All your Web publications are belong to us - People's Daily
|
|
|
3D telly will be shunned for years to come
EYE-BOGGLING 3D TELLY technology isn't going to be widespread for some time to come, if ever, and no one is predicting any sort of popularity until long after 2015.
As if surveys of public opposition to 3D and evidence that Internet goggle boxes are out-selling the eye boggling 3D sets by at least five to one was not enough, another media research organisation has denigrated three-dimensional telly.
"I don't think it's going to be massive in the short term, five years and out will there even be enough compelling content?", asked media research company Screen Digest's head of television, Guy Bisson, adding, "I think [3D] is a bit picture book".
Another factor that makes the future of 3D TV that much more difficult is customers' expectation for full High Definition (HD) 1080p quality 3D pictures. Full HD 3D telly broadcasting data needs require double the bandwidth that HD TV needs, because each frame requires two 1080p pictures, one for the left eye and one for the right eye. HD TV is already struggling with terrestrial digital broadcasting where only five HD TV channels now accompany the 30-odd Freeview service channels already available. There just isn't enough room in nature's radio frequency spectrum for it all.
The complete switch-off of analogue television signals in 2012 will free up a swathe of radio frequency spectrum that could be used by 3D TV but it could also be allocated to 2D HD TV or mobile broadband providers. That is one big bun fight between the likes of Sky TV and Virgin Media that is yet to start.
But then again it could all come down to the same problem Bisson describes - no compelling content. Does anyone want to see Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley of 6am fame in eye boggling 3D? Perhaps it will all depend on those Avatar sequels. In which case it's all up to you, James Cameron. µ
Share this:
Share
Not 3D in gaming, please !
There's already quite enough graphical pixie dust, than you very much. We've had 3D for a decade already, visually speaking, and without goggles, and we're getting enhanced explosions and more particles now thanks to the physics engines that are being more and more abused.
But more realistic worlds we are not getting. We still run into doors we cannot blow away, tanks that get damaged against trees and shrubbery that absolutely never gets flattened.
Sometimes even the fences are impassable barriers.
So quit fooling around with yet another useless fad and fix those points first before shoving so-called 3D gaming with those bloody, headache-inducing goggles on us poor gamers !
I shudder to think of a goggled version of Battlefield 2 would be. Yech.
OK, interesting question. I agree the user base is likely to expand despite lack of 3D content.
One reason would be that response times and refresh rates required for 3D enhance gaming on any platform.
Another gaming related factor is that PC users with the right hardware and drivers should be able to make any 3D rendered game fully 3D. Consoles might take a generation. So designers of 3D hardware should not just consider the TV market but the computer monitor market, which is a little more demanding ie they should also try to minimise display latency, for twitch games.
Just to clarify, this is a partial mix of statements from two points I made in response to questions at a seminar. My position is as follows: 3D TV consumption will not be huge in the next five years because there is likely to be only a limited number of channels available and only for specific types of content. The installed base of 3D capable TVs, however, is likely to grow at a faster rate than homes subscribing to 3D content as there is little or no impact on manufacturing costs. The reference to 'picture book' is my personal experience of viewing 3D TV where this layered effect is noticeable. Finally, as others have pointed out, 3D does not require double the bandwidth of HD, the signal for each eye is effectively half an HD picture, two halves making a whole.
... can't take advantage of this anyway. I get more and more fed up every time I see one of these psuedo 3D posts. It isn't 3D!!!!
Real 3D will be R2D2 style projected 3D and when that comes around you can call it it 3D and even people like me ~(with a lazy eye) can watch it.
Until then... please stop calling it 3D - it just makes me angry, and you wouldn;t want to see me when I'm angry. Hmmmmf!
holography depends on diffraction patterns which would require micrometric scales of display resolution, 1080p doesnt quite cut it
also what does a holographic movie camera look like? probably requires a reference laser, necessarily low power infrared so it doesnt blind cook or irratiate everyone it tries to immortalise
Maybe its not impossible though.
When they make a 3D holographic display then I will be excited , other wise , ho hum .
Holography is most true to life , walk 360* around the object and all sides are displayed , truly fantastic , back in the 70's it was demonstrated and then nothing , shame .
Please stop playing with the internet before you break it.
Yeap, sometimes this kind of thing happens when the webserver does not reply and yet the comment has been posted
... And yet you are using double the bandwidth with your double posts!
Does Guy Bisson know how to speak English? That first sentence makes absolutely no sense!
I am not fussed in the slightest about 3d TV - I want Sky to stop ripping me off for HD tv first. (Although I would LOVE to see Christine Blakely in 3d!)
3D HD doesn't require double the bandwidth!!! Much of the information on the frame for one eye is present in the other.
Using interframe compression betweeen them would save a lot of the required bandwidth so it would be bigger but not as much as you imply.
3D HD doesn't require double the bandwidth!!! Much of the information on the frame for one eye is present in the other.
Using interframe compression betweeen them would save a lot of the required bandwidth so it would be bigger but not as much as you imply.
i completely disagree, i would love to see christine bleakley in 3d at anytime of the day!