Oi bin workin’ wiv 3D TV cameras today and had a glimpse at what 3D HD Sport will look like next year when it should be rolled out…………………………

And the verdict is…………………………

……..it’s bonkers!!! But in a good way. Apart from the actual cameras that are ridiculously large (they are effectively 2 cameras on a single mount). They have not only camera operators and racks engineers correcting colour and brightness etc as normal, they also have a convergence operator adjusting the width of the two cameras remotely to change the depth and compression of the field of view. You also need to wear (circular) polarised glasses to watch it, but is’ no big deal really, at least not for say a football match. It might be if you watch telly all day however.

Sadly you will need to buy yet another new telly, but if you have a SKY HD box, it is already capable of producing the feed needed for 3D.

The bottom line is I thought it was a gimmick and to a degree it is, but once you have seen it, you can’t see how SKY and the like, will keep it from us. It really does add a new dimension to the viewing of Sport at least. Best thing since colour telly possibly, although some might find it gives them a touch of motion sickness, but they are working on a solution to that by not moving the cameras as much or as fast

I couldn't care less about 3D. UK Broadcasters can't even get SD and HD right, what with their bit rate scrimping giving us unwatchable, blurry, banded, blocky pictures. Fix that first, THEN do 3D.

no good for me as i don't have perfect vision, or perfect corrected vision, in both eyes , so 3D pointless in my eyes (sorry about that pun)

I couldn't care less about 3D. UK Broadcasters can't even get SD and HD right, what with their bit rate scrimping giving us unwatchable, blurry, banded, blocky pictures. Fix that first, THEN do 3D.

I thought that using the same bandwidth to produce 2 pictures would reduce the definition by a similar amount, but the tests we did today seem to show the reverse. It is spookily clear. However as you say we will have to wait and see as to what actually hits the airwaves in the future, but if they can reproduce what we did today then it really will be worth watching.

The first year or so will probably be a bit of a rocky road though as they gauge public perception of the new technology. One weird thing being the depth of the field of view. It is adjusted shot by shot and can mean a football pitch can look 20 yards wide or a couple of hundred. Also if the camera feeds get crossed then the depth of the image is completely reversed. Still it’s cheaper than a tab of acid if they do this regularly

no good for me as i don't have perfect vision, or perfect corrected vision, in both eyes , so 3D pointless in my eyes (sorry about that pun)

This came up today, as one of the crew mentioned it wouldn’t work for him, but there again some people are colour blind and they still watch telly. What I guess will happen is you will just select a 2D image and receive say the left hand camera of the stereo pair (the camerapeeps seem to use the left camera for viewing as they only see the camera's output in 2D)

Interesting stuff.

I also really cannot give a flying funk about 3D TV, while we still have to wear glasses to watch it.

Come back to me when we can have holographic projectors

I also really cannot give a flying funk about 3D TV, while we still have to wear glasses to watch it.

Come back to me when we can have holographic projectors

That will be at about the same time as when they have managed to teach ‘Funk’ how to fly and as the ‘Funk’ is actually a 2 ton Jellyfish, it may still be some way off yet.

I couldn't care less about 3D. UK Broadcasters can't even get SD and HD right, what with their bit rate scrimping giving us unwatchable, blurry, banded, blocky pictures. Fix that first, THEN do 3D.

I disagree with this attitude. The source material for SD and HD has been absolutely stunning for years, just look at all the DVD and Bluray films we get from all those horrible on air broadcasts.

The only problem with the on air quality is accountants, who dictate far too low bandwidth for all these shows.

The internet will give us much better TV quality in the near future, because the TV companies have managed to shift a large proportion of the cost of transmittming their material from themselves onto us and the ISPs. As our connections get better, then the picture quality will get better. Thats why we need companies to start pushing 3D now, so the content is already being created in 3D, our Bluray films are already stunning in 3D, and when the transmission medium is ready for bigger bandwidth, the source material is there for it.

The internet will give us much better TV quality in the near future, because the TV companies have managed to shift a large proportion of the cost of transmittming their material from themselves onto us and the ISPs.

The internet won't give us much better TV, as the UK wide network will not cope with the extra traffic. In fact, if the broadcasters decide to use the internet as their main output (which from the looks of project canvas the BBC are angling to do) then the internet in the UK will pretty much grind to a halt everytime something half decent is on.

As for 3D, the glasses tech is old news now. I believe it's samsung who have developed a 3D TV by layering the screens already...

The internet won't give us much better TV, as the UK wide network will not cope with the extra traffic. In fact, if the broadcasters decide to use the internet as their main output (which from the looks of project canvas the BBC are angling to do) then the internet in the UK will pretty much grind to a halt everytime something half decent is on.

As for 3D, the glasses tech is old news now. I believe it's samsung who have developed a 3D TV by layering the screens already...

Funnily enough it was a Samsung screen we where viewing with and using glasses. I think you have to see 3D using current bandwidth to see if you like it. I am a bit of a saddo when it comes to TV equipment (hence I have a Kuro telly and no life) and I didn’t think I would like the 3D stuff we were doing………………..how wrong can you be! It genuinely looks amazing and that’s using current bandwidth and modified current technology (you should see the size of 2 cameras on one mount!!). All I can say is it looks great and using your SKY HD boxes it should look pretty similar to the images I saw.

As I mentioned earlier, the only slight problems are that not everyone can see in 3D naturally, the convergence operators and camera operators are still learning how to make it all work and not to leave us feeling sea-sick and I noticed that when a camera has high gain in it, the noise sits as a 2D mask on the front of the image. A bit like a fine gauze resting over the screen.

They are also pioneering the cameras at the mo and have two basic types. A side by side one for longer distance and a one up, one down version (90 degrees apart) for closer distance, although this one isn’t very good for long distances and leave a very flat image (a feature of the cameras being unable to get far enough apart from each other). It is only going to get better and it is coming, no matter what.

