Slashdot Mirror
Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network
adeelarshad82 writes "In a surprising endorsement for 3D display technology, Sony Corp. of America, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corp. have announced plans to form a US television network entirely devoted to 3D programming. The three parties have signed a letter of intent to form the unnamed venture, which is scheduled to launch in 2012. The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to purchase 3D-enabled TVs." Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage, which points out that this prospective network won't be the first: "Earlier Tuesday, ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D' in June 2010. The channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year."
They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this. It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights. Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?
This is about the point where HD was in 1999. Announced, but not quite online yet and only limited programs are being broadcast. Channels are so light on content they sign off rather than take up bandwidth when they've got nothing to show. This will make more sense when the devices are out and priced like an HD set is today... we're just not there yet.
If I have to use stupid red/green or red/blue glasses count me out. now, the weird polarized glasses (or whatever) they use in theaters now would be awesome.
Which cam first
the 3D TV or the 3D Network ?
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
I heard from a trusted source that it's going to be called ADHD3DTV.
Won't be needing 3D TV ... ever.
Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.
I'll be skipping blu-ray.
Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.
The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"
-with apologies to Michael Kupperman, the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Yay headaches? :(
Why is 3D somehow better? They cause eye strain, and the average house watches how many hours of TV a week? This might not just be a bad marketing gimmick -- it could actually be a public health hazard.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You're tuned to the Headache Channel.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Seriously, this launch is a bit premature. Sure, such technologies exist, but with no market for it.
Unless they're requiring red and blue glasses, no one can watch it in 3D -- 3D broadcasting requires 240hz televisions alongside enough shutter glasses to cover a 20+ person sports gathering.
The American consumer is already tapped out on debt, since they maxed out their credit cards on flat-panel HDTVs in the age of subprime lending, and are probably only using them to watch low-res basic cable now that they have to pay the bills.
It'll be a good 10-15 years before 3D broadcasting will even be considered normal. Yet it's not entirely stupid -- in the business world, people still fall for the "Reagan Star Wars" tactic. Just convince the competition you're revolutionary and they'll waste all their cash trying to catch up to something infeasible...
12:00 am to 6:30 am: 3D infomercials
6:30 am: 3D National Anthem
6:35 am: Scripture Study with Rev. Harlon Stereo
6:45 am: Davey & Goliath in the Land of Three Dimensions
7:00 am: Bwana Devil
9:00 am: House of Wax
11:00 am: Treasure of the Four Crowns
1:00 pm: Pixar Trailer Compilation
2:00 pm: House of Wax
4:00 pm: 3D National News from the rim of the Grand Canyon
6:00 pm: Simpsons 3D episode
6:30 pm: Viewmaster Travelogue Presents: Beautiful Holland.
7:00 pm: House of Wax
9:00 pm: Stetson's Hangout (premiere) Sitcom featuring the wacky exploits of the Tosser Family. In this epiode, Stetson Tosser throws snakes, soiled diapers and a bowl of Jell-0 at the camera.
9:30 pm: Lacrosse championships from Watertown, NY. In 3D.
11:00 pm: Late News hanging from a platform on the side of the Empire State Building
11:30 pm: Viewmaster Showcase: Bible Stories
What about 3D cinema.
Sony and IMAX are more known for doing movies... but it's Disney's Pixar and Viacom's DreamWorks that's doing most of the HD movies. IMAX tends to like to upconvert major releases, but they've got limited processing power so they can't do everything... yet.
We all know how much people tend to spend in recessions. People are sure to go out and buy incredibly expensive 3D television sets!
side of entertainment. 3d Video games can already provide the experience with a 3d monitor with little rewriting and so could the OS. Then there will be CAD like programs.
I don't know why the industry is trying to push it from the TV side of things, 1st adopters are usually computer geeks. Push stuff out there and see if people want it.
I like 3D movies, but until they have holograms down, I don't want to be watching TV with glasses or even see 3D all that much to begin with.
Ask yourself this: When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what? This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."
Sony certainly is, if you're going by Big 5-6 movie studios, being larger than either of NBCU, Newscorp or Disney in 2008 according to wikipedia. Arguably, Sony might historically have had a stronger identity in its electronics branch, but after Howard "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet" Stringer took over it seems to be shifting over from not being entirely competitive in the electronics market to trying to be a 'media company'. Which may not exactly be a brilliant idea these days. And with a CEO like that, they've certainly become a company I avoid handing any money to as far as far as possible.
if you can stand Dr. Tongue's "3D House of Stewardesses," this has a chance. lame concept, will have lame execution, even lamer if they play "let's break the fourth wall."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The list below was quickly trawled up on google, I dont discount you could be right.
