Consumer 3D Television Moving Forward

TheSync writes "Hollywood Reporter claims that SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) will 'establish an industry task force to define the parameters of a mastering standard for 3D content distributed via broadcast, cable, satellite, packaged media and the Internet, and played-out on televisions, computer screens and other tethered displays.' Already, Japanese Nippon BS viewers with Hyundai 3D LCD sets can watch an hour of 3D programming daily. Even your existing DLP TV set might be 3D capable today with the addition of LCD shutter glasses." Reader DaMan1970 makes note of another developing television technology; telescopic pixel displays. "Each pixel consists of 2 opposing mirrors where the primary mirror can change shape under an applied voltage. When the pixel is off, the primary & secondary mirrors are parallel & reflect all of the incoming light back into the light source."

Comments

First Use

[Architect_sasyr]

Porn.

Why else would you want a 3D experience?

Format Wars and Standards

[Iamthecheese]

I wouldn:t buy this until IEEE is on board...

Re:Format Wars and Standards

[utopianfiat]

I wouldn't buy this until the Queen of England knights the inventors...

TV used to be so relaxing

[Mutio]

When I sit down at my computer i am engaged and am accomplishing something(most of the time), but when i sit down to watch TV i want to be completely relaxed and just watch. If this means i will have to be more aware of my TV then im not for it. Also my TV is often on in the background, which means I'll have to wear the special glasses all the time which isn't gonna happen.

Re:TV used to be so relaxing

[plasmacutter]

indeed. TV is "noisy wallpaper" to me.

I grew up in a loud household, and silence is uncomfortable.

I will not, however, wear goofy glasses (especially because i wear prescription eyewear as it is) just so jon stewart pops out at me.

Unfortunately hard to take-off

[JimboFBX]

I have a pair of e-dimensional 3d glasses (yes, they DO work if you have the right set-up and some patience*), and can say after showing them to a few people, several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:

Motion sickness
Astigmatism
Eye strain
The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes
Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
Looking like a nerd

There's some serious patience required to adjust to it, its not natural to focus your eyes direction at one depth, and change the actual focus to another. When what your looking at is far away (like a movie screen), its a lot easier. When its a TV or computer screen that is just a few feet away, its harder to adjust to, and for a lot of people if they don't instantly "click" with something then its hard to get them to want it.

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures. This is a really easy 3d trick anyone can do- simply take two pictures of a static object side by side with the camera pointing towards a certain object (make sure its the same object in each one!). Put them next to each other, then slowly cross your eyes until they merge. It'll form a 3d picture, full color, no special equipment required, no red/blue glasses to give people headaches. The further apart the pictures are taken, the more pronounced the 3-d effect. You'll want to use the cross-eyed effect as opposed to the "looking into the picture" effect because it allows for a larger picture.

Re:Unfortunately hard to take-off

[JoeRW]

Well if you use a compatible DLP projector (such as those listed here: "http://www.stereo3d.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?3177/3347") instead of a pc screen with the shutter glasses, and make the screen very large, the 3d effect is just as if you are looking just as you would normally. Space faring games such as Eve or X3 look the most impressive since it appears that you are floating in infinite space and very massive objects are in your neighbourhood. The cave exploration scenes from Half Life 2 episode 2 were also quite gobsmackingly fantastic; if you put the room light on it appears as though there is a cave system adjunct to the room! And the imposing obsidian combine walls do cause claustrophobia. Stalker had the most detailed 3d models I've seen however, I stood walking around the busted old bus shelter for hours in amazement at it's realism. So did my friends and even my mother, so I think it does help to have a very large screen.

Not all porn should be 3D

[Freaky Spook]

Why else would you want a 3D experience?

Goatse and Tub Girl in 2D was disturbing enough.

Re:Not all porn should be 3D

[amRadioHed]

I'm waiting for tub girl in smell-o-vision.

Theaters must win on features, not performance.

