|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 3D Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $14.99 | ![]() $18.99 | ![]() $14.99 | ![]() $9.55 | ![]() $11.99 | ![]() $18.15 | ![]() $17.49 | ![]() $14.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $14.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $14.99 | ![]() $9.37 |
|
View Poll Results: What is a better goal to get 3D more accepted by 3D Haters? | |||
2D-friendliness of 3D TV broadcast standards |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 28.00% |
A glasses-free 3D option |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
16 | 64.00% |
Something else (state below) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 8.00% |
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#36 |
Active Member
|
![]()
It's actually pretty easy to make a 2d compatible 3D video. Just pick one of the two eyes as the main uncoded 2D eye, at a bit per frame to define it as left eye or right eye as unhidden, instead of using 60 frames per second use 30 and use the rest of the data normally reserved for video to put in the opposite eye, the recessive eye.
I could easily film 2D with a 3D camera: just use one of the two cameras. (as an aside, why didn't they have a first person POV view of Thor getting his eye poked out in Ragnarok? Would have actually cause eye injury to the viewers to have an item thrown directly at the camera? And to simulate one-eyed blindness you just either fuzzy up or darken the injured eye.) Exactly like making color in a black and white compatible format is by making black and white aluma signal and having a separate chroma signal. 3D at a human scale is simple: just take two cameras run them at the same time and sync them. Easy to do with digital video data. 3D is tough enough in the theater where you can't have simultaneous 3D and 2D viewers. You'd think with less viewers in each household it'd be easier to customize each household to have a 2D and 3D showing of various things when only one or two people at each TV. If the broadcast industry would have chosen 30 HZ by two eyes with the second eye hidden for 2D broadcasts, that even the 6:00 evening News would be filmed in 3D because you don't have to watch it in 3D to get the news but you could if you want to half the reason why there's a 2D/3D war is because people are forced to pick one side or the other. There's no Dolby Surround War. There was no color War, (and for all you woke people I mean in the TV format sense, not the racial sense) if most of the TV industry films in 30 hertz anyway wouldn't that be the easiest way to Trojan horse 3D in everything yet get no complaints from the 2D audience? If people TV people say 30 Hz is plenty and 60 HZ looks like a computer rendering as opposed to real film, then why are we talking 120 HZ TV instead of 30 HZ by two eyes to Trojan Horse 3D? And since it's bandwidth neutral, it can work with 4K, it can work with 30 bit color, heck if you want to make 120 HZ standard, go back and you can have 60 HZ by two eyes for 3D. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Tags |
2d friendliness, broadcast tv, optional 3d, required 3d, usa market |
|
|