3D HD TV - the norm for the future?

51 replies [Last post]
infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

The subject has already been mentioned in the IBC thread in "Chatter" - 3D was the main talking point at IBC. What do people think?

My own feelings, based on a few demos at theme parks (anyone seen "Honey I Shrank the Audience"?) weren't very high until a few days ago. Then I saw a "proper" demonstration, and and heard a presentation which negated a lot of the criticisms I may have previously had. Frankly, it was more impressive than I'd been expecting.

Either way, with it's high profile at IBC, an increasing number of high budget films being made 3D, and Sky starting a service next year, I don't think it can ignored anymore. Discuss!

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000

I saw several demos at IBC. The athletics looked good, but I'm not convinced its going to be big (neither did my lay friend who was accompanying me).

The disappointing one was the autostereoscopic plasma on the BBC R&D stand, it looked very layered. Although that could have been the material.

Steven

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
StevenBagley wrote:
......... I'm not convinced its going to be big

That's what will be interesting. What I hadn't appreciated until now is that it really takes very little to make virtually all todays screens "3D-ready", and very little extra cost. Hence (the argument went) that in a few years time"3D-ready" will be like "HD-ready" is today - you won't be able to get anything else. Why should you - they don't cost any more?

So to actually then watch 3D, the only extras you have to get are the glasses and a source of programming - initially likely to be Sky and Blu-Ray.

And if you have no interest in 3D, the same screen isn't compromised for 2D viewing.

I don't see it being big in the sense that all broadcasting will be 3D in a few years, but I hadn't realistically expected to see worthwhile 3D broadcasts in my lifetime. That's changed now - I expect them to be niche for a while to come, but quite a large niche.

I can also see a big uptake for gaming, and then there's the argument that if people get used to games in 3D, there will be more of an expectation for 3D broadcasting. Also demonstrated was "simple 3D" with two small cheap cameras pointing back at the viewers. Surprisingly effective, and I can easily see home 3D videos becoming a new consumer craze - maybe with head mounted point-of-view setups? And don't let's forget the possibilities for business applications - maybe no camera in sight, just a computer generating virtual 3D imagery?

What I did feel is that the wider the viewing angle, the more impressive it was. I was watching a 46" set from about 1.5m, so at home, at normal 3m viewing, it would mean something like a 90" screen for the same experience for normal TV watching. That's why I think initially it may have more application for computer and game type screens, viewed at much nearer than 3m.

If you get the chance to see a proper demo, take it.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Holographic maybe, but 3D is always going to be niche. All the current ballyhoo is just that.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

Okay, here's the thing. 3D is a novelty, pure and simple. Just as HD is a novelty really. People get used to it. Then what? We are left with the same old problem. How to make a story with, well, a story, instead of finding ways of making a girl on a swing with smelly feet look like they are coming out of the screen at us.

Sky and everyone else seem to keep forgetting that no matter how cool the effect, people DO NOT WANT TO WATCH unless the content is compelling. They simply don't. A football fan for example would be perfectly content with watching the absolute latest live big match in black and white. The only reason that they don't is because they have some spare cash hanging around, and, well, why not spend it on something better.

The only 3D I'm interested in is one in which plugs straight into the brain so it really seems real rather than some rubbishy half baked solution. No matter how good the effect it still doesn't get around the same old issues. Those being glasses, angle of view, frame rate, wearing glasses over glasses, having enough glasses for all those watching, having the right sort of glasses for all those watching, oh and a big enough screen to make it worthwhile.

An ideal demo by a manufacturer is one thing. HD on a grade one monitor is also stunning. Now lets watch it on average consumer equipment with a dog jumping up to lick you in the face while watching and the kids wanting to put jam in the Blu-Ray player.

Quote:
I can also see a big uptake for gaming

But Dave, lest you forget that companies such as Nvidia were bunging in powered 3D glasses with their graphics cards years ago. It never caught on even though they were giving them away with the card and the software could drive most 3D games with them. In fact I have a pair right in front of me now. They are of the switch on and offy on left to right type, whatever silly name that is. :)

Quote:
partly that it's no longer confined to the cinema.

Bet the cinemas will be happy with that seeing as 3D was seen as a way to get people back into them with something that couldn't be seen in the home! ;)

Quote:
Don't forget that HD was technically possible in the early 90's, but for the vast majority of people it would have been hugely expensive, even if anyone could have afforded to produce it. Let alone have transmission bandwidth.

