3D TV Worth It Without Sky?

95 replies [Last post]
Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

I shall be cancelling my Sky TV subscription just as soon as I can get Freesat installed.

(Will have to think of alternatives ways and means to watching Liverpool FC on the box)

I was planning to buy a new 1080p TV and thought I might as well get a 3D one. Without Sky is it worth bothering with 3D? I'm not interested in 3D movies, not until they become the norm, so I would have watched 3D football and not much else in 3D.

I know BBC have done the odd 3D broadcast but is this likely to become commonplace anytime soon? I'd love to see wildlife programmes in 3D but maybe these are a long way off.

The dosh I save plus £50 odd quid a month could go towards that HF G 10 I've had my eyes on,

Ron

Ron Jackson

colin rowe
colin rowe's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 16 2000

Ron. I am about to do the same. Spoke to a girl at Sky and she said they do a Freesat card for a one of payment of £ 25, according to her, just pop it in your sky box and away you go.

Colin Rowe

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

I don't think that will give you access to the PVR capabilities of the Sky box, though, will it? I can't imagine not having a PVR now which is why I bought a Humax (which is better than Sky+ in so many ways).

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000

Also if you do decide to go down the Freesat route (As opposed to Freesat From Sky -- they aren't the same thing) then you just need to pick up a box and connect it to your existing dish.

Both services are transmitted from the same satellites (the only difference is the EPG data basically).

Steve

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

Any 3D on Freesat (HD) ?

Ron

Ron Jackson

harlequin
harlequin's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 16 2000

Sky do a card that allows you to watch free to view/free to air channels.
That is not 100% identical to the freesat system.

A sky+ or sky+ hd will lose the pvr ability.

Gary MacKenzie

sepulce@hotmail.com ( an account only used for forum messages )

Thinkserver TS140 , 750ti Graphics card  & LG 27" uws led backlight , Edius 8

Humax Foxsat HD Pvr / Humax Fox T2 dvbt

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Ron Jackson wrote:
Any 3D on Freesat (HD) ?

Ron

The only thing I'm aware of is the Wimbledon finals. Don't know if there are any plans to do much more.

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

Minded to find some "hacking" for me footie. Could watch in the local but as I live in Murkyside (Southport) busy when 'Pool are playing plus a scattering of "agent provocateurs" a/k/a Everton/ManU supporters who like to stir things up and I'm easily stirred (and a puny 68 year old)
No "Discovery" or" Discovery HD" on Freesat seemingly.

Ron

Ron Jackson

backyard
Offline
Joined: Sep 13 2003

As far as I'm aware the only significant amount of 3D material being broadcast is on Sky. To get it you need to have the Sky World (most expensive) package. This gives the sporting events in 3D (regular football, occasional rugby, golf, boxing, darts(!)) and the dedicated 3D channel which is arts/docs/music, some films (although most recent ones are pay per view) and repeats of the sporting coverage.

Virgin has some 3D movies in its on demand package and is starting (or may just have started) a 3D channel.

ITV has been running tests and is rumoured to be starting a 3D channel soon although its unknown which platforms it will be delivered on.

Gavin Gration
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 1999

Freeview HD wasn't available when we got Freesat HD. If I were buying now I'd probably go with Freeview instead (we get good signal) as I don't really like having a dish stuck on my house.

I like a few things on Dave and Quest - neither are available on Freesat. Luckily we kept our Humax PVRs so I can still watch "my rubbish" in peace.

As for 3D - I honestly think it's a waste of time unless they can ditch the specs - even then I'm not sure it'll be that good. Every demo I've seen I can see ghosting or other picture issues. I can't see red/green stuff properly at all. There's major apathy towards the idea right now with cinema audiences opting for 2d screenings instead.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Gavin Gration wrote:
As for 3D - I honestly think it's a waste of time unless they can ditch the specs - even then I'm not sure it'll be that good. Every demo I've seen I can see ghosting or other picture issues. I can't see red/green stuff properly at all. There's major apathy towards the idea right now with cinema audiences opting for 2d screenings instead.

That could well be a cost issue. If they charged the same for 2D and 3D films, we'd get a better idea of what audiences actually prefer.

I've only seen Toy Story 3 in 3D so far and I thought it was great, Going to see Harry Potter in 3D on Thursday night (well, Friday morning!) :)

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001

Went to Bluewater yesterday and looked into the Panasonic Viera TX-P50ST30 Plasma HD 1080p 3D TV at John Lewis. Advised that it is fully HD too. £1300 with five year guarantee and added stand. Four 3D films thrown in if it is bought (have to send for them.) Hot discussion at home at the moment!

Panny also do a 3D video camera . . .

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

Interesting! One would need a 3D player presumably to watch the "free" films. I would need to establish what would be the price difference between this set and the "same" but without 3D.

Not so easy as there seems to be an absolute plethora of models out there with new ones appearing constantly, which may or indeed may not represent improvement over older ones

If the price difference was say £500 could be interesting. If £300 maybe not. Reasonable to expect to (have to) stay with the set for at least 5 years. Reasonable to assume that there will be more free to air 3D broadcasts within 5 years. Reasonable also to assume that 3D "technology" will improve within 5 years.

