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

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

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.

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?
> The naff glasses, needing twice the bandwidth, or just that it was far too
> expensive to produce?
> Brian
>
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.

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.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ssrknh919k5qorp9s8g17m40njsedg423p@4ax.com...
> 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.

Yes, though I cannot see any more, I do recall the old demo of the turning
shape on a turntable, looking on tv like it could be going either way, but
when viewed in real life you could tell due to you seeing two images and
brain decoding that.
If you watch some cartoons where the camera, so to speak moves with the
character, you will see the parallax of the different things in the
background move at different rates to make it look 3D, but its not of
course.

I also wonder how these virtual concerts work. The current one Abba Voyage
is apparently very well done, but I'd have no idea how its achieved, its
obviously tricking the brain in some way that people are really there.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote in message
news:tle6tb$3jl2a$2@dont-email.me...
> 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
>>
> 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.
>
> 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

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).

> 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.

The "serious" systems either use polarisation or liquid crystals to
alternate vision between left and right (controlled by the TV).

Colour based systems (that work with any colour TV) either have
red/green lenses (result is 3D b/w); red/blue (slightly coloured) or
amber/blue (full colour but loss of brightness). I've still got the
glasses for the last method.

There was also a system with one lens slightly neutrally tinted that
relied on the time it takes for the eye to process the signal - slower
with the tinted lens. It required there to be specific motion in the
scene filmed.

--
Max Demian

On 20/11/2022 18:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> 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.

And it assumes that you don't normally have to wear glasses to correct
your vision.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:tlfqt5$3q2ki$1@dont-email.me...
> 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).

Yes, lenticular printing is used to give 3D or to alternate between two
different pictures. I have several bookmarks which show safari animals
(giraffes, hippos etc) as two different pictures taken at a close intervals
of time. As you rotate the bookmark about a vertical axis (with it held in
landscape format) you see primitive forward/backwards movement. I imagine
there is a way of making the two images appear simultaneously (without
needing to rock the picture from side to side) such that one eye only sees
one image and the other eye only sees the other - for one very precise
picture-to-eye distance.

Brian's "cardboard cutout" comment is something which is common to a lot of
3D systems (whether they use polarised light, red/green filters on glasses,
or precise picture-to-eye distance in a stereoscope*). For some reason that
is connected with psychology, "artificial" 3D images tend to make the brain
see several *flat* objects at different distances away from the viewer,
instead of seeing solid objects which each have some depth. This effect is
actually called "cardboarding". I remember going to a BCS or IEEE lecture
which demonstrated various 3D systems, and the lecturer said that
"cardboarding" was a major problem in getting 3D TV to look natural and
therefore to be accepted by the public, and that no technology had yet been
devised (as of about 20 years ago when I saw the lecture) which wasn't
plagued by "cardboarding".

(*) I first saw 3D photographs with my Viewmaster stereoscope which took
cardboard discs that had pairs of images diametrically opposite, and were
viewed through separate eyepieces. You pressed a lever to rotate the disc,
to advance from one pair of transparencies to the next. And the tropical
fish or whatever looked like cardboard cutouts at difference distances -
amazing, but still very artificial-looking.

On 20/11/2022 18:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> 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 found that getting used to wearing fairly heavy polarising glasses for Sky
3D (*) was not a big issue. But the effect was very tiring after a few
minutes. I think part of the problem was that the perception of depth was
exaggerated: when your brain tells you that (by parallax) you are a long way
away and looking through a telephoto lens, you don't expect much depth to be
perceived, whereas the two cameras are too far apart and give heightened
depth perception. Also, the players look like flat cardboard cutouts at
various distances away, in front of the background grass on the pitch,
instead of appearing solid with each having his own depth.

But once the TV is in 3D mode, you *must* use the glasses. If you take them
off, you see double images (one polarised at 90 degrees to the other, but
the eye cannot detect polarisation).

(*) When my brother-in-law was demonstrating it during a football match on
Sky.

In article <t6reL.284847$GzSf.116527@fx04.ams1>,
the dog from that film you saw <dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> 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?

>the glasses i'd say.

That and it not really making anything better. In fact, things often
look worse, with people looking like cardboard cutouts placed at
different distances rather than solid objects.

Real 3D, where you can walk round and see things from a different
angle, would be another matter.

-- Richard

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

As far as 3D cinema is concerned, polarised glasses give me a
credible 3D effect but they hurt my eyes. My vision constantly
tries to accommodate to 'fictitious' focus points according to the
perceived image depth, while the actual focus points are on the
plane of the screen. That disparity "makes my brane hurt".

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe My pet rock Gordon just is.

~ Slava Ukraini ~

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:48:35 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, though I cannot see any more, I do recall the old demo of the turning
>shape on a turntable, looking on tv like it could be going either way, but
>when viewed in real life you could tell due to you seeing two images and
>brain decoding that.
> If you watch some cartoons where the camera, so to speak moves with the
>character, you will see the parallax of the different things in the
>background move at different rates to make it look 3D, but its not of
>course.
>
> I also wonder how these virtual concerts work. The current one Abba Voyage
>is apparently very well done, but I'd have no idea how its achieved, its
>obviously tricking the brain in some way that people are really there.
> Brian
My guess is that it's Pepper's Ghost in modern form.
--
Dave W

On 20/11/2022 01:14 pm, 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

Was it expensive to produce the hardware?

Or the content?

I have one Sony TV with the 3D facility. It wasn't any dearer than other
similar TVs I've bought.