2D compatibility, 2D vs 3D wars and a peace treaty

[8traxrule]

I never heard about any proposed side-by-side 3D broadcast of the Superbowl on TV. Seems like that would be against FCC regulations as the default view would be the squished side-by-side pictures. As much as I believe in "watch it the right way or don't watch it at all", compatibility issues like this do more harm than good in the long run. It should be like color, where if you tuned it in on a black and white TV you still got a picture at least.

I'm not a sports fan and don't have cable, but would've watched ESPN 3D if I were somehow able to get it without paying. (The terms for getting it seemed to doom it from the start- you had to pay extra for it and then they had a limited amount of material, often showing the same games repeatedly.) I saw a shot on a 3D demo disc of someone dunking a basketball hoop with the camera mounted right above it, that looked pretty cool.

[tripletopper]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

1080i, 720x60P, 1080x60P, 2160x60P and 4320x60P. Those are the "HD" video formats (HD, UHD-1 and UHD-2). There is NO 30 fps format. And they weren't going to invent one for any Super Bowl. The ONLY 30 fps format that I know of was the old Todd-AO 70mm format. It was shot and shown in 30 fps instead of the normal 24. Only two movies were made in this process: Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days

Well I see SD shows on an HD broadcast channel, I look at the info, and they are listed as 30 Hz.

I know theatrical material is released in 24 Hz, but most TV was either 480i (which I believe is 30 HZ) mainly used in SDTV, or 240p, which was 60 Hz, mainly used in video games, which explains why Twitch cannot capture a player’s "invincibility frames" accurately. (play any retro game where there is an alternate frame of solid and invisible to make something look transparent. The watch the same game on Twitch. Twitch has a maximum broadcast frame rate of 30 Hz anyway, so those "invincible frames" are either solid or invisible.)

If HDTV is supposedly SD content compatible, and if the minimum frame rate required for an HDTV is 60 Hz, and SDTV show play perfectly fine and show a 30 Hz tag, and if a lot of TV companies film in 30 Hz ANYWAY, some even PREFER 30 Hz to 60 Hz, and they just let the in between frames interpolate between those 2 frames, then that means most TV studios are wasting half of the minimum frames given.

If lots of broadcasters wish to show their show in 30 Hz anyway, let’s let them, and if they so choose, give the other 30 frames for a second eye, that can be locked out of regular 2D broadcasts, but able to be captured in a standard HD 60 Hz DVR.

By the way. It’s never been answered, how would one broadcast in 3D during the "3d trial balloon" period of 2012-2012? The only way they could have done it back then was to use side-by-side half. And they could have in theory used a second sub-channel for the second eye, but that was impractical, because every station leased off their sub-channels to minor networks, so they’d have to bump a sub-channel network to accommodate the second eye in a second sub-channel.

If you weren’t a 3D fan to begin with, and suddenly you hear your favorite series is moving to 3D, and then there was no way it can be watched in 2D, even if you had a 3D TV, wouldn’t you be kind of upset?

That’s why 3D broadcasting never took over. You either have to cut off 2D viewing, or use so much bandwidth tat something else would be cut which would cause complaints.

The 30 Hz x 2 Eye solution works within the minimums of HDTV, considering SD TV shows on those retro networks are flagged as 30 Hz, whule also considering lots of broadcaster film natively in 30 Hz anyway.

Besides, if The Price Is Right is filmed in 30Hz but is broadcast in 60 Hz, that explains why there is an occasional unnatural animation frame of the wheel spinning when it is filmed in reality. The algorithm got enough of the in-between frames wrong to cause a jarring effect. If The Price is Right is the typical example of a 30 Hz filmed project broadcast in 60 Hz, I think native stereoscopic 3D would look better than a computerized conversion from 30 Hz to 60 Hz.

I cant find that specifically on Google. I jsut wna tti se if that’s just me or if ther people notice that jarring frame in TPIR that happens enough to mak you thin it’s not just a fluke.

It’s sort of like certain people’s wardrobes having as similar effect on HDTV broadcasts.