I should have added it looks like we will be going down the circular polariser glasses path, rather than the alternative shuttered glasses path.

Still, I want 3D to just happen, not have to suit-up for it!

What will it actually bring to the viewing audience? Really? HD has done not a lot really. Yeah, so things look a little sharper, and I can appriciate that. But HD hasn't changed the way TV works. The change from monochrome to colour was a big chage, SD to HD is a smaller, evolutionary change.

What's the "killer app" for 3D?

I should have added it looks like we will be going down the circular polariser glasses path, rather than the alternative shuttered glasses path.

Will these fit over my normal glasses or look like the badly fitting safety specs you got at school?

Edited 1 January, 201016 yr by daiking

So sky will jump form £60 pcm to £100 pcm £1200 + std license £1300 hmm we work 4 months a year to pay the tax man and now we work a month to watch repeats, and the odd sport in dodgy 3d bargain

So sky will jump form £60 pcm to £100 pcm £1200 + std license £1300 hmm we work 4 months a year to pay the tax man and now we work a month to watch repeats, and the odd sport in dodgy 3d bargain

Can't you steal some TV stamps from the post office? Do they still do them?

This isn't really on topic but paying directly for BBC content via my licence, paying for all commercial content indirectly via the PR/Advertising budget of products and then Sky charging me on top of that is not my bag. Blowing the other broadcasters out of the water with the commercial deals you offer and then charging your customers for the privilege. :no:

It isn’t just SKY that’s looking at 3D. All the major broadcasters are, it’s just SKY is making the first major move. The BBC might one day transmit a 3D drama and if you have the new telly you won’t be charged extra. The glasses themselves cost pennies and will probably be given free with your first pint of Guinness at the local pub showing 3D footie. I think this will be the early adopter of the new technology, especially the World Cup.

The advantage with sport is it is amazing how much information you can get with 3D. Was that tackle a foul? In HD it was dubious, in 3D you can nearly always see clearly, the truth. Sadly it means that when the players swear at the ref it is very easily to read their lips. I have seen Boxing in 3D and it works very very well indeed, almost too well in fact. I imagine that 3D movies will be pretty much OK as long as the convergences are appropriate for telly viewing. Apart from needing the new telly (again!) the only downside is having to wear daft glasses and I am not sure I would want to wear them for a whole evenings viewing. At the moment I can’t see a technology that can defeat this problem, at least not within the price bracket of the average viewer.

Why not wait till the summer and go down your local and watch a game in 3D then see what you think. The viewing angles are immense.

Can't you steal some TV stamps from the post office? Do they still do them?

This isn't really on topic but paying directly for BBC content via my licence, paying for all commercial content indirectly via the PR/Advertising budget of products and then Sky charging me on top of that is not my bag. Blowing the other broadcasters out of the water with the commercial deals you offer and then charging your customers for the privilege.

SKY might not get it all it’s own way in the future as ESPN has now had a taste of UK sport and it liked it a lot. Personally it doesn’t worry me either way, as long as the OB companies don’t start to downsize the crews to pay for all this

What's the "killer app" for 3D?

To be honest, like HD, i think the real killer app will be gaming, with a hint of Bluray blockbuster movies.

I've seen some 3D TV tech demos, and they are just as stunning as 3D stuff in the cinema. I actually think 3D adds more (to the right content) than HD. The visual effects possible with 3D will be amazing, once the technology gets more into the mainstream.

I have recently bought a blueray player & films like final destination 4 & polar express In 3D have been absolutly brilliant to watch. It certainly brings that extra dimension into the film. I don't think I will be bothered though In buying another tv as the tv I have cost me an arm & a leg when I bought It.

I just hope some more blueray films will come out In 3D.

As with everything , the first 3d TVs will be horrendously expensive - £4k or more at a guess - and will gradually drop in price.

Look at flat panels - the first 40" plasmas were a similar sort of price and they weren't even HD , and now you can get a good quality 1080p screen for £500.

I reckon most people are going to have at least a couple of generations of flat TV before they go 3d , but it will end up as a mass market product - 2016 Olympics perhaps?

Look at it from this point of view - the TV manufacturers need to keep selling hardware and once 40" 1080p screens are the standard in everyone's home where do they go from there? There's only so much screen people have room for , and I don't see screen resolutions higher than 1080p on consumer kit for a good while yet..

no good to me,as i lost a eye when when i was ten,bow&arrow,thanks to my twin brother,but i still talk to him!!

I can see people viewing the 3D sets in a pub and then finding the money (people are still spending really big money on top HD Plasmas and these things are still cheaper than a top Kuro cost in it's day). It really is surprising, perhaps in the cold light of day, not quite so impressive, but still amazing nonetheless.

I did read that the Ps3 will be able to play the 3d content as well without the need to upgrade the player if and when it becomes mainstream which is good as it has bbc iplayer - ok not a good argument there as the bbc hd chanel is err well limited untill they pull their act together and broadcast 24/7 so it might be some time. I'm just waiting for pace to release the freeview hd box (DVB-T2) as i told sky to stick their HD package after 2 years of being screwed.

I did read that the Ps3 will be able to play the 3d content as well without the need to upgrade the player if and when it becomes mainstream which is good as it has bbc iplayer - ok not a good argument there as the bbc hd chanel is err well limited untill they pull their act together and broadcast 24/7 so it might be some time. I'm just waiting for pace to release the freeview hd box (DVB-T2) as i told sky to stick their HD package after 2 years of being screwed.

There are a couple of HD Freeview boxes for pre-order by early adopters on the Superfi site (A Finlux and a Humax on the second page). Not PVRs yet, I guess they want to milk a little bit more out of us.