![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Channel 4 is publicly owned though in the same way the BBC is. It's not a private organisation, it was created by the Independent Broadcast Authority.
BBC Abandoning 3D Broadcasts
- Thread starter Jokester
- Start date
Channel 4 is publicly owned though in the same way the BBC is. It's not a private organisation, it was created by the Independent Broadcast Authority.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
In that they have you broadcast news, kids tv, etc. I know.
I only posted originally because someone said C4 didn't receive money form the licence fee.
You can't, the TV he has uses a different type of glasses.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I was under the impression that there was a requirements for Children's TV and News to be broadcast on terrestrial channels.
Was using them the other week to watch the Lions match, was ace
But the TV that vimes has doesn't work with the glasses you get at the cinema.
Yes mate, I read it the first time
3D football i thought is very good
Yeah 3D football seems to work very well. When the balls up in the air it's much easier to see where it's going for example. I hope at least we'll get the world cup in 3D
Last edited:
Possibly your TV uses Passive glasses and thus they would work...? The GT50 uses Active type 3D glasses and so they are expensive to buy, relative to the passive ones.
We took our glasses home, after watching World War Z in 3D at the cinema and they do not work.
Until JL give me the refunds back for the price matching etc, and so got the TV much cheaper than I budgeted, I had absolutely no intention of paying for a couple of pairs of active glasses. Having done so we are both so very impressed when using them.
I started watching the tennis in 3D yesterday, but did not like how they were positioning the camera, I was also doing stuff around the house, and so I soon flipped over to 2D.
I still think that 3D has a place as it can be very entertaining, even with its limitations, but maybe not for live TV.
Last edited:
I wish it would go away myself, I hate going to watch a movie in 2d that is also in 3d. Soley because the directors normally feel they have to add shots into the movie to show off the 3d. So you end up with stupid angles for the action with things flying towards the camera etc. Not all do it, but a lot do.
3D in the Cinema isn't going anywhere, whether you are a fan of it or not.
In the home market though, its just not there yet.
There is no standard, so you have TVs that require passive glasses and some that need far more expensive active glasses. The viewing angle is also seriously limited on such a small screen, so its difficult to have a group watching a film appreciate it properly.
Then there is the issue of content....
It's yet another premium, when HD broadcasts are already something of a premium. For example with Sky, you essentially need the most expensive pack to have 3D programming. Sports are also what TV broadcasters like to tout as ideal for 3D, but the reality is that live broadcasts in 3D are actually the worst use of the medium. 3D really needs to be used in something that is edited properly with structured angles, which is why its works well for films, or even something as mundane as an episode of Eastenders. With a game of football the angle can just end up making things too miniature.
The television manufacturing industry may now be pushing 4K, and I know some are very excited about it, but its going to face a very similar problem. Its going to attract a further premium from content providers, something which the majority won't be prepared to pay for. Then with content, 4K workflows push the cost of productions up significantly for little return. At the Box Office, its clear to see the extra return a 3D movie brings in, with 4K or higher you can't make that return. People are going to shun it when they can see a standard 2K projection for a normal price. Thus you won't get the content filtering down from the cinema to the home video market because there just isn't the money to be made from 4K for how much it costs and the extra time it would take to complete a production.
We will have 3D TVs without glasses and broadcasts that are much higher resolution, but its not going to happen anytime soon.
In the home market though, its just not there yet.
There is no standard, so you have TVs that require passive glasses and some that need far more expensive active glasses. The viewing angle is also seriously limited on such a small screen, so its difficult to have a group watching a film appreciate it properly.
Then there is the issue of content....
It's yet another premium, when HD broadcasts are already something of a premium. For example with Sky, you essentially need the most expensive pack to have 3D programming. Sports are also what TV broadcasters like to tout as ideal for 3D, but the reality is that live broadcasts in 3D are actually the worst use of the medium. 3D really needs to be used in something that is edited properly with structured angles, which is why its works well for films, or even something as mundane as an episode of Eastenders. With a game of football the angle can just end up making things too miniature.
The television manufacturing industry may now be pushing 4K, and I know some are very excited about it, but its going to face a very similar problem. Its going to attract a further premium from content providers, something which the majority won't be prepared to pay for. Then with content, 4K workflows push the cost of productions up significantly for little return. At the Box Office, its clear to see the extra return a 3D movie brings in, with 4K or higher you can't make that return. People are going to shun it when they can see a standard 2K projection for a normal price. Thus you won't get the content filtering down from the cinema to the home video market because there just isn't the money to be made from 4K for how much it costs and the extra time it would take to complete a production.
We will have 3D TVs without glasses and broadcasts that are much higher resolution, but its not going to happen anytime soon.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
Glad about this. HD is a fantastic bit of technology, 3D is just a phase we go through from time to time. Generally it doesn't ever work for me due to my lazy eye, so meh...
This doesn't really affect me as don't have a 3D TV at home/ever watched any of those.
It is a shame that through Hollywoods eyes 3D has been 'successful' so it will continue to churn out 3D versions of almost everything.
I mean successful in a way that 4 out of 5 films have an extremely limited 2D showing or none at all so people HAVE to buy the more expensive 3D tickets if they actually want to see the film.
Luckily managed to see Man of Steel in 2D and have so far avoided 3D altogether, mainly as I go to the cinema 1-2 times a year!
It is a shame that through Hollywoods eyes 3D has been 'successful' so it will continue to churn out 3D versions of almost everything.
I mean successful in a way that 4 out of 5 films have an extremely limited 2D showing or none at all so people HAVE to buy the more expensive 3D tickets if they actually want to see the film.
Luckily managed to see Man of Steel in 2D and have so far avoided 3D altogether, mainly as I go to the cinema 1-2 times a year!
A good quality passive set is actually pretty good... I never bothered with it whilst using active shutter glasses, but passive is much better.
I agree that the viewing angles can be pretty gash, but I find it can compliment some movies well.
I agree that the viewing angles can be pretty gash, but I find it can compliment some movies well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Loads of my friends went out and bought new 3D TV's when this fad came back around, some spending some serious money on what was actually a much poorer TV than they had before, considering 95%(+) of what they watch is regular TV.
Each to their own, they all say it's great but I've never seen the appeal!
IMAX or big cinema screening in 3D, yes I get it but TV... well the BBC cutting 3D just goes to show it can't be working as they're the first to throw money at anything and the last to stop