But 3D isn't like HD. Stereoscopic 3D has been around since the dawn of photography almost, and television did 3D broadcasts as one offs for years. The sticking point with 3D has always been glasses. That's about where it begins and where it ends. It isn't convenient. 3D reminds me of a certain parliament who keeps asking for a vote until they get the right answer ;)

Quote:
About 5 years ago a tipping point was reached, HD capable screens could be seen as becoming the norm, HD cameras likewise, and digital compression techniques had advanced to the point that it didn't require ridulous bandwidth. There's a lot of parallels with 3D today - hence it being no 1 topic at IBC.

I just don't get why 3D in HD should be any different to 3D in SD. Framerate needs to come first, long before 3D IMHO. We all know how badly setup most consumer equipment is in the average home. How such a finnicky technology as 3D can ever become the norm is beyond me. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (for once I hope not. Usually I want to be proven wrong, but not in this case).

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000
SimonMW wrote:
But 3D isn't like HD. Stereoscopic 3D has been around since the dawn of photography almost, and television did 3D broadcasts as one offs for years. The sticking point with 3D has always been glasses.

To be fair, the glasses is a red-herring. There were sets at IBC that didn't need them. They weren't that impressive, but the more I think about it that may have been content rather than technology. I think we can safely equate 3D with glasses as equivalent to HD CRT sets, nice pictures, but by and large impractical for the home and likely to be replaced very quickly by newer technology.

Steven

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

I think there is a strong element of "Emperor's new clothes" about the whole thing.
Too many vested interests trying to hype it up. I's not something I'd want to invest any money in.

Anybody remember the 'Nimslo' camera ?

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
When I watched an Imax 3D dramatic film a while ago it was obvious that most of the craft of 'film editing' had to go out of the window - only confined-set simultaneous multi-cam type shoots (as in TV drama of the 1960s/70s) were editable.

Which sort of makes the 'content' have far less impact - or hugely inflates the budget because of the extra shooting time necessary...

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001
PaulD wrote:
Hi
When I watched an Imax 3D dramatic film a while ago it was obvious that most of the craft of 'film editing' had to go out of the window - only confined-set simultaneous multi-cam type shoots (as in TV drama of the 1960s/70s) were editable.

Which sort of makes the 'content' have far less impact - or hugely inflates the budget because of the extra shooting time necessary...

Horses for courses. If you've seen the 'Terminator 3D' show at Universal in Florida, it's a great use of 3D. Totally controlled conditions and an audience that doesn't mind the specs.

Blew me away to the extent that we went three times...

Just totally unconvinced you can extrapolate from that to mass application in the real world.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

Sadly my pub is shut but I still get the publican magazine and today it says that sky will be offering 3D to pubs first to try and help them out! I know they are testing it for football so looks like another extra cost for sports packages!

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

3D is hardly a novelty, it's been around in the cinema for over 50 years. It's just that the audiences don't seem prepared to stump up the extra costs of it.

3D on HDTV ids a bit of a misnomer. Sky's intention is to broadcast the two channels on a single 1920x1080 channel, with half horizontal resolution, 960 per channel. It's hardly HD.

3D works reasonably well in cinemas, where the viewing distance is considerable. But, in the home, where the viewing distance is typically 3m, the change of parallax angle places objects in space in two separate horopters, one for focus, the other for distance, which don't overlap. And that's why people report queasiness, it's the same problem as sea-sickness where eye and ear give conflicting information. I've yet to see any 3D display system that doesn't make me feel seasick after a few minutes, when viewed in the home.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

It puzzles me from a cost level too with broadcasters pleading poverty and making very little due to advertising revenue being down I just got a rate card for 3D rigs.

It quotes £1000-£1600 per day for 3D set-ups so not exactly cheap compared to £500 per day for an HPX3700 kit.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
SimonMW wrote:
3D is a novelty, pure and simple. Just as HD is a novelty really. People get used to it. Then what?........

......... people DO NOT WANT TO WATCH unless the content is compelling. They simply don't. A football fan for example would be perfectly content with watching the absolute latest live big match in black and white.

I can never disagree with the "content is king" argument in itself, except to say that content and quality aren't exclusive (which is too often how it's presented). It's rarely a case of fantastic content/technically poor or vice versa - frequently the best content comes in the best quality. (Whatever "quality" means.)