My main point is media companies seem to see 3d as some saviour giving a unique selling point whilst protecting demand (profit) from pirates.
Sorry, try your "I hate the future" speech a little bit more.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Avatar is what people are saying.
The IMAX in Melbourne is booked solid into next week for Avatar. I have never seen it more than 30% full in the 15 or so years it has been open.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Man, I know exactly what you mean! This reminds me of that lame device with "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad". Who the hell is going to buy that!?
Think about it... all the excitement and thrills of an M:tG tournament RIGHT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!
Maybe ESPN will do the World Championships again?
Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.
Right, because Sony is one of the big content companies, so, you are right, they aren't owned by one of the big content companies.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
tThHiIsS iIsS tThHeE vVeErRyY fFiIrRsStT tThHrReEeE dD pPoOsStT
cCaAuUtTiIoOnN mMaAyY cCaAuUsSeE nNaAuUsSeEaA
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Sony is a minor player in television, most of what they do there is game shows.
As a former Sony fanboi I have to say that if the 3D TVs are made by Sony then I _won't_ be buying one. If its a premium pay channel i won't be patronizing it. I am done with Sony and their shenanigans. They are malicious to their customers, They are rabid RIAA/MPAA attack dogs, And they lobby clueless US politicians relentlessly to criminalize normal behavior. And now they want to close the analog hole, intoduce DRM broadcast flags, etc. etc. FUCK Sony. They are ruthless bastards.
"Boy, those Bloody foreigners! They have a different word for everything." - Apologies to Steve Martin
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
replace 3D infomercials with Push PPV HD 3D movies
Sorry to be a pedant, but it's only 3D when I can walk around the TV and see things from every angle. This is stereoscopic; "3D" from only one viewpoint by tricks of the eyes+brain.
Wouldn't it be great if somebody created a cam capture of Avatar 3D with one camera looking through the left lens of the glasses, and the other camera looking through the right lens? Then they could package them together in some format and people can watch them on existing 3D monitors that use glasses. I looked at some movie sites and they have Avatar "telesyncs" but no 3D versions, too bad. I wonder if any of the 3D TVs at CES will be showing Avatar, that would be good too.
Reality is coiling up in preparation for a big paradigm shift; we've all been seeing the signs, and the collective human awareness, like a fleet of little paddle boats on the sea, is carried along with it. Those little boats which are well constructed, which are not loaded down with excess baggage, which are sensibly captained. . , these can rise with the wave. But those which are leaky and poorly held together and that are pointing every which-way, will capsize. Or so the logic runs. . .
Anyway, the collective subconscious is always many steps ahead of the Now, and is constantly sounding alarms in our conscious lives. The book which falls off the shelf at your feet is the one to read. For some reason, James Cameron is, in my opinion, tuned hard-core into this vibe. His messages have always carried a lot of metaphoric heft. The more one looks at his films, the more one sees. This is even true with a romance like Titanic! With the sinking economy and the ship of state being constantly referred to, I can't escape from the raw images of the Titanic going down with all hands despite its power and grandeur. It offers a touchstone of metaphor which I always have in my head, though I doubt he was thinking of it as such when it was created. But that's how the subconscious works. When the news tells us, "The economy is sinking!", James Cameron has provided the easy visuals for everybody to tap into.
Anyway. . ,
Avatar brings many new and sharp ideas to the surface. There's the whole UFO phenomenon which few ever want to talk about, much less study well enough to be able to talk about it intelligently should they ever choose to. Ignorance rules the day with many. (For the love of Pete, read Richard Dolan!) And beyond that, I suspect that as the finishing touches are put on humanity's complete take-over, we'll begin to understand colonialism from a whole new perspective. James Cameron is tuned right in.
And the interesting thing is that our media reflects the changes in more than just subject. As 3D beings, our ability to communicate through media is largely done by manipulating the levels beneath we have already mastered; 1D and 2D. Switching up a level of awareness will presumably allow for an expansion into power over 3D visual media. That Avatar contained such relevant messages regarding Alien invasion, colonialism, and spiritualism also happened to be wrapped up in a 3D delivery media. . , well, I find that intriguing.
But then, I'm a patterns guy. I see and read and think the stuff few people are capable of getting past their knee-jerk emotional control systems to process without feeling sick, -and who can blame them? (Other than me on a shitty day. Sorry guys.), so I get to play, "Assemble a picture from countless seemingly disparate pieces". -And then put up with the automatic abuse offered by others for not playing with my Lego bricks according to the official rules. But whatever; it's a small and ever-shrinking price to pay for an increasingly useful scope of vision.
So 3D telly in our homes? What does it mean? I can sum it up with one quote:
"The medium is the message!"
-FL
"Better in 3D" is a bit misleading for Avatar. It is more accurate to say that Avatar is just a display of 3D effects, so seeing it in 2D is silly.
why don't you and YOUR GOD go eff yourself, I want 3D porn already.
Doc Brown "Great Scott Marty! Can you imagine what this will do for Pron?"
Marty - "I've got MS, who gives a ****?, Wait, is Rachel Hunter going to appear in a Delorean?"
Picture resolution, imho, will allow you to enjoy programming more-so then 3D.
There's like a 100 posts and not single mention of 3D porn and not a single 3D porn joke.
3D World Series of Poker.
But its available in normal cinemas in 3D too, like crown.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Another fucking ESPN for me to be forced to pay for and never watch.
Right now. I'm watching football (Orange Bowl) on my HDTV. This is good, but it would be better if it was in 3D.
Also, nature documentaries. They're beautiful in HD, but they'd be even better in 3D.
Whether I'd pay extra or wear uncomfortable glasses is another matter. But if I had the choice between 2D and 3D for those programs without significant cost or inconvenience, I'd choose 3D every time.
That's the same phenomenon as color, stereo, high definition, and surround sound. At the time that each was introduced it was a luxury and only gimmicky shows made much use of them. But eventually they became cheap, standard, and ubiquitous.
Yeah. I got some cheap tickets from work before Christmas. I will probably go along this week.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Just when I caved and bought my 58-plasma, now they're gonna make it obsolete? Will this work on existing TVs?
The 3D effects were blurry and made me feel nauseous.
Furthermore, everyone else in the theater was a nerd. Everyone but me had these big thick plastic glasses on.
I really don't see what the hype was about.
Howard "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet" Stringer
That was some music industry guy at Sony BMG, not Stringer.
...for the 3D infomercials alone! Can you imagine all the crazy gimmicks they'll be pulling to hold your attention? It will blow your miiiiiiiinnnnd, man!!
Breakfast served all day!
Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.
I'll be skipping blu-ray.
Why one man's opinion gets a mod-up to *3, Informative on Slashdot remains a mystery to me.
Avatar grossed $1 Billion US Dollars in eighteen days. Up delivered a very respectable $293 million.
I'll take that as evidence the 3D experience does matter.
"Content" is more than just TV. If you meant TV content you should have specified.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
In the beginning, there was 1D, but people started dreaming of 2D so we got tv.
Everytime I watch a movie or play a game I tell myself : It would be so much better in virtual reality with a datajack with infinite movies in parallel with sensations.
Please dream about technology or we won't progress
I understand that the brain see's the 2 signals and puts them together to give the impression that an object is 3D.
I'm curious to know what long term use of this would have on the brain. Will a brain try to rewire itself to see the 2 distinct images without the 3D "error"? Is this something that over generations will genetically change so that people can no longer use 3D televisions.
I know that 3D televisions will probably be long obsolete before the genes could change to prevent the 3D effect.
is amazingly realistic. Cameron didn't make a big deal out of it, no hammers flying out into the audience like some of the earlier 3D films. It's used almost incidentally, just to make the scenes appear as if you are in them. I found it remarkably effective as part of making me live in the film.
Time to file frivolous, but lucrative lawsuits against Sony, ESPN, and the Discovery Channel under the guise of the American's with Disabilities Act. Hooray for money!
Don't look now, but it appears the movie industry is attempting to ... uh ... innovate. That would be a sound business model.
But I'm sure they'll keep trying to copyright the letters A through Z (only those letters used after 1936, of course). That would be their current, entrenched business model.
3D juggs coming your way..
Ask yourself this: When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what? This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."
There are three kinds of liars about porn:
1) Those who say they've never seen any
2) Those who say they tried it once, but didn't like it
3) Those who say they've never thought about how awesome it would be in 3D.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
I'll wait for 4D.
The amazing thing is that hollywood have managed to get everyone to accept this technology as '3D'.
They are actually stereoscopic movies. Stereo vision being just one cue that our brain uses to interpret the 3D world along with perspective, parallax, atmospheric colour.. And one that works mainly for things that are within our arms reach.
I saw avatar in '3D' and '2D'. The '3D' version really doesnt add a lot. And there is nothing more lame than the shots where objects approach the camera just to show off the technology.
3D can’t be ripped over the analog hole, it requires digital connections, which have DRM in them, or which allows them to push through new hardware... for about five days, when someone cracks that too, and sticks the thing in a MKV container.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
...unless they find a way of making it work without goggles or additional gear. Would you wear a pair of glasses every time you feel like watching TV? I know i wouldn't.
I've watched a couple of movies in 3D. The effect works just fine - we're leaps and bound ahead of the days of red-and-green glasses. Maybe someone will find a more creative way of using this technology, but right now, 3D doesn't really add much to the experience IMHO. Unless you feel directly into the 3D world it's just a bit of depth perception at the cost of a dimmer, lower quality image.
Don't get me wrong, try it if you haven't. Just don't expect to feel like throwing your old 2D TV after.
This is nothing more than the industry having settled on a hardware redundancy lifecycle in order to drive periodic sales, gone are the days of buying a radio / record player / reel to reel / television and the damn thing still worked 20 years later.
Even if it works, there will be no media.
Since there is no media, there is no point building it so it will still work.
I have a 49 year old Sony Tapecorder 500 reel to reel that still works, my dad bought it new. Essentially there is no media for it. (yeah, via the internet I can buy blank, try buying content though)
consume, consume, consume.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
I saw Avatar and was happy most of it was NOT 3D gimmicks...but I fear. When I set up my 5.1 sound system, I was annoyed to find that the best encoded programming was the commercials. Not only louder, but in full 5.1...... I can hardly wait for 3d....commercials....NOT. I'm old enough to remember "Quadraphonic" sound.....this looks like the 2010 version.
Unless people whose brain fails to rewire itself get killed off before they can reproduce, then, no, evolution isn't going to change a damn thing.
You're falling prey to the Lamarck mistake, thinking that characteristics acquired during life are somehow passed on to offspring. They're not. The only way evolution proceeds is by the differential reproductive success of different genetic patterns.
In other words, if you make the usual assertions, you're safe in predicting that humanity will evolve to be puzzled and uninterested in /., since the usual belief is that being interested in /. implies reproductive nonsuccess.
That still doesn't prevent half the video games that come out using purple/pink/red/cyan/dark blue/light blue as the major team colors.
If you don't like cream and crimson, don't play as Indiana University.
A "Blu-ray DVD" player is a player that can play both BD video and DVD video discs. "Blu-ray DVD" discs are a packaging gimmick that Disney is using: bundle discs in both formats so that people who own a DVD player can still watch the movie, but they get a resolution improvement once they buy the new player.
And once again, Sam36 simultaneously saves 8 orphans from the brink of death with his magnificent, amazing, totally-worth-the-time-to-type-even-though-it's-at-the-bottom-of-the-page-with-a-negative-one-score comment! Thanks for being productive bro!
Sony owns Columbia Pictures and MGM. In fact, the big difference between Columbia and the five other members of the MPAA is that Columbia doesn't share a corporate parent with a U.S. television news outlet.
True.
And your TV can only display yellow by tricks of the eyes+brain.
My interpretation of what goes on is this: there's a red dot and a green dot close to each other. These emit intensity-equal streams of "red photons" and "green photons" (of appropriate wavelengths). Pairs of these hit neighbouring cones in your eye, the long-wavelength cone reacting to the red photon and the medium-wavelength cone reacting to the green photon.
Your brain then (acts as if it) assumes the activations of the cones were due to the same photon source. But the only way for one photon source to activate the long and medium wavelength cones equally is if the photon source is yellow.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision
Pedantry is fun. And the brain always computes on the information it is fed; there's never raw access (what would that even mean?).
Not surprisingly, we design display/video technology such that after processing by our brains, we have the desired perception.
So what if it's stereoscopic and not real 3D? The real world is always viewed through a stereoscopic lens (figuratively speaking).
A corollary of Rule 34.
I felt a bit queasy when the movie first started but that went away once my sense of balance decided to sit the movie out. Afterwards the floor seemed a bit shaky until it decided to wake up and start doing its regular work.
I do that every day. I didn't even have to ask, the answer was right there.
I have personal reasons for wanting 3D handily available, partly because it adds apparent detail. I'm not sure if I can explain it properly but, assuming 1024x768 for a starting point:
Polarized light displays let you have 1024x768 for each eye. That doesn't translate into 1024x768x2 pixels, because your brain doesn't work that way. But the 3D perception gives you more context for the existing detail. Object relationships are clearer, and the barrier between objects goes from being a straight line to a spatial separation.
In theory, 3D should give you 1024x768xInfinity, because it is supposed to represent the X and Y coordinates as well as Z (depth).
I have noticed additional detail in movies at home between 2D and 3D, even with anaglyph type separation. Coraline was the one - it didn't even have the benefit of polarized display, so both eyes had to be packed into the same space as 3D. But it seemed clearer in 3D.
As a thought experiment, anaglyph DVD at 720x480 (345600) would be split into two 360x240 images, one for each eye. So you essentially get 360x240x240, assuming the Z axis resolution cannot exceed the minimum of X and Y, or an apparent resolution of 20736000, a 60-fold increase in data. For polarized digital movies in 2k, that's 2048×1080 (2211840), which doesn't have to be split. 3D might give you 2048×1080*1080, a 1080-fold increase in data density. You can't see through objects or around them so you don't get 1080 times more data, but you do get an apparent increase assuming a static viewpoint.
I have no idea if this actually plays out, but based on my observations it would be a good subject for a Doctoral thesis: How to calculate (or quantify) the actual net information gain when using 3D vs 2D.
When I saw Avatar, I tried closing one eye and had trouble distinguishing objects - it was one big mess. With 3D, the spatial separation allowed additional context so I could easily and intuitively distinguish objects or textures. Something so alien is difficult to process, unless it is introduced slowly enough that you can make out what's attached to what, which parts are moving or not. With 3D, you can skip that part and let the perception engine in your cranium figure it out the way it does in the real world.
3D is really a trick, I think it is exaggerated compared with reality, so I put it in the special-effects pile, not one step closer to reality. Just another trick in the bag, which can be used to great effect if used smartly, and hinder where it's not needed.
Answer: Me, fucking your Karma on a heart shaped bed, bitch.
Avatar has just grossed US$1B, helped along mightily by the more expensive tickets of the 3D release.
Oh well, there goes that revenue stream for the movie industry. I had assumed 3D their brainchild way out of all the "lost profits" from piracy. Soon 3D will be nothing special and nobody will want to pay extra for the tickets. At least the boost in grosses may have eased their foul whining about piracy for a while.
Of course I'm in Australia, where a 3D movie ticket is $20. My impression is that's a bit more than other countries.
Personally I really enjoyed the *subtle* 3D visuals of Avatar.. like doing a "fern-dolly" through the forest, with all the beautiful greenery coming out at me.. that was nice! Apart from that, 3D just distracts me from the *story*. I don't need 3D fonts or even coloured lettering to profoundly appreciate a good book. That would distract me from relaxing and absorbing what I'm reading. Same with movies, unless of course you're James Cameron and story isn't a factor.
The live-action scenes looked terrible.. actors looked like cardboard cut-outs against the 3D background. Perhaps the combination of live action on 3D CGI is yet to be fine-tuned.. but it was quite jarring for me. It may be the last 3D movie I ever see, at least until 3D becomes part of the *art* of movie making instead of a distracting gimmick. But points to Cameron for being relatively subtle with it.
I've since seen it again, from a 1.4GB avi file on my not-quite-wide-enough TV. Strangely, I enjoyed it just as much - brainless and disappointing climax/ending notwithstanding. James Cameron is an artist of detail, immersion and lead-up, but that doesn't make up his inability to write a story that has meaning. But then he's a movie-maker, not an author. The inspiration behind Avatar cried out for a real story to go along with it, but we got stereotypes and robot exoskeletons again. Epic yet empty, at best vainglorious, climactic confrontation.. again.
Such an evocative, immersive, even emotive journey, beautifully set up... just to take us *there* again?
I really loved the lead-up, all of us had tears and excited grins. Zoe Saldana was incredible, truly leading us into another realm. That's why I truly hate the let-down so much. The going-nowhere story. It could have had real meaning and been so much more.