Ron

Ron Jackson

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Bear in mind that all the current crop of 3D TV broadcasting is carried on HD channels. So the Sky HD signals are 960x1080, the BBC's was 720x1080. Not exactly HD, really only just a bit better than SD. Many of the film-makers who pushed for 3D are going back to 2D because there's not enough cash returning from the 3D efforts, i.e. it doesn't make as much profit. Ad ever, it's the money that talks.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Medidox
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2005

3D is already dying at the cinema - Pirates of the carribean 4 more people went to see it in 2d than 3. This is a fad that is already over.

rt2000
Offline
Joined: Feb 24 2010

Bro-in law wasn't impressed with 3D, him and is daughter complained of headaches after watching for a short time he was saying.

Ron

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007
Medidox wrote:
3D is already dying at the cinema - Pirates of the carribean 4 more people went to see it in 2d than 3. This is a fad that is already over.

Hurrah at least we can now get back to developing smellovision!:D

Oh wait a minute I think canon are bringing out a canon 5D-3D so you can have your 90% out of focus searching shallow DOF in three demntionz!

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

I feel a trip to John Lewis in Liverpool is on the cards. Hopefully looking into the £500 to £1000 bracket instead of the £800 to £1300 one.

Is there anything in particular I should look for specification wise when looking for something good for 1080 25p video playback? Nice as well to have wireless internet connection.

Ron

ps will pop into the Apple Store as well if they have FCP X ready to play with

Ron Jackson

noddydog
Offline
Joined: Feb 28 2004

I've seen about 7 or 8 3D films at the local cinema and in every case they looked about 2 stops under exposed. Not sure if it's the projector set up at cineworld or folks really are happy to watch new releases through sunglasses?

mooblie
mooblie's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 27 2001
Ron Jackson wrote:
....Is there anything in particular I should look for specification wise when looking for something good for 1080 25p video playback? Nice as well to have wireless internet connection....

Take a look through this thread, Ron:
http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=52622

Martin - DVdoctor in moderation. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

Thanks Martin. I remember this now, but as not pondering a purchase at the time, not followed too closely,

Ron

Ron Jackson

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Medidox wrote:
3D is already dying at the cinema - Pirates of the carribean 4 more people went to see it in 2d than 3. This is a fad that is already over.

But as I said earlier, you can't compare viewing figures because the cost of seeing a 3D film is higher. You're not comparing like with like. If the cost was the same for both, we'd see how popular 3D really is.

For every post on here saying they know someone who doesn't like 3D and gets a headache, there are probably thousands of people who do prefer 3D films and don't have any issues with them.

I don't think it is a fad (although I think they are needing to develop it from where it is at the moment) and it certainly isn't over. I'm sure takings for Harry Potter 3D will be very healthy.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that one. Surveys in the UK and US have shown that up to 20% or the viewing public have problems with 3D,

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

Which means that 80% don't. That's still a very large potential audience, I would have thought.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Correct. But it seems that the potential audience is gradually turning away again, just as it always has in the past.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

As I said - if the cost was the same, we'd get a truer picture. There's no comparison between the 3D which came out in the 50s to the 3D we have today. When I tried to book tickets for Harry Potter, there were very few seats left for the 3D version. Doesn't sound like the audience is walking away.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000
Alan Roberts wrote:
Bear in mind that all the current crop of 3D TV broadcasting is carried on HD channels. So the Sky HD signals are 960x1080, the BBC's was 720x1080.

The BBC's Wimbledon stuff were 960x1080 too -- they upped the HD channel to 1920x1080 for the period of Wimbledon.

Steve

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Stuart, it isn't me who's saying the audience is walking away, it's the makers of 3D films, who're seeing their profits fall. It costs more to make in 3D, and the box-office returns are not living up to expectations, the audiences are walking away.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

steve
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

'3d' will fade away when the next 'must have' fad arrives. Just think back to the '70s when various competing quadrophonic sound sytems were foisted on those who were sucked in by the adverts. There were four competing systems, none were really practical and all were ridiculously expensive.
It took until the late '80s when Dr Dolby introduced a viable surround system, and more importantly, there was sufficient media output from the mainstream that would be seen as more than a gimmick.
There have been reports that even those who can see the stereo effect may suffer headaches and nausea from prolonged artificial visual depth viewing. A practical solution probably lies in the creation of holographic images, a few years away at anything like a consumer level.

By next year, it will probably be seen as a declining novelty as far as home viewing goes and as Hollywood gets more money from DVD sales than cinema box offices, they are unlikely to keep making stereo feature films for a dying fad.

Steve

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Quite so.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Alan Roberts wrote:
Stuart, it isn't me who's saying the audience is walking away, it's the makers of 3D films, who're seeing their profits fall. It costs more to make in 3D, and the box-office returns are not living up to expectations, the audiences are walking away.

But surely the question is, why are people walking away? At the risk of repeating myself, if they made the ticket prices of 3D films the same as 2D films, we would know if people don't like 3D or if they don't like paying extra for 3D.

Based on the comments of people I know, I would say the latter is more likely. Taking a family of four to see a 3D film can cost significantly more than a 2D film so is there any actual proof that this is not the reason people are choosing the 2D versions? Most people I know think 3D films are great.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Ron Jackson wrote:
I was planning to buy a new 1080p TV and thought I might as well get a 3D one. Without Sky is it worth bothering with 3D?

Off the top of my head, games might be a good reason, if you're into that? They are forecasting a big uptake of 3D as an option for games in the next few years, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

I'd also expect more from the BBC, after Wimbledon finals - a long time before it becomes mainstream, but I'd definitely expect quite a bit more.

Probably really depends on the price differential? From what I gather, the 3D capability may not add much on to the price of an equivalent set. I don't intend to get one myself any time soon - but if I was replacing my set anyway I think I'd definitely go for 3D capability now.

Chris.
Offline
Joined: Nov 5 2000

I don't think it works well on TV sets. It's a bit like looking at an aquarium, what's in the box appears 3D but it's confined to the box, not like say Imax 3D which has you ducking as things seem to fly towards you.

steve
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
stuart621 wrote:
But surely the question is, why are people walking away? At the risk of repeating myself, if they made the ticket prices of 3D films the same as 2D films, we would know if people don't like 3D or if they don't like paying extra for 3D.

Based on the comments of people I know, I would say the latter is more likely. Taking a family of four to see a 3D film can cost significantly more than a 2D film so is there any actual proof that this is not the reason people are choosing the 2D versions? Most people I know think 3D films are great.

There may be a slight preference for films made to showcase 3D effects through stereo techniques, but as said above, cinema films are now secondary to DVDs and TV showings, so they won't bother to use the current immature technologies much longer. Hollywood will just move on to the money spinning video output.
Who wants the news, reality shows and shopping channels in stereo anyway. Broadcasters are not going to re-equip themselves with stereo kit so imagine the farce of broadcasts switching between normal and low-res gadget mode within a programme.

Steve

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
stuart621 wrote:
But surely the question is, why are people walking away? At the risk of repeating myself, if they made the ticket prices of 3D films the same as 2D films, we would know if people don't like 3D or if they don't like paying extra for 3D.

Based on the comments of people I know, I would say the latter is more likely. Taking a family of four to see a 3D film can cost significantly more than a 2D film so is there any actual proof that this is not the reason people are choosing the 2D versions? Most people I know think 3D films are great.

Isn't it the same old story - that the manufacturers see the need to get back their original expenditure before dropping prices when in actual fact, it could be the case that 'reasonable' pricing would encourage and develop, ridding us of that prolonged period of expense . . . ?

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Stuart, it largely doesn't matter what the viewers want or are prepared to pay for. If the content makers can't make at least as much profit from 3D than 2D, they won't do it, which seems to be the way things are now going in the cinema industry. Since it costs more to make in 3D, they have to change more, and if Joe Soap won't pay, then the content won't get made. An old contact I ran into at a BBC do this morning told me he went to a 3D viewing of something last weekend, paid £17 a seat each, and there were only 19 people in the audience. That doesn't even cover the cost of the cleaners, let alone making and distributing the content.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Medidox
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2005

People are walking away from 3d in cinema because it doesn't add very much to the experience. Sure, the first time you see it it's interesting for the first few minutes, then you forget about it and watch the film. The cost differential is immaterial, the experience differential suggests you can't keep it up for any length of time before people tire of it. And yes, in cinemas the screen is darker and there is less perceived colour and contrast to the film.

However I've never seen sport in 3D and maybe that is the killer app, certainly it's the last chance saloon for 3D.

steve
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I suppose a rowdy mob might get less physical whilst they are watching an edgy match in the pub if they have all got naff glasses on their faces.:o

Steve

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Medidox wrote:
People are walking away from 3d in cinema because it doesn't add very much to the experience. Sure, the first time you see it it's interesting for the first few minutes, then you forget about it and watch the film.

That may be your experience - it's not mine and I know many people who love the experience of 3D films.

Medidox wrote:
The cost differential is immaterial, the experience differential suggests you can't keep it up for any length of time before people tire of it. .

I disagree.

steve
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
stuart621 wrote:
That may be your experience - it's not mine and I know many people who love the experience of 3D films.

Time will tell whether you and the many people you know are sufficient to sustain the additional cost of the experience. Big business can't resist a cash cow so watch what they do.

Steve

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

Well business exists to make money - that goes without saying. Bizarrely, I think it's more than just me and the many people I know who don't think 3D films are the spawn of the devil. :)

steve
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
stuart621 wrote:
Well business exists to make money - that goes without saying. Bizarrely, I think it's more than just me and the many people I know who don't think 3D films are the spawn of the devil. :)

I don't think anybody here is saying that 3D movies are sinister in any way, just that the current application of stereoscopic techniques is inappropriate for anything other than an entertaining technology demonstrator. As for a long-term vehicle for presenting movies in a 3D view, the real answer is still a few years away. I imagine that the movie makers have realised this, despite the exhortations of the equipment manufacturers' marketing departments anxious to exploit the market as HD becomes a commodity product. As the takers so far have mainly only been early adopters, they may be losing faith that '3D' will become a mainstream replacement market this time round.

Steve

Medidox
Offline
Joined: Jun 20 2005

I'm just saying 3D is not very good and the novelty is wearing off (yet again). Maybe Dundee is bucking a worldwide trend here but the numbers suggest that even hollywood has decided that 3D wont save them.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
stuart621 wrote:
But surely the question is, why are people walking away? At the risk of repeating myself, if they made the ticket prices of 3D films the same as 2D films, we would know if people don't like 3D or if they don't like paying extra for 3D.

Based on the comments of people I know, I would say the latter is more likely.

Yes, I fully agree. What's currently happening is exactly what business models would predict:

New technology comes along
Businesses spend money on it's development
It attracts a premium when first on sale - hopefully the premium largely recoups inital spend
Novelty wears off - decline of willingness to pay premium
Prices reduce to near "norm" of previous technologies
It becomes the norm

And we are currently around the middle of that cycle. A current decline in 3D audiences is hardly a surprise, and I'd put it down to novelty wearing off. If there's any surprise, it's probably that so many people are still willing to pay such a high premium for 3D - when colour first came to the cinema (before my time! ;) ) I don't believe there was a corresponding hike to watch a colour film? The premium has probably now largely paid for the projection equipment necessary - and quite likely for film-digital projection conversion costs in many instances as well.

So it's logical to expect the 3D premium to soon start to decrease, maybe even go away altogether. And that's what will be interesting - what will indeed happen to audiences when you can see the 3D version for little more cost than 2D? Which is stuart621's point. There is certainly room for further technology improvements - higher frame rates maybe being the simplest, and one which could be implemented relatively soon. But I can foresee a day when 3D cinema will be the norm, just as colour has virtually totally displaced black and white.

As far as the original thread goes, then it mustn't be forgotten that 3D capability in a new TV does not in any way compromise it's 2D performance - a fact that wasn't true of colour TVs and the way they showed monochrome images in an inferior manner. (Anybody remember convergence controls......?)

And no, I don't expect all or even most broadcast TV to be 3D anytime soon, if ever. But that's not the point. Your 3D TV will display it uncompromised, and for the present just put the specs on when you want to play games or watch the "specials".

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001

As someone who has been fascinated with the 3D concept all my life I am really shocked to find myself on the side of the dissenters.

I still love going to the cinema (specially Imax) to see something that has been properly made for 3D.

CGI and cartoon work really well but very often real life does not come off.
My last foray was to the Imax in Waterloo to see "Born to be wild"

Absolutely stunning and showed the difference between Digital Imax and "proper" Imax.
but when the camera was moving through the trees following the orang utans it was very uncomfortable on the eyes and some of the flying sequence were uncomfortable.

I can't see serious dramas working at all until a whole new grammar is worked out by the film makers to replace things like differential focus etc.

When colour came out it ran side by side with B&W for years but eventually there came a time when people just saw it as "old" and only "arty" films now use it.

I expect by the time I buy a new TV (years away) 3D will either be the norm or have failed. Another fear I have with 3D is that it will lead to further "dumbing down" of content.

But I would be quite happy to be proved wrong and it is a big hit and ways are found to solve the problems. Of course if the dirty digger gets a stranglehold on 3D I hope it sinks without trace. :)

Bob Aldis

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Bob Aldis wrote:
Absolutely stunning and showed the difference between Digital Imax and "proper" Imax.
but when the camera was moving through the trees following the orang utans it was very uncomfortable on the eyes and some of the flying sequence were uncomfortable.

I can't see serious dramas working at all until a whole new grammar is worked out by the film makers to replace things like differential focus etc.

I think this may be an example of exactly what I pointed to before - that higher frame rates would be a great leap forward. The 3D seems to make the "judder" effect of 24fps even more noticeable (and objectionable). Well, the move to sound upped the speed to 24fps, maybe the increasing 3D production will make 48fps the new 24?

In the silent-sound transition, then the cost difference wasn't just in the extra equipment, but a direct increase in film stock of about 50%. 48fps may call for extra storage, but far less of a cost issue than the 16-24 change in the 20's. It's also worth noting that "talkies" were met with a mixed reception as well, with quite a few saying they would never catch on either..........

Tropi
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2000

I'm right with Medidox

I've only seen Avatar and one Imax in 3D and that's all I ever want to see in 3D.
After the first few minutes of very genuine wonder at the novelty, I found the 3D effect to be irritatingly distracting from the core content and the image quality to be significantly inferior to decent 2D.

Not only would I not pay more for 3D over 2D, given a choice between 3D for FREE and paying for 2D, I would still choose the 2D version. But each to their own.
I strongly suspect 3D will die - yet again, hopefully before too many people have wasted too much lolly on what I see as a white elephant.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Stuart, we know you disagree, and that doesn't change anything. 3D appears to be in decline. 'Nuff said.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
Alan Roberts wrote:
Stuart, we know you disagree, and that doesn't change anything. 3D appears to be in decline. 'Nuff said.

I'm surprised that, with your experience, Alan, you make that comment. Aren't you willing to allow for possible advances in technology? Already there are players which, in company with the the right TV, will up 2D to 3D out of viewer choice.

I'm currently looking at the Pansonic 46 TV with such a capability in with my Panny player.

mooblie
mooblie's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 27 2001
Ron Spicer wrote:
...Already there are players which, in company with the the right TV, will up 2D to 3D out of viewer choice...

Have I understood that right, Ron?: Players that make 2D disks look like 3D?? :eek:

Martin - DVdoctor in moderation. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
Has anybody here ever attempted this before?

The only good aspect I can see to 3D is that even if 3D consumer cameras become the norm, 3D is absolutely not something you can just generally waft a camera around with and hope to get watchable footage. So the only benefit of 3D I can see is that it may bring back the value of using a professional service.

Then again companies might just do what they do now and say "no thanks" to the extra cost of doing that.

Quote:
Players that make 2D disks look like 3D??

Not just players, but TV's too. The results are abysmal.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Ron, I've been monitoring developments in 3D shooting since around 1975. And have a reasonable understanding of how 3D has progressed since 1840. Technology is certainly changing, but, until 3D works without specs, and doesn't separate focus and parallax, 3D is always going to be a problem for viewers in home environments. It's different in cinemas because the dichotomy is usually smaller since the screen is much bigger and further away.

I have nothing personal against 3D, except that it gives me a headache, even in cinemas.

All I'm handing on here, is that the content makers (mostly Hollywood) are reporting that 3D production is now in decline, because they can't get profits from it. That's all.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

HallmarkProductions
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 1999

I have not been to cinema to see a 3d film, but, have been to Disneyworld and Universal Studios. The 3d effect there is mind blowing (Shrek 4d, and The Terminator experiences for a start). Some of that stuff has been around for years - I first saw the Terminator around 12 years ago.

