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

Meh

[Antony-Kyre]

If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

Re:Meh

[Trepidity]

Yeah, that's why it doesn't seem quite analogous to me. There's no real practical downside to a B&W->Color switch. There is some artistic interest in B&W over color, but it's fairly niche. But 3d TV requires glasses, which 2d TV doesn't, a big practical difference. And I think the number of people who find 3d annoying / motion-sickness-inducing / etc. to watch, and prefer 2d even just aesthetically, will be greater than the number who prefer b&w over color.

Here's what a 1997 review article (from Displays 17(2):100-110) concluded:

[A] broad range of fairly mature 3-D equipment is already on the market. The available systems, however, suffer from the drawback that users have to wear special devices to separate the left eye's and right eye's images. Such "aided viewing" systems have been firmly established in many professional applications. Yet further expansion to other fields will require "free viewing" systems with improved viewing comfort and closer adaptation to the mechanisms of binocular vision. The respective technologies are still under development.

...which is pretty much the state of technology in 2010 as well.

Re:Meh

[DrXym]

I remember going to some trade show some 15 years ago where a variety of 3D devices were on display and to be honest the state of the art has barely advanced since then. The displays may have changed from CRT to LCD / plasma / DLP but they still require special glasses to watch 3D.

The first manufacturer to produce a 3D display that works over a wide viewing angle without glasses is going to make a fortune.

Re:Meh

[Third Position]

If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?

Probably not enough to make it viable. Do you remember quadrophonic sound from the 70's? Another cute technology that turned out to have an unfavorable benefit to pain-in-the-ass ratio. Those kind of things don't tend to catch fire in the commercial market. Wake me up they figure out how to do it without the glasses.

Re:Meh

[Inda]

I already have to wear glasses to see the TV. Am I expected to wear a second pair because the ones I've seen wont exactly fit over the glasses I'm wearing now? No one seems to be answering this question.

Will I have to buy yet another pair of prescription glasses? I already own an indoor pair and pair of tinted outdoor glasses. Prescription glasses aren't cheap.

Or, as I suspect, people without 20:20 vision will be discriminated against, forced to wear contact lenses, forced to have laser eye treatment, or forced to give up the TV. Three people in my house wear glasses, 50% of the people at work wear glasses, figures on the internet talk about millions of people having less than perfect eyesight.

Meh indeed.

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

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's a good example... now that almost all movies on DVD or Blu-ray offer 5.1, and we've figured out how to get pretty good sound quality from small speakers, people are installing surround systems en masse. More and more people are opting for a Home Theatre rather than just having a TV in the living room.

Maybe 3d will go the same way. Unlike most other movies that tried 3d in the past, Avatar used the technology to good effect. If more content follows, and more programming is made available over the air, perhaps people will pick it up, since the technology is not as cumbersome as before. Especially if it's optional: either watch the same content in 2d, or put on the glasses and watch 3d. One thing that has advanced a bit is the technology used for the glasses. Circular polarisation (probably not usable for TV, but maybe dual beamers...), shutter glasses that are actually comfortable to wear, or Infitec glasses, which might be usable with televisions but are hideously expensive. I found all of these to be perfectly comfortable to wear even for an extended period of time.

Re:Meh

[KDR_11k]

My eye alignment is so bad I can't even see 3D. Was really fun during the military fitness tests, the 3D vision tester didn't accept "can't see shit" as an answer.

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

High Def, 3D, all meh!

[kimvette]

I've upgraded three televisions to High Def (all three panels are Samsung) and while I do like high definition, the high def aspect was not the primary motivation. The motivation is that the televisions are not 200lbs behemoths that take up a lot of space, plus I gain HDMI/DVI and reduction of the typical home theater rat's nest. Most "high def" programming isupscaled, or through cable, overly compressed, often completely negating any improvement in clarity. OTA broadcasts are horrible - you either get a perfect picture or nothing, or completely unwatchable random MPEG blocking and stuttering in the sound stream. I LOVE high def on blu-ray though.

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) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction, or red/blue glasses, which screws with color perception and is often not very convincing (and practically unwatchable without the glasses), or through shutter goggles which are cumbersome, prone to breaking, and expensive - or prototype models which feature prismatic screens similar to 3D photos, which depend heavily on being on-axis with the screen (sit to the side, for example, you will only see one side of the prism). For 3D TV to become mainstream, there really needs to be a monumental leap forward in display design. There needs to be a holographic or similar solution which isn't confined to a narrow field of view, doesn't require goggles, and doesn't become unwatchable (or degrade at all) when viewed on a conventional receiver.

Until then 3D TV is just a novelty only designed for early adopters to pay to be beta testers and lose out when a real standard is introduced (at which point your receiver proves incompatible) and to show off how you throw money away. IMHO of course.

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!

[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:High Def, 3D, all meh!

[Cyberax]

They were (at least here).

I wear polarizing anti-glare glasses and I was stupid enough to forget to take non-polarizing glasses to the movie. So I could either watch Avatar with one eye or watch it without my glasses.

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:Just another way to fleece the punters

[Xemu]

Give it another 10 years and they might get it sorted properly.
It took some 20 years for HDTV to become a reality. I saw an impressive Sony setup at Telecom 87 in Geneva. 20yrs later and it is ready for consumer use.

If you have more cash than sense then buy a 3D TV rig. Better be prepared to throw it all away when a decent system is standardised.

You know, if it takes 10-20 years until a proper standard is deviced, it is actually not a bad idea to buy a 3D system now. 10 years is a pretty good life span for home electronics.

3D? Bah, humbug

[guyminuslife]

I'm still waiting for home Smell-O-Vision programming.

Re:That means that within a year...

[Dogtanian]

ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.

Bearing in mind that approximately 40% of all Star Trek: The Next Generation stories revolved around something going wrong with the holodeck, I'll wait a bit longer until they get the wrinkles sorted out...

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