BBC Abandoning 3D Broadcasts

I've seen lots of 3D films at the cinema, own two 3D TVs (Active and Passive) have 90% of all 3D blurays available, and had numerous 3D PC Monitors

3D needs to die!!

Most of the films being made are shot in 2D and post converted to 3D after. This doesn't give a good 3D effect at all. To be honest, even ones actually shot in 3D are not THAT great. Yes they are better, but they are far from being great.

Forgetting the whole 3D argument for the moment, BBC have themselves to blame for the poor uptake. We have two 3D TVs and haven't watched anything 3D on the BBC. You know why? MARKETING!!!!!! I didn't know the F1 testing was broadcast in 3D. I didn't know the Olympic opening ceremony was in 3D. If the BBC actually pushed 3D a bit more then people would start watching. I can't watch something if I don't know it's on.

Not everyone spends their life on AVForums!!

I've given up on 3D now. The active model is in the bedroom. If you haven't seen 3D yet, there are two 3D formats. Active and Passive. Active is DIRE and gives 3D a very bad name. Basically you wear expensive glasses which very quickly alternate the left and right lenses by switching them off and on (flickering). It makes the picture dark and gives you headache/eye strain. Passive is much better, but to be honest.......all things considered, I actually prefer 2D.

Wimbeldon was a classic. It amazes me that the BBC are getting rid of 3D, yet for the first time I actually heard the presenter say it was broadcast in 3D :eek: I (even owning a 3D set) decided to watch in 2D anyway.

so when you have people with 3D sets watching 2D content, I think you pretty much know the format is dead.

Bring on high framerate please Mr Cameron!
 
glen8 said:
Most of the films being made are shot in 2D and post converted to 3D after. This doesn't give a good 3D effect at all.
Click to expand...

A lot of people like to say that because it gets banded about, without really understanding it properly, in part because a lot of films that have been shot in Stereo have marketed themselves as superior because of that fact; the reality is that a good post-conversion gives far more scope for better use of the medium.

To give some examples....

Shooting in 3D has a number of limitations, the key one being that you just don't have the control to be able to change in post-production, where as with a conversion where you can effectively change anything about the 3D and adjust the convergence point.

Films that are shot in 3D typically tend to have over exaggerated '3D Moments' which don't really translate well when watching the 2D version of the film. A good example of this would be the shower scene in Resident Evil Afterlife.

Shooting for a post-conversion allows the Director and DOP to get on with doing their craft, where as shooting a film in 3D requires a Stereographer and all manner of other technicians to tell them you can't do this, or you need to do this on a scene because of the requirements of 3D and the camera, along with the size of the cameras and which lenses they can and can't use, which can all effect what they may have originally wanted from a shoot. It therefore becomes less of the vision the Director intended because they have to pander to what somebody else is telling them to do.
 
Nexus said:
A lot of people like to say that because it gets banded about, without really understanding it properly, in part because a lot of films that have been shot in Stereo have marketed themselves as superior because of that fact; the reality is that a good post-conversion gives far more scope for better use of the medium.

To give some examples....

Shooting in 3D has a number of limitations, the key one being that you just don't have the control to be able to change in post-production, where as with a conversion where you can effectively change anything about the 3D and adjust the convergence point.

Films that are shot in 3D typically tend to have over exaggerated '3D Moments' which don't really translate well when watching the 2D version of the film. A good example of this would be the shower scene in Resident Evil Afterlife.

Shooting for a post-conversion allows the Director and DOP to get on with doing their craft, where as shooting a film in 3D requires a Stereographer and all manner of other technicians to tell them you can't do this, or you need to do this on a scene because of the requirements of 3D and the camera, along with the size of the cameras and which lenses they can and can't use, which can all effect what they may have originally wanted from a shoot. It therefore becomes less of the vision the Director intended because they have to pander to what somebody else is telling them to do.
Click to expand...

Doesnt that depend on whether they shoot the film with a convergence set for the cameras at the time, or with the camera's parralel, and then set the convergence in post production. I know each of those techniques has its own advantages/disadvantages aswell.

I do like 3d myself when used correctly, but as so many people just arent interested and are unlikely to spend the extra for a 3d tv when there is not much content without even more cost, then its understandable that the bbc leave it alone justnow, they would do better spending the money elsewhere. It is annoying seeing the because i dont like it it should die comments, they are quite small minded really, i'm all for having the options of both however. I dont see 3d as being that different to surround sound etc, its not needed, but when used correctly can greatly enhance the experience, and stereo, or colour to a lesser extent, all of which are of course easier to digest for the majority than 3d is, but is that the fault of 3d, or how its being used along with the currently limited technology, I'm sure all those who hate 3d dont walk about with an eyepatch over one eye do they, I think it will be once technology has progressed to the point that the experience feels more natural that it will really take.
 
Last edited:
leaskovski said:
They should concentrate more on HD content.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm wondering now that the whole country is digital and I assume households without a HDTV are in the minority, how many years before we get to see high definition channels outnumber SD ones on Freeview?
 
leaskovski said:
They should concentrate more on HD content.
Click to expand...

ic1male said:
Yeah, I'm wondering now that the whole country is digital and I assume households without a HDTV are in the minority, how many years before we get to see high definition channels outnumber SD ones on Freeview?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's pretty hard to actually get new equipment that isn't HD ;)

The problem as Jokester says is bandwidth.
From memory there are only 5 HD slots on DVB-T1, of which I think the BBC have two, one is for ITV (I think), C5 have refused to take one up.
I believe the plan from OFCOM is to move people over to DVB-T2 gradually which will enable far more channels due to the better encoding method, including more HD channels*.

And of course for most of the smaller broadcasters (some of whom are already only paying for silly low bit rates), the added cost of HD is not likely to encourage them to move over to it, especially as a lot of them have very little in the content catalogues that is actually HD (pretty much of the sit comms, drama's etc that most of them rely on are only available in SD due to the tech used to film or edit them).


*And quite coincidentally probably free up more spectrum for OFCOM to sell off to the mobile phone networks, where their equipment can interfere with the other frequencies still used by TV.
I'm not sure what idiot approved the deals that mean that by all accounts several hundred thousand houses could be affected by interference from the mobile phone transmitters that will be using the old TV frequencies soon - it certainly seem to go against the old requirements and rules that (IIRC required) they should be properly shielded and new services shouldn't interfere with old ones (especially large scale interference).
 
Werewolf said:
I believe the plan from OFCOM is to move people over to DVB-T2 gradually which will enable far more channels due to the better encoding method, including more HD channels.
Click to expand...

I suppose they're not going to start tackling this until they have completed the transition to DAB next and turned analogue radio off?
 
I suspect analogue radio will probably outlast DVD-T2 :p

The quality of DAB is poor, and IIRC OFCOM have nixed the idea of transitioning to a better version that would at least have the audio quality of FM as standard.
 
got to love the 3d lovers " it will happen" .....it wont.. this is probably the 5th or 6th time they have tried it ... in 60 years .....WE DONT WANT IT
 
There's space for 8 more after that, but some of the bandwidth may be used for mobile services if the other broadcasters don't pick them up.
 
I don't know why they don't make the channels available online in high def already. You can watch select programmes on the iPlayer in 720p HD but not the live streams. They've done it with the Olympics and Wimbledon and other sports so why not all live channels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom