The Digital Video Broadcasting Project, the organisation which oversees the DVB digital TV technology and its component standards, such as the DVB-T2 system Freeview HD uses, has added 3D to the specification. DVB-3DTV, which will be formally published next month, defines how broadcasters should transmit 3D TV programming and …
Any distinction between simultaneous left/right-eye frame transmission and alternating left-right-eye frames?
It's only the active glasses that force the use of alternating frames (and all that extra flicker), so it would be a damn shame if that becomes the standard.
Re: What about..?
Well... they said it should work with both "active" (polarized) and "passive" (shutter) systems, so presumably it *doesn't* make any such assumption of alternating frames.
There's not much detail in the article or the one it links to... But it all sounds like they've just decided to go with existing practice of side-by-side and top-and-bottom (i.e. the simplest technical option), rather than a fancy new codec like MVC).
And a vague suggestion that it could be made 2D-compatible again (presumably by monkeying around with cropping rectangles?).
No doubt when the full report comes out it will clarify things.
I think they are inferring that it's made 2D by just showing all the frames intended for the left eye (or all the frames intended for the right eye) and binning the rest.
Err - "Active" generally refers to the shuttering glasses.
And even 'passive' systems might use alternating frames if the TV screen is able to control its polarisation electronically rather than have it fixed for alternate lines.
But a screen designed with alternately polarised or parallax-directed pixels or lines can display both images in a single frame. So I guess if the standard is to transmit both images in a single frame then that implies simultaneous imagery.
But then the timing of motion and blur would be off if viewed in an alternating system, so broadcasters might take to time-shifting the imagery in one of the frames (outside of the standard) to compensate, which then screws up your viewing if your display does show both images simultaneously.
...ready to go
bye bye then
Is this another reason to hold off buying a new TV ?
Not that I want 3D TV, I guess it'll be 2015 before there are lots of 3D broadcasts, the inclusion of 1080p 3D TV is interesting.
Name one TV programme shown in the last seven days that would have been even ever so slightly better had it been viewed in 3D.
Hmm. Some science programs would benefit a little with a 3-D effect (I saw the Hubble in 3-D movie a few months ago, it made very good use of it).
Just for giggles, the CSI visuals would be interesting to see in 3-D.
Other than that, yeah, nothing else comes to mind. Not really worth it, is it?
Mind you I still watch on a CRT so what do I know?
There goes the quality...
"The standard is "frame compatible": the left-and right-eye images can be included within a conventional 2D HD frame to allow broadcasters to use existing kit."
So this'll mean the 3D image won't be HD quality. You can't push 2*1080i frames into one.
Never heard of 70Hz. Who uses them?
DVB-3D HDTV standard?
70hz was mistype, it is 60hz.
Why add a STANDARD if this is not a transmission layer?
This standard already exists: HDMI 1.4/1.4a and it is "frame compatible" with ALL the DTT standards (ISDB-T, ATSC, DVB-T and DTMB) using metadata, because in Brazil (ISDB-T) there is already one 3D channel (REDETV!) broadcasting since june 2010, and also as a south-american channel in a cableTV at Paris, France.
As phase 2, "ability to use one of the two 3D images as a 2D image", this is part of the h.264, called MVC (multiple Video Coding) transparent to old receivers with ALL the DDT standards also.