[Lee A Stewart]

[Frank169]

Originally Posted by BLMN

I had ESPN 3D on Directv. Tried a few NBA games, College games (Basketball and Football) Soccer (2010 WC). I Think the best was Basketball, it really gave you that feel of being there. Football wasn't so great, maybe the camera angle view didn't help ?

It's not about the angle, it's about the distance!


Our pair of human eyes has a stereoscopic viewing range limit. Objects within several feet of sight are perfect 3D but as you exceed the distance the 3D impression will deteriorate and after 200 yards max. there is no more 3D depth perception.

With the (European) Football programs I watched in 3D there was a rather strange impression watching the games, i.e. the field and the players looked somewhat like miniature versions of themselves.

The reason for that being was that because of the viewing distance, the 3D effect would have almost been negligible, thus the space between the recording cameras was enlarged, but effectively the 3D viewer was now watching the game with the steroscopic vision potential of a giant...

The rule of thumb remains simple and brutal: 3D is best suited for all kinds of close-up action, objects in the distance have to look 2D if the impression is supposed to look realistic and if you manipulate or change that, our brain will kick in and tell us that something somehow isn't quite right.

[tripletopper]

@Lee_A_Stewart I know 3D formats can be converted between each other. There's free software called Bino3d available at http://bino3D.org So yes, with enough horsepower 3D is technically 2D compatible. But do you know that some knuckle-draggers were complaining about a $10 box to turn HDTV broadcasts into an SDTV signal.

The only reason the government subsidized 80% of the $50 retail priced converters was that the government was claiming back frequencies and bandwidth lost by SDTV. I doubt the US federal government would subsidize a 3D-to-2d converter. They have nothing to gain with 3D.

Then the question for federal airwaves is how to serve the public the best. Color was best when it didn't step on B/W's toes. Now that every camera is an HD camera, they usually have surround a spherical mic on them to capture surround sound. So even directionally and sonically mundane shows like The Price is Right and Wheel Of Fortune have 5.1 sheerly by inertia. (they may be good shows in terms of home-audience participation, but in terms of showing off your surround sound system, they are very benign.)

Since most shows shoot at 30 Hz anyway, making a 30 Hsz x 2 eye standard is perfect if you can trick a non-3D TV into thinking a 30 Hz x 2 Eye broadcast is really a 30 Hz ( x 1 eye) broadcast. Then 2D folks are happy, 3D folks are happy. DVRs with 60 Hz recording can capture both eyes, yet show only one eye when 2D is desired, and 2 eyes when 3D is desired. Also those funny wheel spinning artifacts on The Price Is right would be removed, assuming my theory is correct, which I can't assume.


@Frank169 I agree the way things look best in 3D is if they are relatively close up. If the shift in perspective is so minor between L only and R only that only a computer can tell, then it's a bad event to film in 3D.

That's why my best friend's wedding looks decent in 3D. (And I'm given so few tools that most of it was a "manual side-by-side half" that i couldn't guarantee the corresponding columns were aligned right. A friend who said that Avatar was the only binocularly filmed 3D movie since 2000, and said LITERALLY everything else was computer processed, thought, even though my 3D was off, [that's because I don't have proper tools] saw more convincing 3D, despite its flaws, than most hollywood blockbusters.)

Most shots are good when close up.

Another 3D filming technique: if you want to convey 3D over a distance, use a lot of motion in your shots. Filming my friend and his wife first dancing as a married couple looked more interesting when moving the camera. 3D does not look good sitting on a tripod. Motion shots is one key to making distance shots look more 3D and more believable in 3D.

That's why I thought of the prefect event to capture in 3D: A Miniature Golf tournament. Compared to large scale golf, Basketball, American football, and Soccer Football, Miniature Golf is kept in a phone booth. Also there is a natural 3-dimensionalism in the courses themselves. All the sports are a lot less 3 dimensional. (Large Scale Golf has some hilliness, but in terms of hilliness, Miniature Golf is Large Scale Golf with Monosodium Glutamate. Everything else LITERALLY takes place on a flat plane.)

