. Zooms etc are not easy to do though, I believe it's mostly wide stuff that they shoot.
At least one of the OB companies has a truck pretty much dedicated to the production of HD stuff though. Most of that is for Football and other sports production I think, which they've been doing for at least a year, if not more by now.
Will it take off? Personally, I have no idea. It's probably unlikely to become mainstream due to bandwidth requirements (either loss in quality, or doubling up of the bandwidth), and also it'll massively change how shows are produced. As mentioned by TheBoyFold, Sky will do it, whether anyone else does in the short to medium term remains to be seen.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff