Japan Will Start 3D TV Programming This Summer

An anonymous reader writes "Japan HD TV operator Sky Perfect will start 3D programming this summer, with focuses on live events and sports events. As more Hollywood movies are shot in 3D, and 3D TVs are expected to come onto the market in the very near future, Sky Perfect is hoping that people will switch to 3D TV just like people switched from black and white to color. How about 3D TV in other countries?"

Comments

3Ality and Sky TV...

[longacre]

...will be broadcasting today's Manchester United vs. Arsenal match in 3D, which I believe will be the first live 3D sports broadcast in Europe (though it's only being piped in to nine pubs in the UK).

ESPN will launch a 3D network in June, though content will be limited.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[Itninja]

I don't think you understand the technology you are railing against.

OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing

That's how all digital media is. It either works or it doesn't.

either polarizing glasses (which...through psychological effects...gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)

That's completely wrong. There is nothing 'psychological' about how polarizing 3D works. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen the two words together. It's just fancy stereoscopy.

Though I done completely agree that home 3D is little more than a novelty. If it becomes a fad, I hope it dies quickly like VR did.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[Hadlock]

My question is, once we all own 3D, high def TVs, where do manufacturers go from there? 24" displays with HDMI/DVI in are already in the $120 range (NEW - see newegg), the 30" used market is about to become flooded in the next 2-3 years driving prices down to $100-180. People will continue to buy 40" HDTVs but anyone who works at subway or starbucks can afford or has already bought one. I guess 40" displays break and wear out, but HDTV sales are either going to level out or drop off a very steep cliff in the next 2-3 years.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[emurphy42]

How polarizing 3D does work (I got to see and hear about this at a conference last year):

1. You're shown two overlapping images. One, corresponding to what your left eye should see, is polarized (say) horizontally; the other, corresponding to what your right eye should see, is polarized vertically.
2. The lenses are oriented so that the left one only lets horizontally-polarized light through, and the right one only lets vertically-polarized light through. Thus, each eye sees what it should, and fails to see what the other eye should.

As usual, Wikipedia has more on the techniques and options.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[Anonymous Coward]

In theaters, the recent trend has been to use circularly polarized glasses.

Re:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[bertok]

The glasses I got for Avatar don't seem to be linearly polarised.

That's because they used circular polarizers. One clockwise, and one counter-clockwise. They're more expensive to make than linear polarizers, but don't resulting in ghosting if you tilt your head. I guess they got the filters cheap enough.

Re:Meh

[antifoidulus]

I have the same problem, in fact I cannot watch 3d movies out of both eyes if I have my glasses on(and at least in a theatre, I cannot see jack shit without them). I can actually watch it out of one eye at a time, but squinting for 2 hours is hardly the definition of fun.

Re:Meh

[Asclepius99]

I actually wonder if quickly improving 3D TV could hurt the market. I think this will definitely be a market people are going to be very wary entering into it and companies constantly saying a newer better 3D TV will be out in a year or two (pretty soon to be changing TVs) might confuse people about when exactly they should jump in.

Re:Meh

[mattr]

But 3d TV requires glasses

False. Some displays do not require glasses.

Just google for: 3d tv no glasses
1 2 3 4 5

Polarised != Pulfrich

[Dogtanian]

3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)

You're confusing polarising glasses (which someone else explained) with those which exploit the Pulfrich effect.

Polarised glasses require the images for each eye to use (differently) polarised light, so they don't work with ordinary non-polarised TV or cinema screens. However, they don't have the limitations you describe here:-

which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction

That applies to the Pulfrich system. However, the Pulfrich system does have the advantage of working perfectly fine with ordinary TVs. In fact the BBC used it for several programmes in 1993 (most notably on a Doctor Who "special").

Technically, the system worked quite well, although it didn't stop the Doctor Who special being absolutely f****** horrid.

Why would football be better in 3D?

[Overzeetop]

At the distances involved with practically all televised shots, there is almost no difference in view from right to left eye - i.e. we see the actual game as a 2D representation, even when live. 3D becomes more apparent inside about 20 feet (no cite, just experience), which is why in every 3D movie you can say "oooh - they put that right in my face for a cool 3D effect".

Wrestling? Okay - I can see some application there, as all the action is close up, but for almost all TV, I think it's a waste.

3D-D wrapup

[earlymon]

http://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-news/discovery-communications-sony-and-imax-announce-pl/

Yep - a 24/7 fully dedicated 3D network in the US.

I think 3D is an epic fail right out of the gate. Autostereoscopy has been on the market already, so the whole add glasses thing is idiotic.

Samsung showed it at this year's CES, but it didn't get the big exposure... but still, it's out there:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1379458976&play=1

Autostereoscopic info here (one example) - meaning, 3D without glasses:

http://www.xyz3d.tv/

In addition - 3D headsets with 1.44 megapixel/eye glasses have been out for some time. All it would take would be a few minor upgrades, and for about a grand, you'd have the equivalent of a 3D 70" set at 13'. See, for example:

http://www.i-glassesstore.com/ig-hrvpro.html

Oh - and wait for it - the Blu-ray kiddies have decided that the correct term is now 3-D, not 3D, unless it is.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3924

A note on spelling

Earlier this year, the blu-ray.com team unanimously decided to use the spelling "3-D", with a hyphen, for everything related to stereoscopic images, and "3D", without a hyphen, for three-dimensional graphics and animation. We shall continue to do so, except when citing the name of the "Blu-ray 3D" specification, which doesn't use the hyphen.

OBTW - Did we all notice that the proposed tech is going to eat an additional 50% of bandwidth? For those suffering from compression/decompression artifacting - read: for everyone with digital cable or satellite HD - it's going to get worse as the 3D premiums are added. Woot!

I loved David Pogue's view (amusing as always) on 3D TV in his Truth Serum video.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1386497920&play=1

Let's not forget - the Avatar craze was with circularly polarized PASSIVE GLASSES - not Bluetooth'd active shutters!

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/164200,3d-tv-buzz-at-ces-2010-just-another-gimmick-or-should-you-hang-onto-those-avatar-glasses.aspx

I think this is a simple case of **I AM** ready for 3D-D ... ready to wait until it dies or makes sense!

BTW - Let's not forget Johnny Lee's head-tracking system (if you watch nothing else - watch this!!) - at least that was cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw