3D Cable and Broadcast Television Discussion

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Same here. By the time I got a 3D TV there were no more 3D broadcasts but in any case I would never have subscribed to Sky as I HATE watching sport and they've had far too much of my money over the years.

I would have liked to have seen what the BBC did but those muppets still can't broadcast local programmes in HD ten years after the analogue signal was switched off...

Sky were still broadcasting when I got a 3dtv, but I have never felt compelled to subscribe to their services. I remember BBC were among the first to drop the service they'd been trialing, and the examples they gave to justify that decision were perplexing to say the least.

But although about 1.5million homes have 3D televisions, only around half of those able to watch Olympics coverage in 3D did so.

Only around 5 per cent of potential viewers watched Mr Stink and the Queen’s Speech in 3D.

Head of BBC 3D Kim Shillinglaw told RadioTimes.com: ‘I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK.

... I'm actually impressed with those numbers. None of it is stuff I would watch.

The good thing that came out of it is that between BBC and Sky both produced some decent programming that made it to blu-ray.

[8traxrule]

My TV has a setting that will automatically switch it into 3D if it detects a side-by-side picture, but that was proven faulty on the first day I got it when it switched to that during a 2D movie that had a split-screen sequence.

I have thousands of reasons for not having cable or satellite; as much as I love 3D that wasn't enough to make me get either one of those. I heard the ESPN 3D channel was pretty half-assed (and I don't even like sports in the first place), they mainly showed the same football game over and over along with a limited selection of other stuff; it wasn't like it was live games 24 hours a day in 3D. If that had done that and it failed, then that might have been kind of sad but from what I've heard it was, no big loss.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

My TV has a setting that will automatically switch it into 3D if it detects a side-by-side picture, but that was proven faulty on the first day I got it when it switched to that during a 2D movie that had a split-screen sequence.

I have thousands of reasons for not having cable or satellite; as much as I love 3D that wasn't enough to make me get either one of those. I heard the ESPN 3D channel was pretty half-assed (and I don't even like sports in the first place), they mainly showed the same football game over and over along with a limited selection of other stuff; it wasn't like it was live games 24 hours a day in 3D. If that had done that and it failed, then that might have been kind of sad but from what I've heard it was, no big loss.

My LG does that sometimes, but not always. There are some side by side youtube videos that it will automatically recognise as 3D, and others where I have to go into a menu and a sub menu to tell it to switch.

I haven't seen anything like the issue you describe with a split-screen 2d movie! Definitely a setting you'd want the ability to turn off.

If 3D broadcasts were largely side-by-side, I'd see that as a pretty insurmountable flaw. Viewers with 2d tvs would be very unlikely to watch side-by-side.

[8traxrule]

Yes, I turned the auto-detect off right away; it only goes into 3D mode when getting an actual 3D signal from a Blu-Ray and after a firmware update it started going into 3D mode on YouTube videos flagged for it.

[silentbob]

Never saw a broadcast of a 3D event. Although when I worked at my local theatre, we had to setup our satellite system to our digital movie projector to setup the finals to the Men's Wimbledon event. Only got like 12 people and was said to be so-so from what I got from coworkers checking in in the broadcast

[tripletopper]

Even since I bought a 3D TV in 2012, I was awaiting a 3D broadcast.

I have neer seen a 3D broadcast. I heard the controversy of the Super Bowl 3D abortion was the 3D format they chose.

I heard they WOULD HAVE chosen was a side-by-side half presentation, which was te only one available at the time.. At the time 30% of households had 3D TV. The choice the network had was disappoint 30% of the nation by yanking 3D, or ANGER 70% of the nation if that were the case by greenlighting 3D.

I’ve never seen a 3D broadcast, so I don’t know how one would pull it off. I heard there was another method which is more bandwidth hungry AND requires rabbit ears, meaning cable and satellite owners without an antennta would be unable to get 3D, is simultaneous streams using HDTV multi-casting.

Neither seem like good options.

Then I noticed something. Most TV shows are filmed in 30 fps, even today. to maintain a realistic motion blur similar to reality. Movies are 24, but that complicates 60 Hz TVs the most basic kind, Becuase you can’t "dial a hertz" like you can on computer monitors.

Since most shows are braoadcast in 30fps, and every TV can do 60 fps, why don’t we have a "hidden frame mode" where to a 2D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 1 eye presentation, but to a 3D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 2 Eye presentation.

Most TV based DVRs can record 60 FPS Therefore it can record 30 FPS x 2 eye. it’s compatible with ATSC 1 standards. It requires just as much bandwidth as a 60 Hz x 1 eye broadcast. it could be broadcast to 3D home in 3D, and just as importantly, not use extra bandwidth, AND not ruin its viewing on 2D TV.

I think that would be a good broadcast standard to broadcast in.

Now I got a couple questions> If watch a 24 fps movie on a movie channel, does it require a 120 Hz TV because 120/24 = 5, but 60/24=2.5 i.e not an integer? If you do wathcb it with a 60Hz tv, what happens? Is there any presentation differences that will be noticiably weird or would it be able to d"dial a hertz" back to 24.

If it can’t, then to watch a 24 Hz x 2 Eye movie with an alternate frame method, you need a 240 Hz TV. I believe every 3D TV has 240 Hz.

if you can’t natively do 24 Hz x 1 eye, does it convert it to 30 Hz mode, and if so what weird things happen when you convert form 24 Hz to 30 Hz?

How will that compound on a 24 hz x 2 eye presentation?

If I’m correct the event that started the interdimensional war was 3D broadcasts being (perceived or really) 2D incompatible. After all most 3d solutions are 2D incompatible, like Red and Cyan, or are 2D compatible but are not realistic situations like Pulfrick 3d (only a certain angle works) and Chromadepth 3D. (only a certain coloring scheme made for the system works, and nothing in nature is colored in a Chromadepth friendly way.)

I wouldn’t be shocked if side-by-side half was the proposed 3D system for broadcast TV. It’s a perfectly cromulent system... just not 2D friendly.

P.S. Why doesn’t the shades symbol in the icon list have red and cyan lenses. It’s could just be regular sunglasses currently, but everyone knows the red-and-cyan glasses are a "distinct symbol" of 3D fan, and is a much clearer indicator, even if the tech is no longer used much.

[doctor_who]

There will never be a broadcast 3D channel as you state.

There is no consumer interest.

Stop wasting your brain power.

Perhaps when holograms can display 3D glasses free in 20 years.

[Joe D.]

Broadcast companies did not want to absorb the costs associated with producing 3D content for so short a demand. 3D was not looked at in the long term possibilities. Even in Europe, the 3D broadcasting I think is nil.

Also there are cost issues for the cable providers with upgrading their equipment.

It was not like high definition which demanded investment since it was a technology we were headed toward. 3D was simply not given a chance since few were willing to invest long term on what would be risky and be a fiscally losing proposition for many years. HBO still broadcasts in 3D. So I agree that it could not have been continued in a limited capacity. Make it available to those who had a 3D feature but give them time.

Ah, not in the business world. Satisfying a small but dedicated nitch following that could yield a small profit margin if marketed right, might very well have been looked at as a waste of time and resources.

[Retired Flyer]

Until recently, when Directv had a 3d channel next to their 4K channel, the cost of watching a 3D moviie was close to the cost of buying a Blu Ray of it.

[BLMN]

I don't remember a super bowl in 3D unless it was exclusive to a cable provider the only thing football that I can remember in 3D was Fios showing a few pre-season games in 2011. I had Directv when 3D was booming back then and I remember a Sony 3D channel with only docu series and ESPN 3D. The FIFA World Cup in 2010 was in 3D and to be honest it wasn't bad at all also ESPN 3D had some NBA and college basketball games as well.

[tripletopper]

I never experienced a 3D broadcast. I may be misinformed, but 1) I heard the moment 3D failed was the aborted 3D Super Bowl on broadcast TV, and 2) I heard the reason why that failed was because of 2D incompatibility due to the side-by-side-half format chosen.

Would a 30 Hz x 2 eye broadcast that’s read as a 30 Hz x 1 eye on older non-3D screens be the solution?

The reason why you don’t rememeber a 3D super bowl was because it was aborted, (at least the 3D portion)

No where do I read that 3D incompatibility was the problem with the 3D Super Bowl. For example a lot of TV has Dolby 5.1, butt he reason no one complains is because it doesn’t make watching on a stereo TV with built in speakers impossible to hear. You lose height and depth sound information, but it’s far from unwatchable. Side-by-sidehalf would make 2D watching impossible.

I don’t know any other technique to have 3D broadcast TV. Side-By-Side-Half was developed as an ATSC 1-compatible 3D standard. No one wants to seem to talk about that. If 3D were more 2D friendly, then there wouldn’t be 3D HATRED. If 3D was hidden, unnoticed by 2D viewers, we’d have no complaints.

I never heard complaints from mono users about stereo, or hearing customers complaining about closed captions, or black and white customers in the 60s complaining about color. That’s the model that 3D should be follow.

[8traxrule]

TV has already become an unwatchable mess anyways. The upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard does include 3D though.

[tripletopper]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

TV has already become an unwatchable mess anyways. The upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard does include 3D though.

Is it what I suggested?

A 2D-friendly Alternate frames with left or right frame lock out (either dependent on director's choice or a selectable user's choice, or both options) on both older and non-3D TVs.

Even today a lot of shows broadcast in 30 fps, despite the TV minimum being 60 Hz.

And if you don't need special effects, 3D filming in the most basic sense just needs a binocular camera.

[Interdimensional]

The plan is for it to be 2d friendly, but not in the manner you suggest (which would probably work, but might be an issue for HFR 3D).

My understanding is there would be a broadcast 2d base view, and an additional view provided via broadband.

You'll find more detail than you can make sense of in these documents:

http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...nal-Report.pdf
http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...art-4-2014.pdf

It discusses using the second view for traditional stereo 3D views, as well as 2d + depth. There is also mention of multiple views + depth. A lot of possibilities to consider.

[tripletopper]

Unfortuately, I live in an 'internet desert" where my maximum spewd is 1.6 Mb/s in, 400 k out, the cable company refuses to go down our street, and the DSL is so far away, that the maximum we get 1.6 Mb/s in 400 kb/s out.

I tried to get cell phone internet, but no matter which of the 4 companies you go through, they always AUTOMATICALLLY Drop you down to 2G (basically dial up) when you exceed your bandwidth, but they do allow unlimited 4g to cell phones (not guarasnteed unliimted 4G,but based on normal traffic flows) So until they have unlmiited universal; faat enough broadband for all household items, if the only way to get 3D is internet, I'm physically unable to participate.

Trust me, as a video game fan, who wants to twitch out games I play online, this is a very bad predicament I'm in.

A lot of the cellular companies say they'd like to give us unlimited home-based 4G for home appliances, but it's impossible to tell who's where to a degree of accuracy good enough to say, a) i'm at home, and b) i live in an "internet Red zone"

My suggestion was, every device has a GPS pinger that's veery accurate. Why not use that? Some cell comapnies say it's illegal, even if the customer pays them to do it, for cellular companies to constantly ping it for that SPECIFIC purpose.

So is it a corporate collusion, or is it a federal or state regulaition that prevents me from getting internet?

Read more about my woes, and some of the good I tried to de for the few people in my situation on

Also you can use "second broadcast subchannel as second eye".

I also heard doubling the resolution form 1080p to 4k cuts the frame rate in half.

I've seen 60 hz broadcasts (according to the info window) of shows that were actually filmed in 30hz. Does copying a frame twice take up significantly more bandwidth than making L:/R versions of that frame? Also more people PREFER a 30Hz look than a 60Hz look becaiuse a 30 Hz look looks more realistic., and 60 Hz looks too computer generated.

I also heard they can transmit in 120 Hz, so you could have a 60 Hz x 2 eye broadcast that is read as a 60 Hz x 1 eye broadcast on regular tvs.

I know analog is a constant signal using the same amount of bandwidth for any type of broadcast. But on digital, you can choiose what you want to emphasize by cutting back on other stuff.

For example, an audio only broadcast on TV airwaves takes less bandwidth than a mono B/W 30 Hz broadcast. Then adding things like Color*of varying bits, (Standard Blu ray is 8 for Y + 8 for Cb and 8 for Cr for 24 bits per pixel, HDR is 30 bits), Closed Captions (more than one track for foreign tracks) , multi-channel sound from stereo to Dolby 5.1, mulitchannel sound for foreign languages and audio for the blind, resolutions from 240p and 480i to 2160 p, frame rates from 30 Hz to 120 Hz, and finally 1 eye or 2, are up for grqbs and for the director to prioritize. The beautiful thing about that system is that it['s flexible tenough to accommodate each kind of show.