[Vegan Pagan]

The big news in the movie theater business is that Regal, AMC and Cinemark are closing a deal with Hollywood to pay for digital 3D projectors going into many of their theaters so the big summer movies of 2009 can look better than anything an HDTV can do. But if HDTVs will do stereoscopic 3D in a few years, then Hollywood and the theater chains have just blown a huge amount of money on tech that'll only get customers out of their homes for a few years.

This is why theaters need to stop pushing performance and start pushing features. With digital projection, movie theaters can theoretically show everything that's popular on TV: live sports, live news, talk shows, religious shows, long running scripted dramas and comedies. It's even technically possible for theaters to connect video game hardware to the projector and run controllers down to the audience so people can play a video game on the big screen. Of course, it'll be hairy for theaters to get the rights to show any of these things, but the relentless progression of home market tech, especially when it comes to screen size and picture quality, means it's just too expensive for theaters to stay ahead. Theater digital projectors are big and not mass produced, so even if they only perform a little better than home market projectors, they're vastly more expensive and won't come down in price. The last thing theaters need is to blow a huge wad of cash on a new projector, then have to buy another one in a few years.

What's much smarter for theaters to do is buy the least expensive Hollywood-approved projector they can (Christie's CP2000-M is 2.2 megapixels and is bright enough for screens up to 35 feet wide), then feed it with every conceivable kind of content. News reels died in the 1960s not because people don't want to drive to theaters to watch the news (the communal setting actually improves news just as much as it improves movies), but because only TV could show news live. Now theaters have most of the tech they need to show live news, but it hasn't occurred to them to ask the TV networks for content. Theaters still think Hollywood is the only sugar daddy they have.

It's great news that HDTVs will soon get stereoscopic 3D. I just hope Hollywood and movie theaters don't use it as an excuse to replace their projectors yet again. They need to compete against the home market creatively, not by throwing more dollars at the projection booth.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance.

[Apotsy]

People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance.

[Thanshin]

People have been saying that since the VHS home rental market sprang up. Most people were satisfied with that. There is no quality threshold that the stay-at-home crowd is waiting for, it already came long ago.

I think it's a matter of amount of difference. People said that before because the ability to actually see the movie seemed to be the main function. Then we discovered that quality was important enough to grant going to the theater for the best products (movies) and leaving the rest for the home systems.

To dodge the new menace of equal quality we would have to discover the other thing about theaters that make it worth to keep going. And here we reach your other point:

Theaters are a place to go, a thing to do, an experience to enjoy. They will never go away.

Let's see if theaters could reach the timelessness status of restaurants:

- You can't get the same product at home, or it's much more expensive in most cases: This was true for theaters, but as they rely on technology (not on human service), it can end.

- You can't have the same environment at home: Theaters abandoned that route a long time ago. I concede that really nice and pretty theaters could last eternally as an elegant way of spending an afternoon. The rest would have to throw out more than half the clientele, the ones with phones, kids, or an inability to shut up.

- Having the same product at home means some work on your part: This won't help theaters unless your friends really make a mess with the popcorn.

Maybe they'll survive as holographic rooms when people move to smaller and smalled homes, but that's the only chance I see for theaters in 50-100 years from now.

Re:Theaters must win on features, not performance.

[strelitsa]

I think theaters will just die.

What, you don't like sticky floors, being locked in with hypercaffeinated brats who yap on their cell phones all the way through the picture, and the chance of acquiring whatever airborne maladies the sickest of your fellow theatergoers might be suffering from? Man up - what kind of consumer are you? (j/k)

The idea of using a central location to display entertainment content won't die out entirely until one or more of the following happens:

1. The viewing experience can be convincingly replicated at home (minus the negatives I outlined above of course). As home monitors get larger and more technologically advanced, this day is coming.