Finally, the one thing you can't do with a 3DS camera is zoom. You might be able to zoom with a 3D cellular camera, but I doubt how good it is. Assuming the binocular separation distance is a constant, looking at something close up with a z-axis zoom without having a corresponding between-eye "y-axis zoom" throws off the scale. Zooming in makes things seem Godzilla-sized assuming the binocular separation distance doesn't get closer. Likewise starting zoomed in with the effect being right from a human perspective and zooming back gives you a Godzilla's-eye view of Tokyo, New York, or whatever major city he's closest to.

That's why, unless you're making a movie with major fantastical elements, like skyscraper-sized monsters, you should stick to the "walking zoom" if you don't want to throw off the 3D realism.

And that's the exact reason why most blockbusters usually have their human people captured monoscopically.

And probably more directors think the zoom is a more powerful tool than 3-dimensionalism. And if one wants both, one will have to a) get special non-basic 3D cameras where the relative distances of the 2 eyes can shift, b) use post-produced 3D computer tricks on monocular capture, and/or c) do "physical zooms", i.e. wheel the camera on a cart and physically go forward rather than optically.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

@Lee_A_Stewart I know 3D formats can be converted between each other. There's free software called Bino3d available at http://bino3D.org So yes, with enough horsepower 3D is technically 2D compatible. But do you know that some knuckle-draggers were complaining about a $10 box to turn HDTV broadcasts into an SDTV signal.

Oops! You missed the point of my photo. Nothing to do with conversion. All about the different types of 3D formats. You kept saying the mythical Super Bowl was to be shot in side-by-side. It could have been shot in any one of those 6 different 3D formats. The last one: Sequential 3D would have been totally 2D compatible.

[tripletopper]

Actually, @Lee_A_Stewart the alternate frames WOULD BE IN THEORY 2D compatible IF AND ONLY IF the signal would take a native 60 Hz signal, which is really 30HZ x 2 Eye, if you encoded it as 30 Hz plus extra info, and got old non-3DTVs to read as 30 Hz (with x 1 eye implied). treat as a 30HZ broadcast, while the other eye vanishes while at the same time got a 3D TV to read it as 30 Hz x 2 eyes.

Alternate frames is probably the easiest format to make 2D-friendly in a passive way that can cbe impolemeted wihtoiut millions of pepole buyign 3D-to-2D adpaters, like people bought HDTV-to-SDTV converters, and th governmnt had to subsidize 80% of the purchase price, ad were promisd extra channels they wouldn’t get before fira 1 time payment of $10.

How would one make a side-by-sde half broadcast automatically stretch one half, and center it wihtout comptuer hardware beig plugged into youer TV? Or alternate columns, or checkerboarding wouldn’t look right either in 2D and are not "natively built in".

I guess the other easy way is the same way SDTV had a quick animation mode for video games, (240p x 60 Hz ) and a standard "High Res" mode (480i x 30 Hz) so alternate rows would work too if interlaced.

You’d probably agree that of all the 3D formats that are considered broadcast standards, Alternate frames is probably easiest. Notice there’s 2 versions, right first and left first? I guess whatever the director’s preferred single eye would be would be the first eye in the pair. Probably of all the 3D formats, alternate frames is the easiest to broadcast with an 2D-friendly signal. Especially considering a lot of people still film in 30 Hz, plus artifiicially playing it at a 60 Hz rate with computer interpolation causes weird animation artifacts.

If there is no way a 2D TV can default into ignoring the in-betweeen frames, and the whole 60 frames spill out, then you basically have an effect similar to a particular Wang Chung Video. Epileptic city! (By the way I should try to see if the 2 alternate frames are really L and R pairs from a stereoscopic camera. I could load the video and play it through my PS3DTV using Bino.)

So if Metadata sets it as 30 HZ x 2 Eyes, and a non-3D TV reads it as 30 HZ X 1 eye, then they could have had a Super Bowl which was 3D for those who want it and 2D for those who don’t.

The reason why color worked, as well as closed captioning, foreign language audio, and stereo and higher forms of surround, was because you weren’t required to fully engage to enjoy the program at the most basic level. If 3D were as simple as an Almond Joy/Mounds choice, basically a flip of the switch, then 3D can be subversive. Its presence wouldn’t be noticed by non-partakers, but its absence WOULD be noticed by non-partakers. Kind of like if you bought DVDs before you bought a surround sound. You just unlocked a hidden treasure. But if you have to buy a special 3D version to take part in the 3D, then by the time you’d appreciate it, your chance is long gone.