And I think that's what we may be seeing here. If Sky were saying, "here's a 3D service, and errr, sorry, the only way we can afford it is to only show 10th division matches" I'd be the first to agree. But I don't see that being the case, they seem to imply that content won't suffer - it'll be the top football matches in 3D. (And if you want to watch them in b/w 2D, 4:3 on a 13" screen, then please do so.) Regarding the points made about editing craft etc, then in many, yes. But I don't think the expectation is for it to become a next general upgrade (in the way you could regard colour, widescreen, HD), rather reserved for special events. Most of the demo material I saw was sport, and if I was a sport fan I think I'd be tempted....... It more or less worked.

Alan Roberts wrote:
3D on HDTV ids a bit of a misnomer. Sky's intention is to broadcast the two channels on a single 1920x1080 channel, with half horizontal resolution, 960 per channel. It's hardly HD.

That point did come up, and it was claimed that the dual effect, 960 to each eye, compensated to a large degree to the lowered resolution of each channel. I can't confirm or deny that, and I don't know how scientific a claim it is.

I believe it's also how they intend to start off, not necessarily the end game. An easy way to get it now on a single standard 1920x1080 channel. And well, what is classed as HD and what not? It's still 1 million pixels per eye. That's the same as many cameras such as the Z7 has, and twice as many as the lower end Panasonic cameras such as the 171, 151, 500. If we don't class it as HD, then surely the Varicam (960x720) can't be either?

JGNattrass wrote:
It puzzles me from a cost level too with broadcasters pleading poverty .............

And "we're still paying for the move to HD" is also a point that was made. But sometimes it can be a case of "can't afford it, but can't afford not to". Here, it's Sky who are making the running, and other broadcasters must decide whether to spend the money and join them, or risk getting left behind.

Yes, the kit is more expensive, but everything is relative. At a really big football match, the extra camera costs may get overwhelmed by all the other costs - rights, staff, OB trucks etc. If you consider it in terms of an advertising budget, ("Sky! Now in 3D!") it's not really that much money. And we are only talking about one channel. Some of their other channels might also be seen as loss leaders - Sky Sports News, for example. Not done to make money in their own right, rather to promote a brand.

But whilst I'm giving the positive side here, it's playing devil's advocate in many ways, I'm still sceptical myself. All I would say is much less sceptical than at this time last week, and I think it's a good discussion to have here, whatever you think. A lot of the questions I may have had were answered satisfactorily, plus others which hadn't occured to me.

(Example:
Q "I want to watch in 3D, my wife doesn't. Does she then have to watch a different TV"?

A "No - all is she needs are glasses with the same polarisation on both lenses".)

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
infocus wrote:
Q "I want to watch in 3D, my wife doesn't. Does she then have to watch a different TV"?

A "No - all is she needs are glasses with the same polarisation on both lenses".)

Ah but will it then be HD ;)

Bob Aldis

mooblie
mooblie's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 27 2001
infocus wrote:
(Example:
Q "I want to watch in 3D, my wife doesn't. Does she then have to watch a different TV"?

A "No - all is she needs are glasses with the same polarisation on both lenses".)

I can't see that a viable proposition for viewers in the real world. "If you DON'T want a feature, you have to suffer the inconvenience of wearing special special glasses to turn it off." I'm sure most viewers would find that suggestion unacceptable. It really needs to be backwards compatible with existing equipment and viewing habits - like.... NOT wearing special glasses.

The wider issue of special glasses might restrict 3D forever to be "reserved for special events" as infocus says, and not "the next general upgrade".

Martin - DVdoctor in moderation. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
mooblie wrote:
"reserved for special events" .

Like an occasional visit to the Cinema? :)

Bob Aldis

drgagx
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2001

I have read elsewhere that HDMI v1.4 will be required for 3D and that this new standard will cover more than one means of delivering 3D as well as 4k images and internet connectivity. This standard is said to be incompatible with HDMI v1.3 kit. If true, this seems to me to be a considerable obstacle to its adoption (beyond the money-no-object early adopters).

Add to this apparent problem the fact there are several competing 3D standards, notably the Panasonic vs Sony systems, and it all seems some way off to me.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
drgagx wrote:
I have read elsewhere that HDMI v1.4 will be required for 3D .........

Not quite. The demos I saw last week didn't need v1.4, but as I understood it, it meant it wasn't as good - not that it wasn't possible at all. (I believe it meant that the left eye/right eye alternation was happening on a field by field basis, the proposed full spec proposes frame by frame alternation at full frame rate.)

Quote:
This standard is said to be incompatible with HDMI v1.3 kit. If true, ...........

Again, as I understand it, that's not really the case. Like all other HDMI standards, a newer version will be fully compatible with older ones - but the link will default to the level of the lowest version.

So connect a v1.4 device to another, and you can take advantage of all the v1.4 featureset. Connect it to a v1.3 device, and it will still work, but only to the v1.3 spec.

Quote:
Add to this apparent problem the fact there are several competing 3D standards, notably the Panasonic vs Sony systems, and it all seems some way off to me.

Again, I may have got all this totally wrong, (and would have said the same as you a week ago) but I believe that the Sony/Panasonic systems are the same, and referred to as alternate frame sequencing. Main rival (as shown at the demo) is polarisation 3D and championed currently by JVC and (I think) Samsung.

From what I remember, the differences are better thought of as like the differences between LCD and plasma. Totally different display technologies, but equally capable of showing a given broadcast signal.

Obviously, you wouldn't be able to use glasses designed for a Sony set with a JVC display, and vice versa! But either should be capable of displaying a given 3D broadcast, given the right decoding.

It should all be a lot clearer by the time Sky 3D launches - I think a lot of work is being put into the subject at the moment...... :)

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

If anybody connected with Broadcast Video Expo happens to be reading this, can I ask if there is any chance that good 3D demos will be present there next year? Not projection, but of the screen technology that Sky is proposing.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

From what I have seen of these 3D rigs certainly SKY are looking at two EX-3's linked together and I personally see that as a bit of a cop out to shoot in 35mbs on two pro sumer cameras.

What the broadcasters need to do is get their business model right before embarking on 3D, if they are not selling advertising in SD with the content that they have and in the case of ITV complain that they cant afford regional franchises that they signed up for but seem to have the money to run four channels of repeats and an HD channel then they all need to get their act together.

Even the BBC seem to think that more channels and multi platform services are the best way but all they are all doing is perpetuating the fragmentation of their decreasing markets.

As said content is king and throwing technology at new things like 3d when the mainstream hasnt even accepted full HD yet just seems madness to me.

The suits in ITV, SKY and the BBC ( who think in 360 degrees?????) need to get real about the threat of internet and how advertisers are now looking at direct content creation for on-line rather than throwing money at the normal media channels.

I spent two days last week in a conference on cross platform and it was amazing to see the real stats on how print and TV media has declined over the past five years with on-line albeit in viral fragmented stages going up.

That seems to be what the advertisers are looking at now and it will be interesting to see how SKY and the like respond by throwing money at gimmicks such as 3D etc.

Just looking at ITV's response to the Susan Boyle situation last year speaks volumes, they get 10m viewers on ITV but 186m looking at the you tube clips of SUBO and now will look at selling the downloads, do you think those 186m people will pay for that or for 3D? I think not but it does show the potential power of the internet for global networking of media but the business model is small to big not big companies trying to jump on the bandwagon.

2.6m people now twitter but they dont make any money YET! but like face book and you tube you create your audience first in the new media age then hit the advertisers and create the monster that you can then sell on to Google etc.

Or in the case of friends re-united you create the buzz and market make loads and then sell it to suits in ITV who think they are getting a company of great value but dont understand the basic business models invloved.
Maybe ITV can now do ITV 3D but I think we have already been in that model with ITV Digital!!!

Will SKY 3D be the same with great promises of 3D footie for the masses and will the promise of exclusive 3D for pubs be the way forward, well sadly not as the pubco's that buy the hugely expensive sky licences are in deep DOO DOO as well so I can see SKY 3d going to the Setanta/ITV digital graveyard pretty damn quick.

drgagx
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2001

My earlier comment on incompatibility of HDMI v1.3 vs v1.4 was ambiguous. My understanding is that it will be impossible to upgrade a v1.3 device (such as a TV) to v1.4 via firmware; I did not wish to infer that v1.4 was not backward compatible.

It sounds like the early days of personal computers (late 1970s) when there were, seemingly, many competing solutions. That took several years to sort out.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000
JGNattrass wrote:
From what I have seen of these 3D rigs certainly SKY are looking at two EX-3's linked together and I personally see that as a bit of a cop out to shoot in 35mbs on two pro sumer cameras.

I imagine they are taking the HDSDI (so 10-bit uncompressed) out of the EX3s into an HDCamSR deck recording both channels in sync. The EX3 isn't a prosumer camera either -- its made by the same people that make F23 and F35 (in fact, it has far more in common with the F35 than the Z1/Z5/Z7). The biggest negative (as Alan pointed out ages ago) against the EX3 for 3D is that one of the images is being flipped optically so you'll get the CMOS skew in the opposite direction on each eye.

Steve

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

The trouble with the internet is that people will always go where things are free. The newspapers are discovering that online advertising alone doesn't work. But if you have a place that gives away free content, then starts charging for it, people will move away.

Who uses Friends Reunited anymore? At first they made a ton of money. You had to pay a subscription to get full access, but there wasn't much alternative. Then Facebook came along. Free and much better. Friends Reunited, owned by ITV now, got greedy and started charging for other services. I can't see it lasting much longer.

At the moment I see the idea of making money from internet content as a fallacy. The people who are making money from it are generally doing it by telling other people how to make money from it! Then those people go on to tell other people how to make money from the internet and so on.

Making money by selling tangible goods seems to work. But really at the moment I cannot see any foolproof way of making money from content itself, especially when there is always somewhere free, and better, just around the corner that offers the same service.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

Good points Simon and certainly you are right if people apply the current broadcast and advertisers business model to internet content.

What also came out of the conference I attended is how advertisers and brands are now creating content themselves to do self marketing. One example was Jamie Oliver who is creating his own internet channel, now as he is the face of sainsburys I can see some of their broadcast advertising budget being put this way, they can then sell the content to UK food in time.

What did come out is how the internet is an easy way to build up networks for specific groups and how content creation can be made to suit that. Another example was an internet channel for gadget fans sponsored by T3 but I suppose that already exists and it is sponsored by PC World:http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show

Whilst the business models do not yet fully exist it would be a dangerous thing to dismiss and ignore internet content.

Maybe there will be enough demand for 3D that a subscription service such as Love Films or i-tunes will be it marketing route the real advantage is the international delivery aspects and if its priced right over time the rewards could be vast.

If ITV had been on the ball they should have charged people 10p to watch the SUBO clip, with 186 million hits that could have been a nice little earner and could have been put back into their regional new service or developing 3D as a new revenue stream.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

I definitely think internet content has a future. One thing I don't believe though is that it is really that empowering for the little guys.

Jamie Oliver for example is a 'name' so attracting sponsorship is pretty easy for someone like him.

On the other hand lets imagine that you wanted to start an online channel about, I dunno, extreme sports. You weren't a name, and you had no broadcast contacts etc. Making the programmes to a good quality requires time and money. But you can't spend time and money on a multitude of content unless that money is coming in already. Sponsors won't touch it with a bargepole until there are a high number of viewers or subscribers. So it is catch 22.

Quote:
If ITV had been on the ball they should have charged people 10p to watch the SUBO clip

But would people have even paid that, or just watched it on existing conventional news channels? One of the problems of payment of any form, no matter how cheap, is convenience. For the sake of watching a small clip would people be wanting to go to the hassle of entering their name, address and credit card number? Even PayPal ordering means going out to a separate site and logging in etc.

Payment of any form takes away the fast convenience of using the internet to quickly access content. With the sheer number of websites and content delivery sites out there, payment for content becomes extremely unweildy, and could become very expensive indeed for users.

So then we come back to the idea of pay per click advertising or sponsorship. Sponsorship is fairly solid. But in terms of video production how many companies are out there with the budget to sponsor a high number of online video productions? Lets face it, to make a high quality video for the internet costs exactly the same as it does for broadcast TV if it is being done properly.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

As you say it is catch 22 and the main thing that came out of two days of conference was that no one seems to have the business model or solutions for it so we are in a bit of a transitionary state at the moment.

I hope 3D does not confuse things more though, I just heard a friend in London is investing £300k in a 3D edit suite I hope it takes off but with people like videosonics and sanctury post going bust it is a scary time to be jumping into the latest thing at such huge investment levels.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
SimonMW wrote:
I definitely think internet content has a future. One thing I don't believe though is that it is really that empowering for the little guys.

I fully agree with both those statements. There are huge parallels with the dot.com boom - the thing that various entrepreneurs got right was that e-commerce had a big future. What they got wrong - completely, totally wrong - was that it would be new, young start-up companies who would reap the main benefits. It wasn't, not for long anyway, which is why the e-commerce that is so important nowadays tends to be an on-line extension of long established companies by and large. With a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of the new start ups vanished expensively when the dot com bubble burst.

So - I agree that internet TV has a future, but suspect it's most likely to be served mainly by the established big players. Just because the internet will enable far more players to distribute content doesn't mean that anyone will necessarily watch it. As Gary says, content is king, and it's going to increasingly mean that anyones content is going to have to be good - very good - for it to stand a chance. By and large, "very good" and "cheap" don't go well together. And those with big established libraries of quality drama, documentaries etc will stand a massive advantage over tightly funded new start-ups.

Equally, whilst the internet may solve many distribution problems, it's much less clear cut so far as getting the money back. Yes, the SUBO clip may have had 186 million hits, but how many would it have had if viewers had had to pay for it? And how much would collecting 186 million 10p's cost!?

People have got used to getting youtube clips for free. They may be willing to pay for downloads of worthwhile programmes (same as buying a DVD) but it's increasingly going to have to be really worthwhile, something they really want. It's not IPTV they will be paying for but the programme, and that is going to have to be worth it.

As far as this thread and 3D goes, then Sky have a good track record for getting business decisions right in the past, which is one reason why I now think the whole subject of 3D TV just has to be taken seriously. The BBC were way ahead of Sky in the developmental work of HD, but it was Sky who first spotted it's business potential, and who were first in the UK to capitalise on it. Just look at the amount of Sky HD programming and no of channels now.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
Just look at the amount of Sky HD programming and no of channels now.

Absolutely, all those SD programmes in all their upconverted HD glory ;)

Quote:
By and large, "very good" and "cheap" don't go well together

I wish there was a way of making clients understand that!

[qute]People have got used to getting youtube clips for free. They may be willing to pay for downloads of worthwhile programmes (same as buying a DVD) but it's increasingly going to have to be really worthwhile, something they really want. It's not IPTV they will be paying for but the programme, and that is going to have to be worth it.

Yes. To a certain degree it can work. After all look at how many TV series iTunes sells. I bought a couple of series from there because it was the only way for me to see them in some form of HD.

But independents are going to have a hard time of it. People will be prepared to pay for 24, or Lost, or Heroes etc. They are known quantities and people know they are worth watching. However Joe Bloggs with his latest independent TV series won't be able to make any money because people won't want to take a chance on buying it unless it is very, very, very cheap. Go down into pennies and that series had better sell by the million. Sell in the Pounds and people probably won't bother for an unknown.

And then there is the problem of getting known in the first place. The internet is one big piece of noise.

From a business perspective in general I'm getting tired of all the energy that seemingly has to be expended on all the latest crap.

Facebook profiles, MySpace profiles, Company website, company blog, Twitter, Linked In, Plaxo, Feedburner and RSS feeds management, article writing, the list goes on and on.

And not through any of them has anyone managed to prove to me that they actually lead to new work! As a very small production company dealing with all that stuff is just a distraction and leads to extra pressure and actually quite a large workload. Yet the result is that you just get lost in all the noise of all the other people who are trying the same thing.

The one thing that nobody seems willing to answer is this. If I make loads of Twitter posts for example and build up a large audience, is that audience going to consist of Mr Sledgehammer the CEO of Rocket Cars who wants his latest and greatest creation to have an expensive promo video made, and his ilk? Or will my audience likely comprise of other video people who are also looking for work?

Likewise why do I want to make a blog for my video production site? What is the point? Nobody outside of video is going to read it, even if I make the articles client centred. How are they going to find me? Google? I doubt it. They'd have to be searching for a production company in the first place, so if they got to my site that way having a blog would neither be here nor there.

