Feeds

back to article World standards body maps out 3D TV generations

Standards setter the International Telecommuncations Union (ITU) has established a far-reaching roadmap for 3D TV technology, though it admits it will take at least 20 years for its more advanced notions to be realised. The ITU's roadmap, announced today, defines the next three generations of 3D TV, kicking off with today's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Holodecks!

How long until the holographic TVs malfunction and Moriarty takes over the planet?

0
0
Gates Horns

eeek

They already have......

0
0
WTF?

No good without glasses for more than one person?

I wasn't really paying attention while I read that boring article to be fair, but I fail to see how transmitting all possible scene representations for all given viewpoints is going to be useful for multiple viewers without them wearing goggles.... how the hell else is it going to select multiple simultaniously different scenes to display when multiple people are watching the same screen? I imagine it will also need a "fearsome" refresh rate to be able to multiplex half a dozen different scenes to each viewer at a time so that they don't notice flicker.

0
0
Bronze badge

Viewer tracking...?

"the ITU said the next generation of the technology will enable just that. It will require the transmission of multiple 3D images in parallel, each view selected as the playback system tracks the motion of the viewer."

What about people who (*gasp*) watch TV with friends and family? Which viewer exactly is the TV expected to track.

1
0
FAIL

Pinch of salt

"systems that record the amplitude, frequency and phase of light waves, to reproduce almost completely human beings' natural viewing environment" - That's written by someone who doesn't understand how holography works. Since when could the human eye detect the phase of light waves?

Sorry, but that seriously dents the credibility of the whole "roadmap".

0
1
Silver badge

How holography work?

Holography is entirely based on phase differences. A holographic picture is nothing but a recording of the interference pattern (i.e. of phase differences) between the reference beam of light and a coherent to it beam of light reflected from the object.

0
0

Agreed.. with caveats

The principle is simply "a recording of the interference pattern (i.e. of phase differences)", but the practicalities are somewhat more involved. I stand by my assertion that the person who talked of recording the phase of light waves didn't understand holography very well.

A holographic camera based on phase differences/interference patterns is never going to be able to image a football being kicked towards it in an outdoor football pitch. Natural illumination isn't self coherent, so you can't have a coherent to it reference beam of light. Even with coherent lighting, the interference patterns would be changing far too quickly.

A holographic display might well be possible in the future but there are easier ways to achieve similar results.

0
0
Gold badge
Paris Hilton

I'll believe it when I see it

Given that holographic storage promises almost unimaginable capacities, it surely follows that holographic transmission will require almost unimaginable bandwidth, and since the "smart money" (and I use the term inadvisedly) is for all telly to move from broadcast to broadband, I don't see anyone having "almost unimaginable bandwidth" from their ISP anytime soon.

What *is* (mathematically) imaginable is to analyse the scene into voxels and transmit those and offer an immersive virtual reality at the receiver. That would let you watch a football match (*) from a (mobile) vantage point anywhere within the scene itself. At a pinch, this is probably possible with today's technology.

(* Paris, because it might not be a football match.)

0
0
Gold badge
Happy

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, but...

"That would let you watch a football match (*) from a (mobile) vantage point anywhere within the scene itself. At a pinch, this is probably possible with today's technology."

It occurs to me that this is *certainly* possible, since TV football coverage already does it, for looking at dodgy off-side decisions. All we need now is someone to write an applet to turn 26 positions (players, officials and ball) into a plausible rendering of a footy match in time for the world cup.

It wouldn't even need to be a plausible rendering. You could replace the players with nude models or aliens. Endless fun. Remember, you heard it here first, even if some yank files the first patent in a few years time.

0
0
Silver badge

Somewhat sceptical

I think this 3D TV will remain on the fringes until the true holographic stage when people would not need to wear special glasses or learn how to watch x-eyed stereopairs in order to use it...

It's one thing to wear spectacles for 2 hours watching a film in a cinema and it's completely different story to do it at home every time you want to check the news.

0
0
Happy

@Ken Hagan

"That would let you watch...from a (mobile) vantage point anywhere within the scene itself."

I would have to agree. I'd personally fork out for even a slightly bulky HD VR headgear kit if I could view my (insert show name/type here) from any vantage point. Just give me a small keypad with forward, backpedal, strafe/sidestep right/left, duck and jump (and perhaps a shoulder-mounted .50cal-type weapon just for fun. Would give a whole new meaning to "expressing your dislike" of a movie...two thumbs down? Try 2 Mike-Mikes to the face....)

0
0
Badgers

Feh...

A big 'so what' from this corner. I've seen a couple of films in 3D. Including the much-vaunted Avatar, and I remain unconvinced that it's anything more than a gimmick.

Yes there are occasional 'ooh' moments when floating objects appear a bit closer, but these few and far between parts really aren't worth the glasses or the higher ticket price. On the whole I really don't think watching films in 3D is any more immersive than normal. The film industry should just spend the money on making better films!

0
0
Headmaster

Feh...

A big 'so what' from this corner. I've seen a couple of films with sound. Including the much-vaunted Jazz Singer, and I remain unconvinced that it's anything more than a gimmick.

Yes there are occasional 'ooh' moments when objects appear a bit louder, but these few and far between parts really aren't worth the noise or the higher ticket price. On the whole I really don't think watching films with sound is any more immersive than normal. The film industry should just spend the money on making better films!

1
0
WTF?

Paving the way?

"you can't blame it for at least paving the way for such advanced image recording"

Cool, all I have to do is dream up a "standard" for living forever and suddenly I am "paving the way" for everyone to become immortal.

Here is my standard:

IMMORTALITY

Life expectancy = infinity (+/- 10%)

Make sure to mention my name in any stories regarding extension of human life as I am a key enabler of this technology via my standard.

1
0
Stop

3D is dead..

Microsoft's 3D is the way forward.. Microsoft said so...

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.