Late Late Show - Standard TV in 3D???

The Cush

Last Friday night on the Late Late Show (Fri I4th) Ryan did a promo for Samsung's new Series 8 range of TV's including their "worlds first" LED 3D TV - everyone in the audience that night got a Samsung Blu-Ray player and €100 Samsung voucher.

He said something I thought was a little odd - "samsung who have just launched their new range of 3D TVs which will allow you watch with the aid of your special 3D glasses standard television programmes in 3D - could you imagine"

"Standard TV in 3D" is that even possible? Reminds me of the early days of HDTVs where you could watch anything in HD quality - even your old VHS recordings.

See it on RTÉ iplayer Fri 14th May, start at 1:22:30

Poly

But Tubridy is only 2d?

mossym

The Cush wrote: »

Last Friday night on the Late Late Show (Fri I4th) Ryan did a promo for Samsung's new Series 8 range of TV's including their "worlds first" LED 3D TV - everyone in the audience that night got a Samsung Blu-Ray player and €100 Samsung voucher.

He said something I thought was a little odd - "samsung who have just launched their new range of 3D TVs which will allow you watch with the aid of your special 3D glasses standard television programmes in 3D - could you imagine"

"Standard TV in 3D" is that even possible? Reminds me of the early days of HDTVs where you could watch anything in HD quality - even your old VHS recodings.

See it on RTÉ iplayer Fri 14th May, start at 1:22:30

toshiba were promoting their tvs using the cell processor from the ps3 that could convert to 3D on the fly..

but, i would take this as a guy talking about something he doesn't really understand, preaching to an audience country wide that wouldn't know he was wrong either. don't read too much into it

Sam Russell

Poly wrote: »

But Tubridy is only 2d?

I thought he was very much 1 D

mossym

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought he was very much 1 D

no, tubridy is definitely D4

homer911

Poly wrote: »

But Tubridy is only 2d?

I thought that was Pat Kenny?

watty

A) Standard TV on a 3D TV is still standard TV
There are NO 3D TVs, there is NO 3D cinema! It's marketing lie.
C) So called 3D content (Steroscopic) can be in standard Defintion, Half HD or HDi or HD progressive.

(Half HD flickers or is blurred horizontally depending on method, but uses same bandwidth as regular HD,
HDi is 3D version of 1080i, it use progressive, but alternate lines are Left & Right, so twice bandwith of normal HD transmission. HD progressive 3D, needs x4 the bandwidth of 1080i broadcast)

It's Victorian Stereoscopic viewing. Same as a Viewmaster toy. It doesn't work at all for many people and badly for about 1/5th of population. It's an optical illusion that causes eyestrain and even headaches.

The illusion results in you trying to focus on nearer or futher things. Every part of image is at same distance unlike real 3D.

Holography is one true 3D method. An angled rear projection screen rotating on projection axis with laser scanner (non-holographic) is another true 3D display.

See http://www.techtir.ie/node/1001459

This is a gimick. It also requires a least a pair of very expensive cameras, twice the bandwidth and a lot of computer processing to give an acceptible stereoscopic (fake 3D) image as good as regular TV.

Displays that don't need glasses have very very narrow view angles (possible on portable game console or personal player), or if a larger TV, blurring of image and a handful of narrow viewing angle positions.

For most effective Steroscopic viewing (fake 3D) you need LCD shutter glasses. The next level is Polarising glasses as used in cinema, cheaper but dimmer and work for a few percent less people.

The red/blue type anaglyph type image is only for ordinary projectors and ordinary screens and is the worst technique of all. At least the Polarising or LCD shutter glasses plus "so called 3D" display (really steroscopic) is better.

Don't waste your money on 3D editions or 3D TV.

Bob_Harris

homer911 wrote: »

I thought that was Pat Kenny?

Pat Kenny is a 2"x4"

Sam Russell

:D:D

center15

Yes it's possible, some of the 3D TV's out there do turn 2D content in to 3D content although the effect will not be as good as a dedicated 3D source. It's similar to a Bluray player upscaling a normal DVD to HD.

Sam Russell

center15 wrote: »

Yes it's possible, some of the 3D TV's out there do turn 2D content in to 3D content although the effect will not be as good as a dedicated 3D source. It's similar to a Bluray player upscaling a normal DVD to HD.

Or the black and white TVs that were converted to colour by puting a blue strip at the top of the picture and a green strip at the bottom, so when a view of a field of grass was shown it appeared to be in colour. Did not work so well on Coronation Street.

People did sell them and people did buy them. For a very short while.

watty

center15 wrote: »

Yes it's possible, some of the 3D TV's out there do turn 2D content in to 3D content although the effect will not be as good as a dedicated 3D source. It's similar to a Bluray player upscaling a normal DVD to HD.