In Bournemouth, we had a spectacular failure in the local IMax theatre, which shut down almost before it opened. It has become well known as a local disaster, largely due to its site in the town, obliterating a previously stunning coastal view.

Chris
Time for a new signature now...

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001
Alan Roberts wrote:
Stuart, we know you disagree, and that doesn't change anything. 3D appears to be in decline. 'Nuff said.

I'm not disagreeing with that - the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not convinced this is because people don't like it. I don't think it is as black and white as people here seem to be suggesting - there may be other reasons why audiences are in decline and if the business side of the film industry can't see this, they need to hire new people.

I think it is unwise to dismiss it as a fad as I think it has more potential than that but only time will tell, really. Having said that, 600 people have booked to see Harry Potter in 3D at the Odeon in Dundee tomorrow night. That's one showing of one film in one cinema in one (fairly small) city. If that is indicative of public interest in 3D, maybe it's not as dead as reports would suggest.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Stuart, I think I've made it abundantly clear that 3D appears to be receding because the studios can't make a profit out of it. And that means the public aren't prepared to pay enough for it, which means they don't really want it all that much. Nobody's saying it's dead, or even ill. Just that the paying public is not providing the content producers with enough revenue to make it economical. What's hard to understand in that?

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

There's nothing hard to understand in that but I seem to be having some difficulty in putting across the points I'm trying to make but I'm not going to repeat myself.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Stuart, we're perfectly well aware of what your putting across (quite successfully), just trying to get you to accept that your view does not seem to match with that of the industry at large. This isn't a matter of argument, but of business and profit: if the studios can't make money from it, they won't do it, and the decline is already evident.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
mooblie wrote:
Have I understood that right, Ron?: Players that make 2D disks look like 3D?? :eek:

Have a look at the Panasonic Blu-ray DMP-BDT110 Martin.

ADDENDUM - I'd better be clearer with mY comment! I don't mean I'm watching that TV and player at home. I'm interested in the combo - already have the player for BD editing.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Ron Spicer wrote:
Aren't you willing to allow for possible advances in technology? Already there are players which, in company with the the right TV, will up 2D to 3D out of viewer choice.

Hmmm, I don't doubt it exists, but the question is how good is it.....?

JVC (for one) do a box which converts 2D to 3D, and that was on display at the last BVE. I went along highly sceptical - but have to say it was far better than I'd expected. Even the manufacturers weren't claiming it to be as good as shooting "real" 3D, and I believe one difference was that the depth was all behind the screen, nothing in front. But experts are claiming considerable success for 2D-3D conversion, even if the process is far, far from allowing the box to do it in a simple input-output automated fashion.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, of course, is the price........ I believe about £10,000 for something which is itself acknowledged to be less than perfect. It's therefore difficult to see how Panasonic (or anybody else) could build a decent capability into a Blu-Ray player at a sensible price? I feel a headache coming on....... ;)

But I'm reminded that it's time to book the tickets for Harry Potter - and I for one do intend to see the 3D version. It's quite interesting to look at the online booking screen for it. At my two nearest cinemas, it's being shown on several screens, and the choice is between IMAX 3D, 3D, and 2D. It appears that the number of 3D showings outnumbers the 2D showings by well over 2:1, and since the 3D screens have a lot more seating capacity than the 2D ones, even that 2:1 figure probably doesn't tell the whole story. I assume the cinemas have done their research, and tailored the no of showings to expected demand?

Considering there is still such a price premium for the 3D version, it would appear that even if some of the novelty has worn off, a 3D version of a blockbuster film still makes good economic sense, and easily enough demand is there to make it well worthwhile.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001

Here's the latest Panny effort, although I can't believe 3D glasses are worth that much!

Panasonic Viera TX-P46GT30 Plasma HD 1080p 3D TV, 46" with Built-in freesat
& Freeview HD £1299.00
2x Panasonic TY-EW3D2SE Small 3D Glasses £258.00
John Lewis JL1050/B10 Television Stand, Black Glass £130.00
Standard delivery FREE
5 year guarantee – Television FREE
Total separate selling price £1687.00
SAVE £388.00

Total payable £1299.00

The splurge says it can turn 2D into 3D.

Gavin Gration
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 1999

Might be worth checking your local independent Panny dealer as some are offering a similar deal to JL.

e.g. 2 x glasses & 5yr warranty (but no stand) - £1149.00 here (in-store only):-

http://www.weymouthhifi.co.uk/website/panasonic/2011/panasonic_txp46gt30b.htm?gclid=CNWrys2sgKoCFUQKfAodslLgxg

If they can do it then other dealers probably can too. That leaves you £150 to get a stand (should be plenty).

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Ron Spicer wrote:
The splurge says it can turn 2D into 3D.

No doubt it can - the question in my mind is "how well"?

I'll have to try and check it out, but I'm inclined to think the answer may be "not very" given the costs.

I'd also recommend wall mounting if you can - it seems to dominate the room far less for a given size of screen.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004

Trust me, it most definitely is "not very"!

I think 3D could be made simpler by having cameras that record a depth map along with a 2D picture. Depth map tracking is how the XBOX 360 motion reading device works. It is also how expensive Hollywood 2D to 3D conversions are done, except that they have to create the depth map from scratch.

If the depth map was captured at the same time as the footage, then many issues could be sorted out and tweaked in post with software deriving the left and right images automatically from the map. It would also mean that the cameras could be simpler and use standard lenses. The guys who made the XBOX 360 device say that their technology can be put into any camera. So it is clearly fairly straightforward and inexpensive. So 3D cameras that use this instead of a twin lens system could be as well.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000
SimonMW wrote:
I think 3D could be made simpler by having cameras that record a depth map along with a 2D picture. Depth map tracking is how the XBOX 360 motion reading device works. It is also how expensive Hollywood 2D to 3D conversions are done, except that they have to create the depth map from scratch.

The problem with the XBox Kinect approach is that it still requires two cameras and an additional IR projector. The way it works (I've spent some timing hacking a Kinect about) is the IR projector projects an IR dot pattern out onto the world which is then captured by an IR camera and used to work out how far things are away. You then have to calibrate the mapping between it and the visible image from the other camera and cope with the different angles. You also get problems where foreground objects occlude the IR dots and so you don't get any depth data in that area.

Great for gaming, but I don't think it'll offer any advantages over a proper stereoscopic camera system.

Steve

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001

I'll give away a smidgen of info here . . . I first viewed 3D in 1951 at the Festival Of Britain so you can reckon that it's worth my buying and enduring/enjoying on occasions those aspects of 3D. In any case, I'm on to BD stuff as well so why not !

I'm gong to bite the bullet and buy either the 46 or 50 Panny inchers within the next few days. I'll try to be honest in my appraisal when I consider I've had enough experience of the workings. Wish me luck.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Ron Spicer wrote:
I'll try to be honest in my appraisal when I consider I've had enough experience of the workings. Wish me luck.

Good luck! ;)

I, for one, will be very interested in what you have to think about the inbuilt 2D-3D conversion. Be very careful about any demos you see. I'd ask to see the facility demonstrated on a live broadcast to get a "real" idea of how it will be in practice. I wouldn't put any store by results on a demo loop - it would be very easy to select material which wouldn't tax the system. (And it's what I'd do if I was selling it! ;) )

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
infocus wrote:
Good luck! ;)

I, for one, will be very interested in what you have to think about the inbuilt 2D-3D conversion. Be very careful about any demos you see. I'd ask to see the facility demonstrated on a live broadcast to get a "real" idea of how it will be in practice. I wouldn't put any store by results on a demo loop - it would be very easy to select material which wouldn't tax the system. (And it's what I'd do if I was selling it! ;) )

Thanks for that. First problem - they've sold out at JL where I would prefer to buy. I've emailed them for info. On the 3D side, I won't be too disappointed if the results aren't top-notch. I'm ready for a TV upgrade anyway for BD stuff. :)

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
Ron Spicer wrote:
I'll give away a smidgen of info here . . . I first viewed 3D in 1951 at the Festival Of Britain so you can reckon that it's worth my buying and enduring/enjoying on occasions those aspects of 3D. In any case, I'm on to BD stuff as well so why not !

I'm gong to bite the bullet and buy either the 46 or 50 Panny inchers within the next few days. I'll try to be honest in my appraisal when I consider I've had enough experience of the workings. Wish me luck.

I saw 3D at the Festival of Britain as well but I cant remember if it was red and green as the first non red and green 3d films were not about at that time but not much after.
If it was red and green then it would have been old tech by then. Not cutting edge stuff for the Festival. :)

Bob Aldis

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Crossed polarised displays were common in the 1950s, the seminal book on 3D by the Spottiswoodes covers it in detail. But most of the commercial cinema displays were anaglyphs (cyan/magenta filtering).

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001

Yes I remember Alan. I went to see "House of Wax" in Leicester square 1953ish. It was the first of the Crossed polarised to show here. In those days films played for ages before going local and local cinemas were showing old red and green 3D films to cash in on the new technology.

Now you know more about this than I do but I know that red and green (as apposed to cyan and magenta) glasses were used for 3D stills then and for years after and I would have sworn that the early films were red and green too. I did have several pairs of the red and green glasses but alas they are long gone. I have scoured the internet but cannot find anything to back my memories but I have not given up:p :)

Bob Aldis

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Bob Aldis wrote:
Now you know more about this than I do but I know that red and green (as apposed to cyan and magenta) glasses were used for 3D stills then and for years after and I would have sworn that the early films were red and green too.

I think you're both wrong - or rather, both half right ! Anaglyph methods can use a variety of colours, but by far the most common is red/cyan. The left eye is normally red in nearly all systems, whilst for the right eye blue or green have been used, but cyan is now most usual.

For more detail than anybody really needs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
The Essoldo cinema on London Road in Liverpool showed a season of six 3D movies in the summer of 1961, including House Of Wax, Murders In The Rue Morgue and other such delights ;) The projection system was crossed polaroids, neccesitating two synchronised projectors to show the performance - actually possibly four to allow reel changes. Only the larger inner-city cinemas could afford all this extra kit. The glasses were given out for each performance.

The Festival Of Britain 3D movie I remember contained lots of shots of very typically 50s dangly string/cardboard mobiles rotating past the camera(s). Not very cinematically significant!

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
Great for gaming, but I don't think it'll offer any advantages over a proper stereoscopic camera system.

I wouldn't write it off just yet. Technology progresses. One of the advantages of recording depth maps would be when integrating live action footage with CGI. It would also be much easier to separate elements within a scene for compositions in general. IF the depth map can be made to be the same resolution as the main camera. Green screen and all the faffy lighting issues associated with it could also be done away with as you could replace backgrounds based upon depth.

