|
BBC is suspending 3d programming indefinitely citing poor audience take up, less than 50% of those with 3D sets bothering to watch live 3D broadcasts. ESPN in the US is closing its 3D channel due to lack of viewers.
|
It was always a gimmick in my opinion.... to try to sell new TVs to people that already had a fairly new one.
The number of times I'd be somewhere where people were being told how good the 3D was etc. I couldn't help but get involved to ask what they'd watch. In all too many cases, Joe Public was being led to believe everything could be seen in 3D. And led they were.
|
I didn't know that BBC ever offered 3D!
I have a 3D capable TV, bought despite, not because of, that feature.
Watched Avatar in 3D. Quite good. Active glasses a pain.
|
>> Active glasses a pain.
And TV's with "passive" glasses mean the image is not 3D - it's polarised.
|
>> >> Active glasses a pain.
>>
>> And TV's with "passive" glasses mean the image is not 3D - it's polarised.
Why is that not just as 3D?
|
And TV's with "passive" glasses mean the image is not 3D - it's polarised.
I don't think any TV can show a 3D image, merely present two images from which the viewer - if correctly equipped - can get the illusion of depth. Early cinematic 3D used colour filters to present one image to each eye; polarized images and polarizing lenses are just another way to achieve the same object. I don't know what's different about active glasses, but if the TV was truly presenting RTJ's '3D image' you wouldn't need glasses at all!
|
>> And TV's with "passive" glasses mean the image is not 3D - it's polarised.
>>
>> I don't think any TV can show a 3D image, merely present two images from
>> which the viewer - if correctly equipped - can get the illusion of depth. Early
>> cinematic 3D used colour filters to present one image to each eye; polarized images and
>> polarizing lenses are just another way to achieve the same object. I don't know what's
>> different about active glasses, but if the TV was truly presenting RTJ's '3D image' you
>> wouldn't need glasses at all!
That is my understanding too. One image for each eye, which doesn't change when you move your head of course, hence is not truly 3D.
Just like the Vistascreens that we got with Weetabix in the 1960s.
r.ebay.com/51HuHz
I've seen the LG and the active versions and don't have a preference for one over the other - both kinds look a bit "cardboard cut-out" to me but I suspect the brain will synthesise that out if you watch enough of it - so I infer that they just use a different method of delivering the different image to each eye.
reviews.cnet.com/2735-7608_7-1278-3.html
Looks as if I will miss 3D then, as I don't have one yet. I was saving that for my dotage.
|
I meant it's not HD :-) The passive glasses use half the pixels for one eye and half for the other.
Agree it's only tricking the eye into thinking you are seeing 3D.
|
>> In
>> all too many cases, Joe Public was being led to believe everything could be seen
>> in 3D. And led they were.
>>
Yep, in the same way that many thought that by buying a TV with a 'HD' sticker on they would be able to receive HD broadcasts.
|
I got a new telly a bit back, LG 2013 Smart model. I wasn't particularly looking for 3D but msot of the tellys I looked at seemed to have it.
Haven't really seen much 3D but the tennis today was fairly amazing - the cameras seem lower and you get a much better feeling for the speed of the ball and the game (because of the lower cameras, not the 3D) but the 3D was quite impressive. Bit of a faff having to wear the specs though.
Dunno if it's polarised, I expect so, so does that make me second class?
|
|
Where did you find 3D tennis?
|
>> Where did you find 3D tennis?
>>
BBC were carrying it! And heavily advertising the fact!
|
|
994 on Virgin, red button on BBC but not available if you have Sky
|
>> Dunno if it's polarised, I expect so, so does that make me second class?
No, it makes you sensible. The specs are cheaper and they don't malfunction or run out of battery.
|
Haven't really seen much 3D but the tennis today was fairly amazing - the cameras seem lower
That's because they are! To get the best observable 3D effect, the camera needs to be lower than commonly used for normal telly.
Largely silly idea IMHO, as said above an idea foisted by set makers to sell sets. Don't if it's the case this year, but probably is, the 3D outside broadcast equipment at Wimbledon was provided by Sony Broadcast.
|
>>Don't if it's the case this year, but probably is, the 3D outside broadcast equipment at Wimbledon was provided by Sony Broadcast.<<
Not sure if Sony are providing 3D pictures for the Beeb, but Sony are at Wimbledon - demonstrating 4k TVs with live tennis and some fairly impressive Super HD recorded material. But when you ask about who is broadcasting it they go very quiet! Not easy to find the demo suite, but worth a visit/view during rain breaks.
|
3D TV is dead. - rtj70