No. it's nothing like upscalling. You can't turn 2D image into Stereoscopic at all really. Reduced quality and wearing glasses? No thanks.

It's rubbish and pointless. Upscalling sort a works a little bit.

center15

watty wrote: »

No. it's nothing like upscalling. You can't turn 2D image into Stereoscopic at all really. Reduced quality and wearing glasses? No thanks.

It's rubbish and pointless. Upscalling sort a works a little bit.

Actually it's very similar to upscaling, taking information that isn't there and interpreting new information and adding it to the picture. Upscaling does work quiet well although obviously it's never going to be HD.

There are 3 different types of 3D technology and they don't all reduce they quality of the image, athough they do have a issue with brightness as one shutter of the glasses will always be closed to create the 3D effect. To compensate for this TV's up their brightness when in 3D mode.

When 2D -> 3D conversation was shown on TV's at CES the reviews were quite good and obviously everyone would prefer if the glasses weren't needed now.

I presume for you've viewed lots of 3D TV's and 3D content for you to judge so quickly that's it crap and a waste of time. I'm not trying to convince anyone 3D is the best thing since slice bread but there's no need to go about with a chip in your shoulder about 3D saying it's rubbish and pointless since it's not even got off it's feet yet.

watty

center15 wrote: »

Actually it's very similar to upscaling, taking information that isn't there and interpreting new information and adding it to the picture. Upscaling does work quiet well although obviously it's never going to be HD.

Nonsense

Study some mathematics.

You can do interpolation on pixel based image to estimate a feasible and non-jarring in-between pixel.

You do not have ANY stereoscopic information in a regular video. There is nothing to do interpolation on. Real Stereoscopic TV is a gimmick. Fake computer generated "3D" (stereoscopic) is one step further in conning consumers out of money, please peddle such fake snake oil elsewhere.

There is only ONE kind of "3D" technology in use for Domestic TV and Cinema, it's Stereoscopic viewing like old Victorian toys and Viewmaster. It is not actually 3D at all!

There are about FOUR technologies for delivering the "display" of the left & right images for the eyes.
http://www.techtir.ie/node/1001459 Please read the link!

If you want the SAME sharpness of image you need twice the bandwidth as there are two images. If you use the same bandwidth as current HD, then you have either twice the flicker or half the sharpness. If you can't understand this you can't add 1+1 and can't divide by 2.

It's mathematically impossible to have same quality of Stereoscopic TV (Left & right Eye images, so called "3D") in the same bandwidth as regular TV.

It's impossible to generate sensible Stereoscopic TV from standard TV. It will fail on a static image and is a highly dubious process creating many artefacts doing it in real time based on horizontally moving parts of image. It's rubbish.

Summary:
1) So called "3D" is a marketing gimmick to sell cinema tickets and new TVs. It doesn't even work for many people and extended viewing causes eye strain as you can't actually re-focus at different distances. A waste of money. It isn't 3D at all, but stereoscopic. There is real 3D, but not in Cinema, PCs, or TVs. (Not just Holography either).

2) Generating "3D" (stereoscopic pair of images) in real time from video is not comparable at all to up-scaling. Anyone who says it is uninformed or lying. It's even more useless than real stereoscopic TV.

3) Consumer marketing is bad enough and full of enough lies and misinformation without people repeating it and arguing for it here.

More Music

3D TV's are load of marketing tosh.

See the ads on TV at the moment for Panasonic (I think) 3D? A group of people in a room watching TV saying wow and showing really animated expressions. And not a pair of stupid looking 3D specs in sight!

The Sky Sports OB 3D vision mixers have to take extra breaks because of headaches (might be a preventative measure). That is a fact.

center15

More Music wrote: »

3D TV's are load of marketing tosh.

See the ads on TV at the moment for Panasonic (I think) 3D? A group of people in a room watching TV saying wow and showing really animated expressions. And not a pair of stupid looking 3D specs in sight!

The Sky Sports OB 3D vision mixers have to take extra breaks because of headaches (might be a preventative measure). That is a fact.

Ha ha are you serious! That is a serious marketing fail! Ya I can't really see 3D being a 24/7 thing for some things it would work great for another things not at all.

center15

watty wrote: »

Nonsense

Study some mathematics.

You can do interpolation on pixel based image to estimate a feasible and non-jarring in-between pixel.

You do not have ANY stereoscopic information in a regular video. There is nothing to do interpolation on. Real Stereoscopic TV is a gimmick. Fake computer generated "3D" (stereoscopic) is one step further in conning consumers out of money, please peddle such fake snake oil elsewhere.