In fact here's a very rough demo of someone doing just that with such a camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBBl8NC2sRw&feature=related

CGI integration would definitely benefit in moving shots such as by Steadicam too since an almost complete 3D model of the environment could be constructed from the data. Camera match moving and scene interaction could be made much easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu5Ywwb4RaU&feature=related

Creative selective focus could also be done since you could easily specify which depth to apply blur to.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
SimonMW wrote:
Creative selective focus could also be done since you could easily specify which depth to apply blur to.

Can't see that working. Anything blurred in 3D looks wrong.

Paul were the dangly bits Anaglyph or polarised? Your memory is obviously better than mine as all I can remember is that there was 3D at the Festival of Britain and that I saw it.

Bob Aldis

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002
Bob Aldis wrote:
Paul were the dangly bits Anaglyph or polarised?

Hi
Not sure.
I remember what the specs looked like, but not the lenses ;)


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/imagelibrary/festival-of-britain-showcase.htm

For London's Festival of Britain, in 1951, a futuristic cinema was constructed - the Telecinema - at which four stereoscopic films were presented in stereophonic sound. Two of these were animations: In Now is the Time 3-D filmmaking is introduced through shapes and sounds.

Of the others, one was the 9½ minute International Realist documentary Distant Thames, filmed in colour and released by the British Film Institute on 30 April 1951. It was later retitled Royal River, and included in the 1953 compilation 3-Dimension. Director: Brian Smith; cameraman: Stanley W. Sayer; Stereo Techniques technology: Raymond and Nigel L. Spottiswood; stereo sound: Ken Cameron. [Zone; Hayes; 3-D Revolution]

The other was in black and white. This was the 10 minute Pathé documentary A Solid Explanation, released by the British Film Institute in May 1951, and later included in the 1953 compilation 3-Dimension. It was a humorous illustration of the principles of stereoscopy, intercut with animal scenes shot at London Zoo. The release date is so close to that of Distant Thames that there is certainly a possibility that it was filmed earlier. Producer: Peter Bayliss; director: Peter Bradford; cameraman: Reginald W. Cavender; Stereo Techniques technology: Raymond and Nigel L. Spottiswood; stereo sound: Ken Cameron. [Zone; Hayes]
http://benbeck.co.uk/firsts/talkies6.htm

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
Anything blurred in 3D looks wrong.

Doesn't have to be in 3D.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The single most important feature of anaglyph specs is that the luminance viewed through each filter should be about the same. So, you can't have simple filters (e.g. red/cyan) because the luminance transmittances are significantly different. The anaglyph specs I've used over the years are generally red-with-a hint-of magenta and cyan-with-a hint-of-blue, which balances them up nicely. If the luminance transmittances are significantly different, then the eye goes into abnormal processing, adjusting the iris (which affects depth of field) and/or temporal filtering (which affects the processing time in the eye, i.e. causes a delay), both of which upset stereo vision.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
SimonMW wrote:
Doesn't have to be in 3D.

I meant differential focus. It doesn't work in 3D.

Bob Aldis

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Correct. Short DoF isolates foreground and background in 2D, but creates confusion in 3D, since we need to be able to identify all parts of the picture in order to reconstruct the displayed volume. The popular move into short DoF cameras is precisely the opposite of what's needed for 3D. And there's another reason, the inter-lens distance for 3D cameras needs to be quite small, which is why the 3D rigs are all such monsters, and why small 3D cameras make so much more sense. Again, the Spottiswoodes covered all this in 1951.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Quote:
I meant differential focus. It doesn't work in 3D.

Yes I know. But my point is that using a depth map camera could offer lots of benefits to both 3D production and 2D production. Differential focus was only one single benefit of having that data, for 2D application.

But speaking of differential focus in 3D, there are some shots in Avatar that used differential focus that worked fairly well.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
Ron Spicer wrote:

I'm gong to bite the bullet and buy either the 46 or 50 Panny inchers within the next few days. I'll try to be honest in my appraisal when I consider I've had enough experience of the workings. Wish me luck.

Done it but, due to heavy demand, JL had sold out and I'm now going to endure a wait until 2nd August. Got the glasses and the stand. All paid for (you can note I trust JL) and next door neighbour is having my other Panny 42 incher. I'll keep in touch.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Depth mapping has been part of the research in 3D shooting for at least 15 years, to my personal knowledge. It's how HawkEye works, and how much of the virtual imaging of the past 15 years has been done.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
SimonMW wrote:

But speaking of differential focus in 3D, there are some shots in Avatar that used differential focus that worked fairly well.

The only bit I can remember in Avatar is near the beginning when the main character was talking into an out of focus camera close to the screen which I found very distracting. Looking at the non 3D bluray version I can't recall seeing it.

Bob Aldis

SimonMW
Offline
Joined: Nov 16 2004
Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001

Sorry you are probably right Simon. I have never worked in the trade so my use of terms is probably wrong. I didn't know that the examples you posted were differential focus. When I have had differential focus pointed out to me it has always been cases where there are two people or objects on screen and the focus shifts from one to the other to draw the viewers attention or something along those lines.

BTW I am a big 3D fan and look forward to a future when a 3D system comes out which addresses all the problems. I remember when Sky first came out they suppressed a superior HD system and it worries me that if they and money chasing manufacturers get us locked into a system that will be too expensive to back out of when something better comes along we will all lose out.

Bob Aldis

Barry Hunter
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2001

VHS versus Betacam De ja vue!

Barry Hunter videos4all.org

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007
Barry Hunter wrote:
VHS versus Betacam De ja vue!