2. The producers of content (i.e. the studios) stop artificially propping up the horse-and-buggy system of central theaters and make their content directly available to the consumer on a zero-day basis. Again, this is already happening on a small scale. And consumers are starting to force the issue by utilizing P2P to download 1-day movies (invariably with crappy video and sound). So the lesson learned here is make your product available directly to the consumer on zero day the way you want to present it, and you get the twofer of having a new revenue stream as well as destroying the pirate's raison d'etre.

3. The idea of premiering movies at a central location will probably never die out completely because of the promotional value involved in staging premieres. Superfans in costume make great eye candy for the 10 o'clock news. There has to be some way of transferring the paradigm of the world premiere to everybody's living room. I just wish I had the answer to that.

Back in my day we had 1D television....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

... and we were happy!

Re:Back in my day we had 1D television....

[oodaloop]

1D! Oh, to stretch out! Back in MY day, we lived in the 0th dimension and counted ourselves lucky. We didn't even have television. All we did was hang out at the point.

And just when we got rid of flicker

[Animats]

After decades of annoying flicker, strobing, and bad pans at 24FPS, we finally got LCD panels that don't flicker at all. Some monitors even time-interpolate to get the frame rate up, and framefree compression is just starting to work. Now people want to crud it up with alternating-frame stereo. Bleah.

Stereo vision doesn't really do much beyond about 4m or so, and it scales badly for anything that isn't its real size.

There are some very cute 3D systems that are sensitive to head position, so you can move your head and have the scene adjust accordingly. But that doesn't work in theaters.

why?

[speedtux]

I don't get why people want this. Most real-world 3D perception (the kind of scenes you see in movies) derives from motion parallax, not binocular stereo. Trying to use stereo for those scenes is completely unrealistic and visually disturbing.

Also, flat images are kind of scale free, but 3D scenes are not. If you watch Jurassic Park in 3D on your television, you really do see a bunch of 8 inch toy dinosaurs fighting in a little box. Ooh, scary.

Re:why?

[Prune]

That's why you need retinal projection, since with a fast response focusing control you can invoke the additional 3D perception sense the eye generates through accommodation.

Now if only ...

[krkhan]

... they'd start supporting AIGLX/Xgl, we may have real-time Compiz-Fusion effects! I mean, consider this: Me: *Checking my email* Brother: *Walks into the room* Me: *Shouts* GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!! You have stepped in my message box! NO, NOT THERE YOU DUMBASS, that's my 2nd workspace, here *rotates cube* OH DAMN, now you're in the goddamned file manager *Ctrl+Alt+Backspace* Phew, that's better.

Fake 3D

[Sethumme]

I agree that stereoscopic vision is not going to hit the mainstream big time. It's more of a gimmick than anything else, for all the reasons you name. Television programming isn't nearly as accessible when you have to plunk on some headgear every time you want to see what's on the channel.

True 3D means holographic video, which is existing technology (albeit not in the "help me obiwan kenobi, you're my only hope" sense). What's annoying is that any standard based on stereoscopic vision will be incompatible with holographic needs, assuming we switch to holographic video once the bandwidth reaches the necessary capacity. I would much rather see plain old high definition 2-dimensional TV remain the sole medium for broadcasting until holography is ready to take it's place.

The one advantage stereoscopic vision has for commercial programming is that every viewer sitting in any (reasonable) position will see the exact same picture, from the exact same perspective. That's desirable to directors for framing a shot. However, stereoscopic vision is very limited, and if it doesn't succeed even modestly (which I don't believe it will), pushing it forward now will sour the opinion that both broadcasters and viewers have of 3D media generally. That will retard interest and investment in true 3D technology, which is something that could really reshape our media experience.

In short, holographic video is to current television as the television was to radio. Stereoscopic vision, in contrast, is more like smell-o-vision. Unfortunately, funding for holography is usually split among all other "simulated 3D" technology, and will suffer from the deflected focus.

Still, stereoscopic vision might be a boon for the porn industry, if it doesn't end up making your eyes water.

You're our only hope...

[oodaloop]

Holographic TV, that's just what we need. So millions of geeks can watch Star Wars - and chuckle amusingly to themselves when they see a holograph of a holograph. Someone just shoot me now.

