I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too expensive to produce?
Brian
On 20/11/2022 13:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too >> expensive to produce?
Brian
the glasses i'd say.
didn't need extra bandwidth - it was 2 squashed pictures taking up the
space of one normal one.
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too expensive to produce?
Brian
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 14:47:51 +0000, the dog from that film you saw <dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2022 13:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the
killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far
too
expensive to produce?
Brian
the glasses i'd say.
didn't need extra bandwidth - it was 2 squashed pictures taking up the >>space of one normal one.
Almost certainly the glasses. Nobody wants the extra encumbrance of
having to wear something special to watch telly, whatever the artistic advantage is supposed to be. I think the same will happen with VR,
which will always remain an interesting gimmick, but I can't imagine
wanting to watch an entire programme made in this format.
Look at the evidence. 3D photography dates back to Victorian times,
it's been used for still pictures, movies and television, John Logie
Baird even experimented with 3D spinning disk televsion, we've always
known how to do it and yet it's never caught on. If there was a real
demand, it would by now be normal for movies and TV programmes to be
made in 3D, just as they're nearly all made in widescreen, in high definition, in colour, and with stereo sound. But it isn't. There must
be a reason.
Rod.
On 20/11/2022 13:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?I would say its uncomfortable to watch for many people. Your eye needs to focus on the screen, yet the brain thinks the objects you are viewing are behind the screen. So its stressful.
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far
too
expensive to produce?
Brian
I guess there are other issues, you have to wear glasses, material is expensive to produce, and the experience isn't, for many really enhanced.
I think we are quite good at constructing a 3d model from a flat 2d image.
Dave
Yes at a very old Ideal Home exhibition, when I had sight a company were showing a camera and a form of print that looked like it was 3D, at least to some extent. It used some kind of prism to stripe the image then join them
up at the print end. The camera had two lenses but used normal film.
It kind of worked side to side, but not up and down, No glasses, but it tended to look like the picture was mad from cardboard cut outs.
On the glasses front. Yes a vineyard in Surrey used to have a film in 3D you could watch, but you needed polarised specs, and the effect went wrong if
you tilted your head.
On 21/11/2022 10:43, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes at a very old Ideal Home exhibition, when I had sight a company were
showing a camera and a form of print that looked like it was 3D, at least
to
some extent. It used some kind of prism to stripe the image then join
them
up at the print end. The camera had two lenses but used normal film.
It kind of worked side to side, but not up and down, No glasses, but it
tended to look like the picture was mad from cardboard cut outs.
Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_lens . I've got some large mats on my coffee table that work that way. 3D fish and flowers. The method can also be used for simple animation and a reveal (clothed
woman/nude woman for example).
Almost certainly the glasses. Nobody wants the extra encumbrance of having
to wear something special to watch telly, whatever the artistic advantage
is supposed to be.
Almost certainly the glasses. Nobody wants the extra encumbrance of
having to wear something special to watch telly, whatever the artistic advantage is supposed to be.
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too >> expensive to produce?
the glasses i'd say.
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 14:47:51 +0000, the dog from that film you saw <dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2022 13:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer? >> The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too
expensive to produce?
Brian
the glasses i'd say.
didn't need extra bandwidth - it was 2 squashed pictures taking up the >space of one normal one.
Almost certainly the glasses. Nobody wants the extra encumbrance of
having to wear something special to watch telly, whatever the artistic advantage is supposed to be. I think the same will happen with VR,
which will always remain an interesting gimmick, but I can't imagine
wanting to watch an entire programme made in this format.
Look at the evidence. 3D photography dates back to Victorian times,
it's been used for still pictures, movies and television, John Logie
Baird even experimented with 3D spinning disk televsion, we've always
known how to do it and yet it's never caught on. If there was a real
demand, it would by now be normal for movies and TV programmes to be
made in 3D, just as they're nearly all made in widescreen, in high definition, in colour, and with stereo sound. But it isn't. There must
be a reason.
Rod.
I'm assuming then that 3D tv is now officially dead. What was the killer?
The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too expensive to produce?
Brian
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:18:21 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,376 |