There is only ONE kind of "3D" technology in use for Domestic TV and Cinema, it's Stereoscopic viewing like old Victorian toys and Viewmaster. It is not actually 3D at all!

There are about FOUR technologies for delivering the "display" of the left & right images for the eyes.
http://www.techtir.ie/node/1001459 Please read the link!

If you want the SAME sharpness of image you need twice the bandwidth as there are two images. If you use the same bandwidth as current HD, then you have either twice the flicker or half the sharpness. If you can't understand this you can't add 1+1 and can't divide by 2.

It's mathematically impossible to have same quality of Stereoscopic TV (Left & right Eye images, so called "3D") in the same bandwidth as regular TV.

It's impossible to generate sensible Stereoscopic TV from standard TV. It will fail on a static image and is a highly dubious process creating many artefacts doing it in real time based on horizontally moving parts of image. It's rubbish.

Summary:
1) So called "3D" is a marketing gimmick to sell cinema tickets and new TVs. It doesn't even work for many people and extended viewing causes eye strain as you can't actually re-focus at different distances. A waste of money. It isn't 3D at all, but stereoscopic. There is real 3D, but not in Cinema, PCs, or TVs. (Not just Holography either).

2) Generating "3D" (stereoscopic pair of images) in real time from video is not comparable at all to up-scaling. Anyone who says it is uninformed or lying. It's even more useless than real stereoscopic TV.

3) Consumer marketing is bad enough and full of enough lies and misinformation without people repeating it and arguing for it here.

I really couldn't care less if you like 3D, anyone else on here like's 3D or the public like 3D and I'm not trying to convince any to like it. And just to be clear by 3D I mean like you know the "3D" in the cinema and in use on "3D" TV's.

Summary: I like "3D" I'd buy a 3D TV if you don't then don't buy one. You don't need to convince people on here to hate it and you don't need to go around with a big 3D chip on your shoulder either. At the end of the day I'm not trying to convince you to like it, I can see both arguments for and against it and I'd much rather a great 2D image that a crappy 3D one. It's only a bloody tv at the end of the day, we're both entitled to our different opinions.

mossym

watty wrote: »

If you want the SAME sharpness of image you need twice the bandwidth as there are two images. If you use the same bandwidth as current HD, then you have either twice the flicker or half the sharpness. If you can't understand this you can't add 1+1 and can't divide by 2.

luckily, the two most common types of 3d signal which will be available will have plenty of bandwidth to run at twice speed, 3D blu-ray will be 1080p 24, which when doubled is still less then 1080p60, or even 50. Broadcast 3D will be 1080i 50/60, so doubling that up is well under the limit.

it isn't real 3D, no question, but it is closer to a 3D image than a current 2D image. Sure it's a marketing phrase, but so was HD, when 4k*2K comes along (now there is a bandwidth challenge) that's high definition then, it's a movign set of goal posts to get us to the perfect picture

i was at CES, i saw all the 3D tv's on offer, the 3D conversion on the fly isn't as good as natively shot 3D, and has it's issues. Personally i think 3D should be limited to things that can actually take advantage of it. Sports for one, certain action shows, like deadliest catch, could really benefit from 3D, other shows should just avoid it.

it has it's uses, and it's problems. However if your last line is be considered, any pro 3D discussion isn't wanted to boards. not having a go, but i'm surprised at that from an ex mod, but if that is how it is, so be it.

tipperary

Bob_Harris wrote: »

Pat Kenny is a 2"x4"

Whatever about looking at the plank in 3D, I'm not sure about what 3D would bring to looking at the twig (Tubridy)!

esquilax

The Cush wrote: »

Last Friday night on the Late Late Show (Fri I4th) Ryan did a promo for Samsung's new Series 8 range of TV's including their "worlds first" LED 3D TV - everyone in the audience that night got a Samsung Blu-Ray player and €100 Samsung voucher.

While we're pointing out that they're not really 3D, might be worth pointing out they're not really LED either

Admittedly, it looks like it could be quite a while before what could honestly be described as an "LED TV" (as opposed to an LCD TV with LED backlighting) will be a mass-market item.

watty

even then AMOLED is not true LEDs, but though technically diodes and light emitting, it's a kind of electroluminescent panel. Hence poorer life than "real" GaAsP etc LEDs. Large convention hall LED displays do use real LEDs.

There are also 4 kinds of LED backlighting on LCDs, very different in quality. CFL backlighting is quite good and more efficent than some "White" LEDs, just bulky. "White" LEDs are Blue/Violet/UV LEDs with two or three phosphors, so they are less efficent and poorer colour than CFL. Separate R, G and B LEDs are more efficent. The ultimate is R, G and B LEDs on "light pipe" stripes that correspond to the RGB filters of the LCD. Only feasible on larger displays, but brighter and better colour.