Social networking for business opportunity, is, I believe another pie in the sky. Unless your have something truly unique it will be very hard to be heard above the big companies.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The only way that can work is for there to be two sensors (or two sets of 3 sensors in the camera, with the lens illuminating both. That means either the lens is big and heavy (e.g. 35mm format to cover a pair of half inch), or the sensors are very small (e.g. 2"/3 inch lens to cover a pair of quarter inch sensors sets and therefore rather insensitive). Unless there's a mechanism inside the camera to shift the sensor sets to simulate inter-ocular spacing, it becomes somewhat restricted in its usefulness.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

Good to see that Camgirls are now in 3D, a really useful application for it:eek:

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

Yeah, posted to another link earlier on. However it works I am glad to see that they not only tackled the issue of making 3D easy to use, but also my major complaint, framerate.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

Even got on to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8285187.stm

If Sony are confident enough to publicly demonstrate it at Ceatec, you have to take it seriously, but I have to admit I can't figure how it can work - not on the basis of the description in that press release. At the very least I'd have thought you needed to capture at two distinct places in space. How is that possible with a single lens?

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

What I found most interesting about it is that the footage can be used as 2D without any need for modification. Though I do wonder how much 'blur' is there.

Dave Jervis
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2006
infocus wrote:
Even got on to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8285187.stm

If Sony are confident enough to publicly demonstrate it at Ceatec, you have to take it seriously, but I have to admit I can't figure how it can work - not on the basis of the description in that press release. At the very least I'd have thought you needed to capture at two distinct places in space. How is that possible with a single lens?

Something I used to use for POVs for people just recovering consciousness was to use a strip of opaque tape verically across the centre of the front element of the lens. A focus pull from very defocused to in focus produces a double image that converges as the picture sharpens. (This works best on a longish lens with a wide aperture of course.)

I am wondering if this 3D system also somehow utilises the two 'sides' of the lens as different lenses.... albeit that the separation of the two images is done in the optics behind the lens?

The 2D compatibility statement doesn't totally convince me though....

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Dave Jervis wrote:
I am wondering if this 3D system also somehow utilises the two 'sides' of the lens as different lenses.... albeit that the separation of the two images is done in the optics behind the lens?

I'd wondered about something along those lines, but haven't really convinced myself. Wouldn't it mean iris changes would affect the 3D image, at very least?
When I saw the gizmodo link I'll admit I was very sceptical, but from the official Sony link I don't know what to think. My brain tells me there is no way it can work, but I can't believe Sony announcing a high profile demo unless they have a pretty decent prototype at least. There must be something we are missing....... :)

Dave Jervis
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2006
infocus wrote:
.........................There must be something we are missing....... :)

....like a camera mounting that oscillates side to side by about 65mm at around 120Hz.....?

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I got this weeks Publican magazine and in a poll it asked pubs if they would pay SKY extra for a 3D service? (I presume this is their football coverage as that is mainly what pubs and clubs pay their current minimum of around £4,000 a year for)

95% said NO they wouldnt

With TV audiences still declining and 52 pubs a week closing I still fail to see how 3D will be marketed outside of the cinema experience and how the huge investment will be made back, also will we just be seeing the same content we have now but in yet another format???

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
JGNattrass wrote:
With TV audiences still declining and 52 pubs a week closing I still fail to see how 3D will be marketed outside of the cinema experience and how the huge investment will be made back,...........

I can only assume they believe by increasing market share. So even if total broadcast TV audiences decline, it doesn't stop any individual broadcaster actually increasing their own audience.

And I also expect much of the motivation is not simply in terms of number of subscribers x subscription fee for 3D, but in terms of raising the profile of the platform generally. Giving it a uniqueness, in the hope of driving up subscriptions generally. As far as the survey goes, then I'm pretty surprised to see even 5% giving a positive indication at this stage. Ask yourself the question what will happen if come the launch, those 5% have committed, and they initially attract extra curious viewers, who are impressed, who tell their friends, who also decide to give it a try, and....... Result is that a lot of pubs in the other 95% will find themselves losing custom and be faced with the dilemma of can we afford to upgrade to compete, or can we afford not to?

Yes, there's a lot of "if's" in that, not least that the customers will find it appealing in practice. My own reservation is that viewing glasses may be one thing in the home or cinema, but watching footy in the pub....? :) Somehow though, I have a suspicion that things like that have been thought about.

For the broadcasters, it means that they either have to try to compete like for like, or establish a separate niche. The BBC may be able to compete with Sky on that basis (with some difficulty), but ITV? Do you not think we may see Sky managing to at least maintain it's overall audience, whilst that of ITV just continues to fall and fall? (Not just because of 3D either.)

