While most of us are still struggling with HD-TV, the International Telecommunications Union has started work on standards for the transmission of 3D TV, as well as Ultra-High-Definition TV. While home 3D might be on every Christmas list this year, the ITU likes to think ahead, with the Russian Federation pushing hard for …
Leaving aside 3D for the moment I cannot understand this Ultra-HD stuff really. I've seen digital projection of movies on large screens and although slightly higher than HDTV's 1080 resolution it was 'good enough'. I saw no problems with lack of clarity or visible lines/pixels on those projections.
So why do we need such a high resolution? HDTV was about making the image clearer and allow increased TV sizes without having an attack of the fuzzies. Plus in order to feel those benefits the medium itself needs to be clean and artefact free.
Why do I need my film grain for instance to be even sharper?
3D is where it's at. As 3D digital cinema projection becomes ever more popular they will need a way to translate it to the home viewing experience without those crappy red and cyan glasses.
Higher resolutions are not really needed other than for super duper large displays and even that is debatable. Waste of bandwidth.
22.2 Sound ?
I can't even get 5.1 past the missus and into the living room. Stuck with 2.1. And SD until HD projectors go mainstream (cheap, that is).
Oh, and I've got wonky eyes in atypical viewing situations. Can't use binoculars, can't see magic eye b0ll0x, can't see the 3D in 3D movies, see two of everything after about 4 pints.
Dynamic holographic display, or magic?
I thought I was still tuned to The Onion for a while, there.
Why not aask the porn moguls?
I recall being extremely underwhelmed by 3D as a child, even on a massive Imax screen, so I certainly won't be rushing out to buy a "3D" display that works on the stereoscopic principal.
Come to think of it, I can't actually think of much that I would want to watch on an actual 3D display -- since you can't get inside them they would be pretty crap for 3rd person shooter games and the like too.
So -- the only application I can think of for 3D would be to make porn look more realistic -- and we all know who is really responsible for the choosing of new video formats.
Perhaps they can use some of the same magic that's used to transmit signals from a satellite in space to me on the ground without going through the atmosphere ...
So when are we going to see monitor resolutions in 3d
1024x768x<distance from screen object appear> :D
So next time I go to buy a TV I shall expect some acne clad retailtard to try to sell me something with a swanky 3D READY badge on the side for several hundred pounds more when we all know that it's going to be ages before we even get HD (without paying through the nose to Sky and the like for 275 channels of Argos tat and repeats of Top Gear).
It seems that the HD kit that many people bought a while back is not actually going to work with the HD kit that is going to be used because there was such a long delay between the stickers going on the side of the TVs and the kit being sold to broadcasters that time and technology moved on.
Who wants to see that Kelly Osbourne look-alike off of X Factor (Eoghan or whatever his name is) in HD anyway, let alone 3D?
"rendered using some sort of dynamic holographic display, or magic, depending on which is developed sooner"
Good'un. That make I laff!
22.2 surround sound!
The wife is going to LOVE that...
"3D Ready TVs"
have been around for ages in the form of CRTs. Though you did need shutter glasses and anything under a 120Hz model would have given you a brain-ache after a few minutes.
I spend a lot of time playing games in full 3D (polarised screen and HMD) and get my hands on any 3D releases of films that I can. A decent 3D setup, even at relatively low resolution, blows away HDTV for "WOW!" factor.
The volumetric "voxels" based approach is coming along quite well, though its applications in TV are a little limited- people sat to the left of the screen would see a different image to people on the right of the screen. And I can think of only one- which involved very powerful lasers- that worked in air. So a Holodeck you can walk around isn't likely for a long while yet!
Lets hope a UHD 3D display gets created soon! I'd be happy to help test it!
Instead of just watching, you could actually feel like you're in the jungle with Timmy Mallett.
Or they could spend the money making better programmes!
HDTV = Big Enough
I can't see the need for people needing anything bigger than a 1080p display. We can barely fit our 1080p TV in our living room, so why is anyone going to need something that's 4 times bigger? Where are you even going to put it?
I can't really see myself getting a 3D display either, not until they're dirt cheap at the least.
We still have violins
And we still have oil paintings. And live dancers on stage. And books. Sometimes the technology is at the right level. I can't think of anything I watch that would be enhanced by 3D. Maybe nature shows -- but given the trouble it takes to get a camera, light and mike into a wombat cave anyway, maybe that's enough for my senseofwunda.
I haven't had a TV for 20 years...
...and I ain't getting one in 3d, *or anything else* until they start putting out decent programs. Stuff the technology, it's a means not an end. 300 channels firehosing tripe isn't a selling point to me.
RE: 3D-ready TVs
"The volumetric "voxels" based approach is coming along quite well, though its applications in TV are a little limited- people sat to the left of the screen would see a different image to people on the right of the screen."
Surely that's the point? I want a holo tank like in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. One where I can pause the game and walk around back and really see a "reverse angle replay".
For scripted programs think "Theater in the Round" in the middle of your living room. Just imagine the advantages! No worrys about having enough wall space unbroken by doors or windows. Without a "preferred" orientation, the room can be just as suited to conversation as watching "the box".
Needs more contrast
Richness of image is equally as important as the resolution or number of dimensions, I think Dolby's IMLED technology would have as much wow factor as stereoscopic 3D or increased resolutions.
I suppose HDR is the next big thing they can force us to fork out for.
If you've not had a TV for 20 years, how do you know the programmes are crap??
Never trust a bald hairdresser....
I have mates. They have TVs. *I* don't need a syrup
Third approach - 2D + Depth
A very lean third approach for transmitting 3D is to send a 2D movie plus a "depth map" which is used to render the 3D version. This has the advantage of being able to switch off 3D at any time and see an original resolution movie plus being able to choose a range of 3D render styles and depth scaling.
I wrote the Quicktime plugins for Dynamic Digital Depth to do this, which are sadly no longer available. They have concentrated since on other delivery formats - see http://www.ddd.com/about/News/newsarticle_pr_0102.html for a discussion of the conversion and packing process.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…