It's always amusing when people say that Betamax was a failure, virtually every pro video recording system sony have done for the past 25 years has been based on the format with betacam, betacam SP, digi beta and betacam SX all coming from the format.
Even DAT is still with us as that tape technology is now known as DV and HDV.;)

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001

When VHS and Betamax were fighting it out I had a Philips and when PC and Macs were fighting it out I had an Amiga. Both excellent choices but eventually losers. I have been with NTL/Virgin for years overlooked by the giant "Sky" Could I at last be on the winning side ;)

Bob Aldis

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

You can expect to see NI share prices dropping quite a bit in the short term. It remains to be seen how they wriggle out of it, but I expect them to do just that, taking maybe a year or so.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Ron Spicer
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2001
Alan Roberts wrote:
You can expect to see NI share prices dropping quite a bit in the short term. It remains to be seen how they wriggle out of it, but I expect them to do just that, taking maybe a year or so.

I concur. Flog the newspapers, thus removing a proven secondary interest then wait and later re-apply followed by a resounding success. He didn't get where he is without the necessary where-with-all!

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Bob Aldis wrote:
I remember when Sky first came out they suppressed a superior HD system and it worries me that if they and money chasing manufacturers get us locked into a system that will be too expensive to back out of when something better comes along we will all lose out.

Not sure you've got that quite right. I suspect you're referring to the early days when the regulatory authorities were mandating D-MAC for satellite broadcasting to the home, Sky just went with PAL for launch. (Both were SD, it was well before HD.) In that respect, they possibly did everybody a favour - digital systems were not far away, and going down any of the MAC routes (multiplexed analogue component) would not have been in anybodys interest hindsight.

It was also Sky who set the pace for the introduction of HD broadcasting in the UK. ITV were skint, and whilst the BBC had done much behind the scenes pioneering work, they were highly reluctant to start broadcasting HD. I seem to remember BBC HD as a fairly hasty answer to the Sky announcements.

Barry Hunter wrote:
VHS versus Betacam De ja vue!

Ahhh, don't get me started! VHS/Betamax has given rise to some wonderful myths...... It seems humans love a story where the brave and better underling loses out to the evil mighty one unfairly..... and VHS/Betamax falls into this category. First myth to scotch is that "Betamax was inherently better quality than VHS". Wrong. The truth is that it was a bit of a neck and neck race, and there was far more difference between different machines within the same format than between formats as such. If you want the technicalities, then wikipedia is pretty good - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war :

Quote:
Picture quality

When Betamax was introduced in Japan and the United States in 1975 its Beta-I speed (1.5"/second) offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 lines vs 240 lines horizontal NTSC), lower video noise, and less luma/chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was later marketed as providing pictures superior to VHS's playback. However the introduction of B-II speed, 0.8"/sec (2-hour mode), to compete with VHS's 2-hour Standard Play mode (1.3"/sec) reduced Betamax's horizontal resolution to 240 lines.[3] The extension of VHS to VHS HQ increased the apparent resolution to 250 lines so that overall a Betamax/VHS user could expect virtually identical luma resolution and chroma resolution (≈30 lines) wherein the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition and quality of the videotape and the specific video recorder machine model. For most consumers the difference as seen on the average television was negligible.

Note the final sentence. I don't believe wikipedia blindly - but that closely matches personal experience. In the early 80's (during a quiet weekend shift) a colleague and myself had the opportunity and equipment to compare my VHS and his Beta machines. It surprised both of us that the accepted conclusion was pretty much a draw. On the first machines Beta may have had the quality edge - but at the expense of only 1 hour run time versus the then 2 hours of VHS.

If there are two main reasons why VHS won out, the first (as wikipedia says) was for most of the time it offered a longer run time per tape. The second is that Betamax machines were only ever high price/high quality - VHS came in a variety of prices and qualities. And for some users it was a low price or nothing - so VHS by default. A lot of the reason for the "Betamax was higher quality than VHS" myth is down to comparisons of cheap VHS machines with Beta ones costing several times more. Compare machines of the same age and cost (as my colleague and I did) and the differences were very slight.

And yes, Gary is quite right about Betamax forming the foundation for all the (highly successful) Beta formats. And it carries on - the extension is now into HDCAM and even HDCAM-SR - currently the de-facto master HD videotape format. Betamax may have failed - but it did leave a legacy.

Ron Jackson
Ron Jackson's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 23 2007

But it's the papers that give Rupe his cachet with the political class over here. My watching footie on Sky TV is unlikely to influence my vote but reading the Sun (I don't) might.

Ron

( thinks---- should I watch it in 3D?)

Ron Jackson

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

However, it was the (then) substantial profits from his papers that got Sky up and running. Only now, when papers return small or even negative profits, does Murdoch want to tap into the currently huge profits of Sky.

In the last financial year, Sky returned £1bn profit, and spent another £1bn on self-advertising. In the same year, ITV spent, across all its channels, just under £1bn on programme-making.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

stuart621
Offline
Joined: Oct 24 2001

Sky doesn't actually make much in the way of programmes, though apart from news and sport. At least ITV is still producing a range of programming.

Bob Aldis
Offline
Joined: Mar 7 2001
stuart621 wrote:
Sky doesn't actually make much in the way of programmes, though apart from news and sport. At least ITV is still producing a range of programming.

They don't need to. They have exclusive rights to HBO :mad:

Bob Aldis

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

But that's as a customer, not as a commissioner/producer. Sky is currently more like a re-publisher than a broadcaster.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.