Martin963 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I know we've some fans of 3D TV on here, but it seems that their cause may be slipping away from them with Canal + apparently "pulling" their only 3D channel.https://groups.google.com/group/fr.rec.tv.satellite/browse_thread/thread/47748d635828c051?hl=fr#Certainly people I know (and respect) who've seen demos have mentioned that the quality isn't all it's cracked up to be (very "flat" looking in spite of being 3D) and it seems that some people switch back to 2D as they find the 3D too distracting and fatiguing. Progress eh....?Personally I'd rather they got SD quality back to what it should be (if run at suitable bit rates) and didn't degrade HD (already happening, including at the BBC) before they rush into yet more expensive bandwidth-hungry ventures.But then I can think of someone on here who no doubt thinks that my views date back to the time of the Ark.PS Why can I never get the klutzy URL linking system on this forum to work??!! <--- I did it for you, Martin - Clair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin963 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Thanks Clair. You do it for me every time ma cherie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Funny enough I read in one of the French newspapers yesterday that sales of 3D TV's have plummeted in France. Today however I see in Le Figaro that the amount of sales for 3D games consoles has increased dramatically. I have to agree with the 'flatness' comment. I noticed this on my research trip round the shops before Christmas. I don't think it's just TV programs as a few of the shops were playing films and they seemed flat as well. Viewing angle is another issue that needs to be sorted out. It's bad enough (compared to my stone age tube TV) that the viewing angle of flat 2D TV's is so small but on the 3D ones I saw it was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"] It's bad enough (compared to my stone age tube TV) that the viewing angle of flat 2D TV's is so small [/quote]Really? It's brilliant on my plasma which is already 7 years old. I'd have thought things would be even better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 "Progress"[8-)]? I totally agree with you Martin.A bit like the hype for 4G. I'd rather they concentrate on getting 3G coverage right before moving on in the name of "progress"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote user="Martin963"]Thanks Clair. You do it for me every time ma cherie![/quote]You're welcome, sweetie [kiss] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="Quillan"] It's bad enough (compared to my stone age tube TV) that the viewing angle of flat 2D TV's is so small [/quote]Really? It's brilliant on my plasma which is already 7 years old. I'd have thought things would be even better now.[/quote]Well all I can say is that I can view my TV perfectly from almost right angles. When I looked at TV's in the shops you had to come round quite a bit further to see a good picture. I can't say if they were Plasma, LCD or whatever, I was only interested initially at picture quality and wasn't really having a good look at the technical side. There are between 10 and 14 of us round different peoples houses for Six Nations and we do have to sit a lot closed together for some TV's (to lessen the angles) than for others. Perhaps some types of screen give better viewing angles than others. Definitely 'tight' on the three or four 3D TV's I looked at (showing 3D pictures) but I don't know if that was the glass's or the screen. I don't even know if they use the same type of screen's. All this is something I will have to look more in to when the time comes to change. At the moment it's just something I noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have a small, very early LCD TV and it is really grotty in that regard but I had certainly hoped that this would be an issue they'd have dealt with by now. I don't see myself going down the 3D route. I saw Avatar but the film itself was so very bad that I didn't really notice the 3D aspect of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneySuckleDreams Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Plasma screens were always better at viewing angles than LCD, also motion display and the quality of the "blacks"Unfortunately, it looks like Plasmas will be a thing of the past soon as some of the major TV vendors are discontinuing them in favour of LCD/LED, probably because of the emphasis on power consumptionThe next new technology will be OLED, but that really is in the proof-of-concept stage and only proper technically aware early adopters will be buying them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 It is correct to observe that TV sales in 2011 were flat.Samsung & LG are exhibiting OLEDs at the CES 2012.The LG 3D at 55" looks just the thing for my upgrade from a 50" 3D Plasma for the next world cup (football).http://www.audiovideohd.fr/actualites/8141-LG-55EM9600-nouveaux-details-et-photos-de-la-TV-OLED-55.htmlhttp://www.tv-3d.fr/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'd be happy enough to watch footie on a 50 year old black and white set. Switched off, natch.[Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote user="cooperlola"]I'd be happy enough to watch footie on a 50 year old black and white set. Switched off, natch.[Www][/quote]Couldn't agree more about footie.Off subject I know but as you mentioned Black and White TV's I think of my mother, bless her. Mum and Dad had a colour TV at the time they finally stopped transmitting B&W. Mum said "What a shame, I used to love watching those old B&W movies". [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyn_Paul Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"][quote user="cooperlola"]I'd be happy enough to watch footie on a 50 year old black and white set. Switched off, natch.[Www][/quote]Couldn't agree more about footie.Off subject I know but as you mentioned Black and White TV's I think of my mother, bless her. Mum and Dad had a colour TV at the time they finally stopped transmitting B&W. Mum said "What a shame, I used to love watching those old B&W movies". [:D][/quote]...That's a bit like all the hulabaloo about 'colorization' which the film companies rushed into in the hope of giving their b&w libraries further sales in the face of an audience which only wanted to watch stuff if it was in 'living color'.I could never understand the fuss the purists made: if they didn't like the colorized version they had only to turn down the chroma and they had b&w again !but back on the topic:I have a Panasonic 3D plasma which is lovely in 2D apart from a few layout niggles (like not putting the HDMI's at the top of the AV pick list, so you have to scroll down the list EVERY TIME, and only a zero-level audio line out). There is so little free-to-air 3D content that it's hard to say if you would get used to it. So far, the Wimbledon men's final looked like a child's pop-up picture book, with discrete layers of foreground, midground, (if there isn't such a word, then there should be) and background. The 'Strictly' final was much better (that is to say much less 'layered'), and by the end of it, it felt quite natural. Which is a bit like saying I forgot it was in 3D, which rather defeats the purpose, I think ! As for the viewing angle... I found it varied with the degree off-centre you were sitting, but you soon got used to it. Moving was interesting however; I stood up to get a chocolate from the table at the side of the screen and felt as if the man in the front row was coming with me to help himself!Would I buy another one? - not unless the content vastly increases.p p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"][quote user="cooperlola"]I'd be happy enough to watch footie on a 50 year old black and white set. Switched off, natch.[Www][/quote]Couldn't agree more about footie.[/quote]That makes 3 of us proudly prepared to pin our colours to the 'footie is $^&*()£$%!' mast. [:P]For my money you can add the Olympics to that too, booooooring beyond words but there will be little escape from it [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote user="Gyn_Paul"][quote user="Quillan"][quote user="cooperlola"]I'd be happy enough to watch footie on a 50 year old black and white set. Switched off, natch.[Www][/quote]Couldn't agree more about footie.Off subject I know but as you mentioned Black and White TV's I think of my mother, bless her. Mum and Dad had a colour TV at the time they finally stopped transmitting B&W. Mum said "What a shame, I used to love watching those old B&W movies". [:D][/quote]...That's a bit like all the hulabaloo about 'colorization' which the film companies rushed into in the hope of giving their b&w libraries further sales in the face of an audience which only wanted to watch stuff if it was in 'living color'.I could never understand the fuss the purists made: if they didn't like the colorized version they had only to turn down the chroma and they had b&w again !but back on the topic:I have a Panasonic 3D plasma which is lovely in 2D apart from a few layout niggles (like not putting the HDMI's at the top of the AV pick list, so you have to scroll down the list EVERY TIME, and only a zero-level audio line out). There is so little free-to-air 3D content that it's hard to say if you would get used to it. So far, the Wimbledon men's final looked like a child's pop-up picture book, with discrete layers of foreground, midground, (if there isn't such a word, then there should be) and background. The 'Strictly' final was much better (that is to say much less 'layered'), and by the end of it, it felt quite natural. Which is a bit like saying I forgot it was in 3D, which rather defeats the purpose, I think ! As for the viewing angle... I found it varied with the degree off-centre you were sitting, but you soon got used to it. Moving was interesting however; I stood up to get a chocolate from the table at the side of the screen and felt as if the man in the front row was coming with me to help himself!Would I buy another one? - not unless the content vastly increases.p p[/quote]Did you get the complementary Cameron 3D version of Avatar as well. I checked Panasonic 2010 models when I was selecting a TV but finally discounted as the 2D - 3D conversion was only available in plasmas up to 46". The conversion was primordial in my choice as there was a dearth of available 3D material. It will be interesting to see how Camerons 3D transformation of Titanic turns out, rumour has it that it will be comparable to Avatar. There has been a lot of transformed films of dubious quality, the recent Harry Potter film is an example, where only some 12 minutes were actually filmed with a 3D camera. I regard the 3D viewing as an extra only to be used with material which warrants it, I am thinking of sport, scenery, wildlife; it is stupid to watch a game show, studio discussion and such like in 3D. I use the HD option on everything available for the definition. The image on a 3D TV exists in three planes, on the screen, infront of the screen and behind the screen. Only a true material, like Avatar will have things jumping out of the screen; the 2D - 3D conversions only give a 3D effect behind the screen, a bit like looking through a plate glass window. For this reason the size of the screen and definition is paramount; it should not be forgotten in respect of definition that only an active system will give full 1920 X 1080 image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote user="pachapapa"] It will be interesting to see how Camerons 3D transformation of Titanic turns out, rumour has it that it will be comparable to Avatar. [/quote]That would be no surprise as both were total drivel to start with. No amount of special effects and technology will ever make up for rubbish scripts, unfortunately. If Cameron remains the benchmark for 3D then I'll keep my money in my pocket (and I'm normally a real sucker for anything new.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote user="Martin963"]I know we've some fans of 3D TV on here, but it seems that their cause may be slipping away from them with Canal + apparently "pulling" their only 3D channel.https://groups.google.com/group/fr.rec.tv.satellite/browse_thread/thread/47748d635828c051?hl=fr#Certainly people I know (and respect) who've seen demos have mentioned that the quality isn't all it's cracked up to be (very "flat" looking in spite of being 3D) and it seems that some people switch back to 2D as they find the 3D too distracting and fatiguing. Progress eh....?[/quote]I think that 3D tv was doomed from the start. In my lifetime there have now been three attempts to introduced 3D to the big screen, the previous attempts have failed and I think that this one will too. As for 3D tv - it is too soon after the introduction of HD. I don't believe there is the willingness in the marketplace to spend large sums on an "improvement" in television so soon after the last innovation.Film and tv 3D relies on disparity - the differences in images falling on the retinas of eyes spaced a few centimetres apart. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not the only source of "3D", there are at least half a dozen other mechanisms which contribute to the perception of depth. A further problem is that a significant proportion of the population do not have disparity depth perception due to injury, uncorrected or late correction of squint or other vision problems. Disparity-based 3D does not work for them. Another factor is that disparity is only used by humans for objects which are relatively close, say less that about 20 to 30 feet. Forcing people to use this mechanism for action which is much further away causes some to report fatigue.Disparity-based 3D is a neat little trick which can be dragged out of the cupboard to entertain the children from time to time, but I don't think that it will have any permanent place in mass entertainment. It isn't needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogs Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Are 3D DVD's available in France? It's just that looking at some in the local supermarket, none mention that they are in 3D - I'm working on the basis that unless they say they're 3D then they probably are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I certainly won't be buying into 3D TV anytime in the foreseeable future.When you've experienced 3D at Imax cinemas anything else can only ever be a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyn_Paul Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 [this is a pick-up from Pap's response, but if I quote it, it will fill the screen]No dammit I didn't... I bought the set online here in France and the promotional 3D blu-ray wasn't offered. Wasn't an issue at the time as I didn't have a 3DBR player. Have now. Must borrow a copy.and see what it looks like.Now that you mention the 3 planes of 3D, I remember on 'Strictly' there was a noticable difference between the live studio cams and the VT retrospective packages (genuine stuff vs processed).Sadly at 62 the acuity of my vision has dropped off alarmingly. Having needed nothing but -4.25 contacts for everything (with perfect accommodation for reading) for the last 28 years, I now seem to need (at least) -4.75's for distance, and +3 for reading. And I've discovered the truth of what I always suspected, namely that after a certain age you just have to live with slightly soft resolution as pin-sharp, newly-corrected vision lasts about as far as the journey from the opticians to your home. I imagine that you could go on correcting the vision - upping the prescription and lowering your bank balance - every 3 months*, seemingly to infinity ! So in the matter of high definition v SD, up-scaling et al, I'm about 10 years too late to really appreciate the differences. I still buy Blu-Ray rather than DVD versions of stuff 'though ! p* - this is, of course, purely notional, as - round here at least - you can't get an optician's appointment in under 6 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyn_Paul Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote user="Clarkkent"][quote user="Martin963"]I know we've some fans of 3D TV on here, but it seems that their cause may be slipping away from them with Canal + apparently "pulling" their only 3D channel.https://groups.google.com/group/fr.rec.tv.satellite/browse_thread/thread/47748d635828c051?hl=fr#Certainly people I know (and respect) who've seen demos have mentioned that the quality isn't all it's cracked up to be (very "flat" looking in spite of being 3D) and it seems that some people switch back to 2D as they find the 3D too distracting and fatiguing. Progress eh....?[/quote]I think that 3D tv was doomed from the start. In my lifetime there have now been three attempts to introduced 3D to the big screen, the previous attempts have failed and I think that this one will too. As for 3D tv - it is too soon after the introduction of HD. I don't believe there is the willingness in the marketplace to spend large sums on an "improvement" in television so soon after the last innovation.Film and tv 3D relies on disparity - the differences in images falling on the retinas of eyes spaced a few centimetres apart. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not the only source of "3D", there are at least half a dozen other mechanisms which contribute to the perception of depth. A further problem is that a significant proportion of the population do not have disparity depth perception due to injury, uncorrected or late correction of squint or other vision problems. Disparity-based 3D does not work for them. Another factor is that disparity is only used by humans for objects which are relatively close, say less that about 20 to 30 feet. Forcing people to use this mechanism for action which is much further away causes some to report fatigue.Disparity-based 3D is a neat little trick which can be dragged out of the cupboard to entertain the children from time to time, but I don't think that it will have any permanent place in mass entertainment. It isn't needed.[/quote]One of the biggest problems facing the makers of 3D programming is that in everyday life, it's not just disparity which the brain uses for stereoscopic imaging (just as it uses sound disparity to generate a stereo soundscape) it's actual convergence of the eyes. Which means that for - say - a foreground image viewed by both eyes, the detail behind it is not convergent, but overlapping. We teach our brains to ignore this confusing stuff we're not focusing on, but the problem is that WE make the choice of where in the depth of field we are concentrating. Faced with a 3D TV (or film) image, it's the programme maker who is deciding where the focal point should be, and it may or may not be exactly where in the illusory image we are looking. It's this (amongst other things) which causes the confusion in the brain, and thus the fatigue.Frankly, I can never envisage a 3D system which will be analogous to stereo sound.p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 A skilled directorshould be able to surmount this problem by enlightened control and editing of the material. In 2010 a dance academy type film was used to publicise 3D in shops in france, it was a complete disaster with persons passing in front of the conversing group which was the point of interest; these fleeting close camera images were of course out of focus. But exactly the same would have happened if the video had been in 2D, at the bend of the day a 3D Blu Ray film is just two 1080p 2D films. Before SS rushes in to correct me a Ble Ray 2D will be of the order of 20 GB and the 3D version is not in fact 40 GB but compressed to about 30 GB. Whilst I can accomodate a bit of out of focus background in 2D it is extremely irritating in a 3D environment. In a word if you are viewing a cheap low resolution TV in 2D then it will be marginally acceptable BUT in a 3D environment it will be absolutely horrible.There are accordingly two factors firstly the two stereoscopic images, the eyes input two images to the brain so nothing new there, secondly the quality and definition of the two images. The use of active,passive, left/right,top/bottom,NVidia,anaglyphic,etc will not rectify anything.I remember in the 50s that 35 mm 3D still images were widely used in the USA for tourist sites; circular cards with separate images for each view loaded into a circular viewer with binocular vision. The result for such things as the Grand Canyon was exceptional for the quality of image and the in focus 3D depth of field; as HD becomes more widely used and perhaps in the QuadHD medium there will be an approach to the visual acuity of a bog standard Kodak 35 mm slide.There is a possibility that 3D will enter your homes by the back door as TV design and production is rationalised, after all playing around with a couple of 1080HD images on a Double Core Processor will be no big deal for the likes of Samsung.Indeed I am already looking ahead with enthusiasm for future tech changes and I am already following developments closely.I shall celebrate my 75th birthday in 2014 and have pencilled in an upgrade to an 80" 3D active QuadHD OLED connected TV for that year.[:P]Meanwhile I watch the CES and make mental notes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGJLQYley4&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I was reading something about this in an Australian newspaper and the same has happened down there. Two channels that used to broadcast in 3D have now stopped. Too expensive to produce the programs they said. There are TV's and Blue Ray players that can convert 2D to 3D but it's more of a novelty thing and the 3D effect is not really 3D more of a 'layering' of the picture. Seeing as there are not really that many 3D films around they thought it simply not cost effective to keep the channels going. I have not really looked any further but I have a feeling that France and Australia are not the only countries to dump 3D broadcasting. There are a few 3D cameras around so you could make home movies and take some pictures in 3D but even that gets a bit boring after a while. Touch of seen my holiday photos, they are in 3D, yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"]I was reading something about this in an Australian newspaper and the same has happened down there. Two channels that used to broadcast in 3D have now stopped. Too expensive to produce the programs they said. There are TV's and Blue Ray players that can convert 2D to 3D but it's more of a novelty thing and the 3D effect is not really 3D more of a 'layering' of the picture. Seeing as there are not really that many 3D films around they thought it simply not cost effective to keep the channels going. I have not really looked any further but I have a feeling that France and Australia are not the only countries to dump 3D broadcasting. There are a few 3D cameras around so you could make home movies and take some pictures in 3D but even that gets a bit boring after a while. Touch of seen my holiday photos, they are in 3D, yawn.[/quote]The chance of an australian TV cameraman producing anything reasonable with a steady cam is the square root of f### a###.There is not much 3D stuff around and what there is, tends to be Pirates of the Caribbean type rubbish, excessively priced. fFor this reason I shall only be finally replacing my 2D Blu Ray for a 3D Blu Ray this year before the end of the sales. I am not in too much of a hurry as 3D Blu Rays are not exactly flying of the shelves...thanks partly to people still watching analogue CRTs and caught in a technological timewarp.I have been watching 2D-3D conversions for close on a year now and find the function a distinct plus, particularly for sport,over the original HD image. The french TNT with 1080i is particularly outstanding in this respect.Of course my disparity neurological function does work outstandingly well; without being conversant of the import and meaning of your "layering problem" I can only presume that you do not have 2O/20 vision or have suffered possibly from an excess of deleterious radiation from years of viewing a CRT tube.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyn_Paul Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 [quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Quillan"]I was reading something about this in an Australian newspaper and the same has happened down there. Two channels that used to broadcast in 3D have now stopped. Too expensive to produce the programs they said. There are TV's and Blue Ray players that can convert 2D to 3D but it's more of a novelty thing and the 3D effect is not really 3D more of a 'layering' of the picture. Seeing as there are not really that many 3D films around they thought it simply not cost effective to keep the channels going. I have not really looked any further but I have a feeling that France and Australia are not the only countries to dump 3D broadcasting. There are a few 3D cameras around so you could make home movies and take some pictures in 3D but even that gets a bit boring after a while. Touch of seen my holiday photos, they are in 3D, yawn.[/quote]The chance of an australian TV cameraman producing anything reasonable with a steady cam is the square root of f### a###.There is not much 3D stuff around and what there is, tends to be Pirates of the Caribbean type rubbish, excessively priced. fFor this reason I shall only be finally replacing my 2D Blu Ray for a 3D Blu Ray this year before the end of the sales. I am not in too much of a hurry as 3D Blu Rays are not exactly flying of the shelves...thanks partly to people still watching analogue CRTs and caught in a technological timewarp.I have been watching 2D-3D conversions for close on a year now and find the function a distinct plus, particularly for sport,over the original HD image. The french TNT with 1080i is particularly outstanding in this respect.Of course my disparity neurological function does work outstandingly well; without being conversant of the import and meaning of your "layering problem" I can only presume that you do not have 2O/20 vision or have suffered possibly from an excess of deleterious radiation from years of viewing a CRT tube.[:)] [/quote]Not quite as funny as you think.Some of my broadcasting colleagues were studio cameramen whose working life was spent with their foreheads some 6 inches from the front of a b/w cathode ray tube which was the monitor, and their upper bodies about 2 foot or so from the 4 tubes which comprised the guts of an EMI 2001 camera. They worked in teams of 4 or 5 as a camera crew, and a statistically significant number of them later developed brain tumours. My own - totally unscientific - feeling is that those who worked on golf OB's were more at risk, as there (in order to be able to see the lofted ball against the sky) they would wind the monitor's gain and contrast up to its fullest extent.p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now