Simple, cheap and high quality 3D home theater

[viking80]

You need:
1. A PC with support for two monitors (most)
2. Two projectors
3. Polarizing filters for the projectors (standard from photography store)
4. Polaroid sunglasses (lightweight and cheap)

I suggest circular right and left polarizes. Now set the two projectors next to each other, and superimpose the two images, put on glasses, and voila, you have a great 3D movie theater.

It it great that video standards are emerging, but it you can also DIY.

Still:You could use two cameras, but one camera in "rapid shoot" from a moving vehicle works beautifully; just take two sequential pictures on the two monitors.
Video: More of a hassle, but basically shoot the scenes with two cameras separated like your eyes, and play them. You will have to use special effect to merge the two videos together to get one that spans both monitors, or use video editing tools to synchronize two separate video signals.

Have fun

The new video 3D video standards will help making this easier.

Re:HDTV is overrated

[makapuf]

nope, features (portability, simplicity, stereo, 3D, ...) always (often) beat Quality.

Think Tapes vs cassette, Cinemascope vs VHS, DVD Audio (and HiFi even) vs MP3, LCDs vs. CRT (much better image vs flat screens )...

Maybe SHD is better for you : there will be Audiophiles for 2D (maybe they will be called Pictophiles), but if (and there are many good reasons it might not) 3D catches on, Super ultra 2D high def will be a niche.

This was CLEARLY a joke!

[Hurricane78]

Man, those moderators get weirder en weirder...

In related news,...

[LM741N]

great strides are being made in the use of 3-D DRM. Says Chester Smith of the MPAA, we are now faced with 2 more dimensions to the problem, but I am certain we will prevail.

Current trends...

[DrYak]

several issues will keep 3d from mainstream:
{...}
The fact some people just can't plain see it despite having 2 eyes

Colour blindness hasn't stopped the introduction of colour TV. (BTW: Are people lacking stereo vision legally allowed to drive in the USA ?)

Astigmatism

This is a problem of using correct prescription glasses/contact lenses. In short, nothing to do with a stereo screen.

Battery life of wireless shutter glasses
Looking like a nerd

Well, if you have followed the trend on /. recently, it seems that most hardware maker are working toward cheap auto-stereo display (things that look 3D without glasses, just like the lenticular holograms on some DVD boxes). Which just look like plain simple LCD screens.

Motion sickness
Eye strain
{...}
When what your looking at is far away (like a movie screen), its a lot easier.

And the current trend with the recent introduction of HD TV is to have as big screens as possible. I now the average /. geek like to look movies in the privacy of his laptop. But the average joe 6-pack want to look at movies on the biggest possible honking LCD in his living room.

So to sum up, there aren't as much barriers to the introduction of stereo 3D TV.
And with the current trends in hardware it will be the easiest moment to introduce the technologie (unlike for example after several years, once DVB-T and other handheld TV reaches critical market share. Much hard to implement decent, simple and non nerdy stereo 3d on those devices).

Given the market potential for Porn (obvious reasons) and Sports (given the popularities of tech hacks to help joe 6 pack follow the match, or even systems like Hawk Eye - putting the viewer *inside* the match in 3D would probably be very much enjoyable) the demand for this kind of technology could be good enough to justify considering it.

Speaking of the obvious thought of porn, I'm surprised magazines haven't tried using stereoscopic pictures.

...I've seen Japanese hentai comic book featuring all sort of exotic "bonus artwork". Including even random-dot stereograms. I can ask the friend who owns the books if you want some references.

Re:Current trends...

[JimboFBX]

Astigmatism

This is a problem of using correct prescription glasses/contact lenses. In short, nothing to do with a stereo screen.

No no no, the glasses can GIVE you astigmatism. I've very much noticed this phenomena after using the shutter glasses for extended periods of time. Its temporary but noticeable. It makes me worry if there are any long term effects that may occur if I used this significantly more often than I did.

Of course...

[sapphire wyvern]

Of course consumer 3D television is moving forward. Up/down and left/right are already well taken care of by existing 2D television.

In Defence Of We Lazy Fat Bastards....

[pandrijeczko]

How's this for an idea?

How about all you entertainment and media companies just assume that after a hard day's work, all I really want to do is just sit there and BE ENTERTAINED. Yes, you can have a wedge of my cash for the privelige of doing so and if you make it appealing enough to me then I might just drag my fat lazy ass into the car so I can drive to the local cinema to go see what you have on offer.

But please stop with all this "interactive" and gimmicky shit, okay? I can quite happily sit here in front of my computer for the occasionally half-hour and be thoroughly entertained by a 20-year-old 48kb game called "Jet Set Willy" and then be equally entertained by pounding alien heads in Half-Life 2. I don't ALWAYS need whizzy graphics & 8GB of installed game to be immersed, sometimes simple shit does fine.

Likewise, I don't need to "Pick N Mix" my own songs for my own CD compilation because I'm more than happy to accept that an army of musicians, producers & media types are a whole heap better at that shit than I am - most of the time, I just want to give you some money, take a shiny disk in exchange, throw it into my hifi and let it play, okay?

So please don't think I am sat here waiting for 3D TV because somehow I need to be "more immersed" in your shit, okay? Believe it or not, most of the time a 2D TV, a pizza and a few beers is enough to keep me happy.

How about we make it simple? You keep offering good quality shit at a reasonable price and I will just BUY it so I can watch/read/listen to it.

Just DANCE FOR ME MONKEY BOY! Okay?

Word meaning

[DrYak]

No no no, the glasses can GIVE you astigmatism.

Ok, then I don't think you know what the word mean.

The word "astigmatism" is used to represent a very specific type of vision problem, where the eyes doesn't need the same correction between two axis. In other words, you aren't exactly the same short sighted between the vertical and horizontal axis of the eye (or any other 2 perpendicular axis : could also be two diagonals 90Â appart). If one looks a cross-section of you eye from the bottom, one observes one degree of short-sightedness requiring one type of correction, but when looking from a perpendicular cross section (from the side) one sees a different shape of the eye which gives a different needed correction.

The eye in this case isn't perfectly round but has an ovoid shape. And the lenses needed to correct this kind of problem aren't perfectly concave (or perfectly convex for far-sightedness) but also have a somewhat cylindrical component to their shape.

The symptoms are (when tired and the brain doesn't post-process the perceived image) :
you can't never focus at the same time on vertical and horizontal lines. Somewhat there are always lines that are blurry or have a halo.

-------------------

the thing you're probably referring to is "strabism" - crossing eyes or seeing things doubled.
It's something that adapts very quickly and is completely benign. People can spend months with eyes train to focus in a certain way, and then switch to something different as a matter of hours. In fact that happens to people who are heavily short sighted : most prescription glasses for them are *really* thick and you start to see spherical aberrations the edge of the visible field are distorted (lines - or at least lines big enough to be visible even with the short sighted-ness - when crossing the edge of the glasses seem doubled). Whereas, contact lenses don't have this, with them everything looks exactly as if seems through "eyes without problems".
With glasses, when looking on one's side, the brain has the habit to focus both eyes in a certain way (due to the thick glasses) and when switching to contact lenses, the brain has to re-adapt because the eyes have to be positioned differently one respective to the other to focus on the same point - all this is only a matter of minutes.

This is due to the fact the most of the eye focusing is done based on the visual input. The pre-wired reflexes only serves for the gross overall direction and to somewhat stabilise in case of motion. Thus if the image changes, the brain is quick to use new focus settings.

If your 3d stereo glasses (or even worse, your head-mounted stereo display) isn't perfectly aligned, the brain will have to focus the eyes to a slightly different position and you'll experience doubled vision when removing the device. A proper stereo display should be configured in such way that infinitely far image align perfectly when looking straight ahead.