Slashdot Mirror
UK's Channel 4 To Broadcast In 3D
fatnickc writes "The UK's Channel 4, from the 16th of September, will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D, the full list of which can be found here. While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert aren't exactly groundbreaking, this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity, paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future. In partnership with retailer Sainsbury's, Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses so that as many people as possible can watch them, although it's unclear which of the various types they'll be. "
I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
No, 16th November
Why is this tagged BBC? Channel 4 is independent of the BBC and runs adverts.
It's got to be Red/Green for the glasses, only tech which will be universal for all TVs.
Besides which, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "greatest ever 3D moments". Any 'greatest' list that includes Jaws 3(D) and the American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist.
Still, I love Udo Kier so I'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein (and once against try to place his accent)
Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.
Why don't just everybody produce thing for free?
They're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of "Chuck" in this system. I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first. They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.
Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.
From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.
I'm blind in one eye. What will this get me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect
unfortunatly, for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti_Frutti_(1990_TV_series)
bickerdyke
if they transmit a 3D boxe match, remember to stay very far from the TV screen, or you will be seriously injured.
This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television. The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993, among them a Dr. Who special, but the experiment didn't catch on then. Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago, also.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
DURR!
i trol u!
"it's unclear which of the various types they'll be"
It has in fact been clear what type they'll be for several months, since this was announced mid-August in fact: ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters. Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury's yesterday (and possibly before). http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn
And behold, a command prompt and he who sat upon it, his name was shutdown and -h 3:11 followed with him
A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert, you had to have 3D glasses of course, first time i have seen something like this live. After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it, 96% (or 94%?) said yes.
You can see the video in YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y
The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start (so you can safely skip 45 seconds).
Yay! Goodbye brainless 2D crap, hello brainless 3D crap and migraines!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Sooo, presumably the downside is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance. Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses, or who strongly dislike wearing them (for instance, glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses); for these people, the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program.
Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Miley Cyrus, 3D ... How will we be able to tell. It will still look pretty flat to me. If you are doing 3D atleast put something on screen that will stand out.
Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.
But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique can't be imitated on TV panels. Instead they're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.
Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?
In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.
I avoid 3D movies, and I'll avoid 3D video. Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway. And regardless of how good the effect is, I am not wearing any moldy 3D glasses out of the 1980s for any reason.
I'm sure that movie studios are spitting with rage over home 3D. It's about the only qualitative USP that cinema has over home theatre right now.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Maybe OT, but Sainsbury's are also selling Modern Warfare 2 for £26 (less than half RRP), so now there's two reasons to shop there...
Real 3D, as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen, is mind-blowing. Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible.
I don't know if they're being developed but I suspect that we'll see TVs/monitors that are capable of producing differently polarized light for each eye. It's much better system since you don't get the awful color distortion of the blue/orange system. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to do since LCD screens already operate by manipulating the polarization of light to tune the intensity of each pixel. One more liquid crystal layer and a quarter-waveplate would do it so the technology is clearly there.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.
This happens every 10-15 years (just like it does in the cinema). I remember Channel 4 (I think) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan (which, unlike red/green gave some, limited, colour).
Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as "never gonna catch on" - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message. Even if the systems improve, that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving, 3D scene with a 20" window without giving the viewer a migraine every time an object gets clipped.
You'd pretty much have to rewind to the early "point a couple of cameras at a stage-play" era of movie making and start re-inventing the "language of film" from scratch.
The only thing that might have changed this time round is that more people have large/wide screen TVs which might make it marginally more impressive.
I guess the reason that 3D has flared up in the cinema again now is the popularity of computer-animated movies, which must be relatively easy make in 3D. Probably quite cool, too, if you're in Pixar HQ, sitting 2' away from a high def monitor wearing your LCD shutter specs.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Oooooh, scary!
In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.
Not 3D. /pedant
I have a $2500 3D setup at home. 2 720p projectors, each going through polarized lenses, onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light. I took my gaming computer (cost not included), installed the iz3d drivers, and now every game I play is in full 3D. Yeah, I have to wear glasses, but so what? I wear glasses when it's bright outside, too. Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors, polarized sheets, and a teleprompter's mirror. If you have something with a high refresh-rate, you can also use shutter glasses. And there are some monitors that allow 3D without glasses as long as you keep your head in the right position.
Anyways, the gaming experience is unreal. This setup has an unrivaled level of immersion. Horror games are truly terrifying. Racing is a serious adrenaline rush. And even MMORPG's are a little more fun when you're experiencing depth. I just played through Mirrors Edge last month and I'm still grinning about how fun it was.
So, now there is a small but growing group of homes that have 3D gaming rigs; those are the true 3D cinema customers. Right now, they got nothing aside from a few documentaries and dirty movies. While I sympathize a little with the apparent need of consumers for everything to be extremely simple, plug-and-play, and universally compatible, I wish someone would step up and fill the market for those of us who aren't afraid to do something a little more complicated.
Welcome back to 1990. Same dodgy 3D glasses that probably every household in England had, same rubbish colours and fairly iffy 3D once the novelty wears off. Only with blue/yellow instead of red/green. Progress!
THE TERMINATOR ONE MILLION IS GOING TO STAB YOUR EYES OUT RAWWWR!!!!!
(some gratuitous lowercase letters with a sprinkling of spaces for good measure)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's stereo.
Similar to stereo audio not being binaural audio.
Because there is only one fixed viewing angle and focus plane. Which is also the reason for the additional eye strain.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The scientific implications of this are staggering. 4% of people called into a show they couldn't see when asked to call in on said show. HOW! We NEED TO KNOW! Why is the government trying to cover this up!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, actually, you didn't. You watched it in stereo - two static viewing angles, one per eye, that give you exactly one perspective on the content. 3D would allow you to see the performance from many viewing angles -- for instance, from the left or from the right. Stereo is a far more limited approach. It is a common error, propounded by bad marketing, that characterizes stereo media as 3D. Geeks should know better.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
*A hypnotic voice talks in the back of your head*
When you hear the trigger-word "cleaner", you will send all your money to me; (the bank account details will follow soon by e-mail).
Thank you very much for doing business with you, we love customers like you.
Toodooloo, and remember, customer is always right!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
The polarized 3D movies are nothing like the anaglyphic stuff that the BBC is planning to use here. Polarized stereooptics (RealD, IMAX3D, and others) works by getting light to arrive at the viewers eyes from two different angles, and filtering so one set of angled light exclusively hits the left eye, and the other hits the right. Unlike anaglyphic, the colors themselves are not used to filter. As a result, it looks vastly better than the anaglyphic filtering you get with the cheapie red/cyan glasses. To set this up polarized stereooptics in the home is currently pretty expensive, like $xx,xxx, so the home viewing experience of 3D TV is going to be cheap and gimmicky until that changes.
Also, the glasses they hand out are big enough to go over your normal glasses. I'm doubling up on the specs myself, and it doesn't bother me.
While TV shows and productions are becoming more and more like those proposed in Idiocracy, I believe that 3D will not make them better (in cultural terms). However, I guess "Ow, not my balls" will be really good in 3D.
Where do I get this catalog?
A bad movie is a bad movie, no matter how many gimmicks you throw at it.
The heart of a good movie is a good screenplay, that is a good, consistent, plot.
Most people that have watched 3D films so far agree that 3D adds precious little to what makes a film good or bad, 3D is mostly a gimmick aimed at children first (or child like minded people) and at piracy second, which is why you will see several efforts in the next couple of years to translate the 3D experience to TV screens: they will want to replicate the experience when you buy a DVD.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.