So it would be impossible to have a 120 Hz x 2 eye show, unless you're willing to either film in black and white, or maybe fewer than 24 bit color) or Stereo or mono instead of Dolby 5.1, or not accommodate other languages.

Univision does not put an English translation as either an audio track or as as closed caption track on their content. It's not a civil right that English content must accommodate the Spanish-only audience and not have it reciprocated. Frankly, the only thing I care about is Spanish soap operas, and the language of snuggling with speech in any language doesn't need a translation. <3 Half the other content is Spanish-language versions of English content. I recognize "Let's Make a Deal" by the look.

I assume there is a formula you can have to determine the bandwidth per second of content and how much bandwidth a TV station has per second. And I assume you can bend it many different ways. Can it also have a dynamic broadcast/cablecast./satcast prioriites list unique to each unit of content, so if the full production is too big to fit on a channel, the director thinks high resolution, for example, is the most important thing, and 3D is the least important thing, then the second eye goes on the internet,. But if 3D was important and a 30Hz x 2 eye presentation would be the least nioticed flaw but would be enhanced by 60 Hz x 2 eye, then halving the hertz rate is the next thing to drop down, etc..., biut could be picked up buy the internet

I'd hate to see 3D be the only feature relegqated to tyhe web. If a show director thinks 3D is more imprtant, and can find something to scarifice on that will least hurt the show, like framerate for a lot of people, then rthere should be a non-network way to accommodate 3D.

And you do agree that the rush to the 3D Super Bowl by making a TV broadcast unwatchable in 2D (for human purposes) byu using side-by-side half is the stupidest thing 3D fans could save done. As soon as the news reported that the 3D Super bowl would be 2D incompatible, and the subsequent 3D cancellation, that's when 3D TV sales nosedived.

[tripletopper]

Hello it's been a long time since my 3D question has been addressed. What do you do in an internet desert if you like 3D and you have broadcast TV?

what do you think about dynamic TV broadcasts where someone determines what's the more important feature to get on the primary broadcast and then all the supplemental stuff comes by the internet so it's not automatically 3D goes to the internet which I have very little of. If it's a colorized 3d movie why not move the chroma key to the internet?

if 3D is more important than high res then why not limit the resolution and go with 60 hertz 30 bits and two eyes?

By the way I got an engineer of my local ABC station liking my idea of 2D compatible 3D. He didn't know there was a 2d compatible 3d standard. Thank you ATSC3 for having it

But do not relegate 3D to network only. if Congress could have a rural telephone act and a rural rural electricity act in the 30s why can't they have an adequate Broadband Act. especially the way they're preventing cellulars from serving the rural areas without extreme caveats not making it worth their while. the ways I showed you could indicate that we're stationary and we're in Internet hell holes is by pinging our GPS but some companies say it's illegal to Ping our GPS even at all request.

[Lee A Stewart]

US relief package provides $7 billion for broadband

After months of deliberation, congressional leaders reached a $900 billion coronavirus relief deal on Sunday, including billions in funding for broadband internet access.

Congress’ latest relief measure provides $7 billion in funding for broadband connectivity and infrastructure. That figure includes $3.2 billion for a $50-per-month emergency broadband benefit for people who are laid off or furloughed during the pandemic, according to a press release from Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) office on Sunday.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/21/...and-huawei-zte

[Lee A Stewart]

Starlink

https://www.starlink.com/

[tripletopper]

Yes I heard of starlink. I applied as a possible customer they haven't sent me anything.

And it's not a question of being able to afford the internet is it a question of access.

When visible Cellular internet sounds like a great home internet option, (I considering where I am it is) then you know internet is not everywhere it could be.

With visible Wireless I get five megs in five big out hotspot unlimited quantity for 40 bucks in addition to all the other cellular stuff that goes along with it. If I'm on Social Security and I pay for this you know it's worth it. My best land base speed is 1.6 m in 400k out through Frontier. My dealings with the executive with relations to FCC complaints is almost like a James Bond relationship. A couple times I heard her say "And there's nothing you can do about it.". if she were trying to be sympathetic she would say "there's nothing Frontier can do about it."

By the way there's one last issue associated with satellite ping. With cellular I know I could beat 150 milliseconds of paying because it is only slightly elevated from the Earth's surface.

Traditional satellites internet is 30,000 km above the surface of the Earth. That's why 400 milliseconds of delay is added to send one bit. it's a great one-way communication System but a two-way it sucks.