Quote:
.......... also will we just be seeing the same content we have now but in yet another format???

My guess is yes - as Simon said a few posts back, it's the content that people will pay to see. But given the chance of seeing it in a better way, the evidence is (colour, then HD.....) that that is what people want.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

I think the main opportunity for money making here is to go into the business of designing and manufacturing cool looking 3D glasses rather than staying within the video producing community!

drgagx
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2001

I had the chance today to see the Panasonic demo of 3d on a plasma screen. They showed some F1 cars, shots from the last Olympics (including the massed ranks of drummers - not sure if this was part of the opening or closing ceremony) and some scenes from the forthcoming Avatar (on which they said they has worked with the director).

I am very short sighted (in the 10s), so wore the specs over my normal specs. The 3d effects worked for me very well in the close up shots but were not so obvious in the distant landscape shots (skiers in the mountains). No doubt technically impressive but not enough of a change to make me a buyer.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001

Having read through all the foregoing, hoping there was going to be some resolution to the glasses problem, I'm satisfied there will never be a compelling urge for me to go for it. I first saw 3D in 1951 at the Festival Of Britain and it was then very exciting but, in my ignorance of the time, I was convinced it would soon appear in some way without the use of personal visual aids. (Some sort of drop down material interposed between audience and screen.) Wrong!

My conviction remains with the niche argument.

Mark M
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 1999

I went to see UP in 3D last night, because I was intrigued to see what a modern 3D animated film looks like, and I was absolutely blown away. It was fantastic. I'd happily watch TV with glasses on if I could get those effects in my sitting room!

Adobe Certified Professional Premiere Pro CS6, Premiere Pro CC

Adobe Community Professional

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
drgagx wrote:
I have read elsewhere that HDMI v1.4 will be required for 3D.

I'm about to buy a Blu-ray player and note that some are simply HDMI and some are HDMI v1,3 (and possibly have USB connectivity changes as well). Should the 1.3 version concern me - is it somehow better than v1?

tom.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Tom, I researched this some time ago. Cannot remember the detail but, for maximum compatibility excluding 3D, you want V1.3a. Anything less and you may run into a variety of problems.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Dave Jervis
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2006

Tom, I would not normally recommend this as an authoritative source, but Wikipedia has some information on the different versions that might help. dave.

Tony7
Offline
Joined: Mar 21 2001

All I know is... that my son wanted to play his PS3 on our Samsung (3D) HDTV but when connected the PS3 picture was very fizzy, (for want of a better word) couldn't under stand why because it played perfect on his 23" Samsung Full HD TV a few mins before.
I changed HDMI cable to a 1.4 and it worked perfect.
So all I could put it down to was that the other HDMI wasn't 1.4, it had to be less than that.

Tony.
Asrock Z68 Extreme7 --i7-2700K --Edius Pro7--HDStorm+ --16GB Kingston HyperX--GTX 560Ti--AX850 PSU--MxM PCI-e Reader--Win8.1 Pro 64bit

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
Dave Jervis wrote:
Wikipedia has some information on the different versions that might help. dave.

Thanks Dave. I'm heartened to note that, (quote) 'The Blu-ray specification does not support video encoded with either Deep Color or xvYCC so that HDMI 1.0 can transfer Blu-ray discs at full video quality.'

Dave Jervis
Offline
Joined: Feb 21 2006

:o .....well I did say "might"..... d.

Nigel Longman
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 1999
tom hardwick wrote:
I'm about to buy a Blu-ray player and note that some are simply HDMI and some are HDMI v1,3 (and possibly have USB connectivity changes as well). Should the 1.3 version concern me - is it somehow better than v1?

tom.

Tom

AFAIK hdmi cables are no longer classified by a number but by their intended purpose and performance standard.

You may find the information at this link to hdmi.org helpful.

Of course it may take some time for this to filter through to the shops :) .

NL

delphiplasma
Offline
Joined: Dec 5 2008

Got to say that 3D is a novelty, However HD is not a novelty, as was mentioned at the start of this thread. HD is a necessity, as it should be a requirement to ensure that the broadcast standards are better than what the home display can produce.

Now, I have seen a 3D demo on a Panasonic plasma and was quite impressed, but still think that it should be left for the cinemas