As I said Active 3D viewers (people, not glasses) could engage in 3D, but the more passive viewer can engage in 2D. Same with me and my surround headsets. They don’t need to be ever present, just when hunkering down on a movie, or when i need directional cues from a game to do well. Unless it costs literally nothing in time, money, and effort, would anyone REALLY listen to Wheel of Fortune in a Dolby 5.1 Broaadcast?

I would typically NOT hunker down on Wheel of Fortune by wearing surround headphones. My dad and I each other give letter suggestions of "safe letters" and what letter to save for the "big bucks wedge", and early partial solutions, and help each other on spinning puzzles and compete on the toss ups.

The ability to choose whether to watch something in 2D or 3D depending on mood is important. Just like communal stereo speakers vs. wearing surround headphones. Every program now is in 5.1 by inertia. Most people won’t utilize it for everything, or even most things, but it’s easier just to make it in 5.1 because most people won’t notice its presence, but a very few, very loyal, very vocal people will notice its absence.

And how much do you really save in fliming a show using stereo microphones vs 5.1 microphones. it’s like intentionally getting a black and white camera: there better be a REALLY good artistic reason to do so, otherwise just turn off the chroma key for B/W and use a color camera.

But I admit, if the ability to zoom is more important than depth, and it’s NOT trivial to buy cameras that adjust their inter-eye ocular distance, then that’s a perfectly cromulent reason to film in 2D.

[Lee A Stewart]

People did not buy HDTV to SDTV adaptors in 2009. They bought digital to analog adaptors because the government mandated the demise of analog OTA. There were quite a few CRT TVs and 3 CRT RPTVs in consumers hands 10 years ago. Both are analog. If you had CBL or SAT you didn't need an adaptor no matter what TV you had.

tripletopper, you are beating a dead horse. 3D is dead for the home with the exception of 3D Blu-ray which is nothing more than a niche format. All your "what ifs" aren't going to change that.

[tripletopper]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

People did not buy HDTV to SDTV adaptors in 2009. They bought digital to analog adaptors because the government mandated the demise of analog OTA. There were quite a few CRT TVs and 3 CRT RPTVs in consumers hands 10 years ago. Both are analog. If you had CBL or SAT you didn't need an adaptor no matter what TV you had.

tripletopper, you are beating a dead horse. 3D is dead for the home with the exception of 3D Blu-ray which is nothing more than a niche format. All your "what ifs" aren't going to change that.

I think we're we're saying the same thing in 2 different ways.

The government ordered the demise of SDTV broadcasts (NTSC) because it was eating more broadcast space per "unit of content". If I recall right, before MTS, FM channels were used for Stereo simulcasts of shows. And There needed to be a second frequency for color difference info. Digitization saved bandwidth and since the government was the people's agent in managing bandwidth, (the FCC) they had an interest in reclaiming old bandwidth, and getting more content out of the same bandwidth.

The feds had many false starts on dates to cancel Analog OTA. A few low power stations still have until 2021.

3D was not part of that plan. Most 3D schemes "eat" bandwidth. It doesn't save it.

The government wouldn't fund a 3d-to-2d adapter is because the government gets no advantage with that. Some would argue 3D hurts its own cause.

The only way 3D would be both bandwidth-neutral and simultaneously not require an add-on box for basic 2D TV viewing is giving show makers an option for a 30 Hz x 2 Eye mode and designing a 3D form that is 2D friendly (even frame lockout when 2D)

Since enough production companies still actually prefer 30 Hz over 60 Hz, it will simultaneously remove artifacts as well as have a 2D-friendly 3D option.

By the way, there are still OTA stations, they are all now just digital OTA stations.

The government held firm when they promised more channels and subsidized 80% of the cost of the HDTV-> SDTV adapters, and it was down to $10 with subsidies.

The government is not going to encourage bandwidth waste by funding 3D-to-2D converters for those using digital OTA

[tripletopper]

Hello Lee Stewart, if 3D unfriendliness is not a factor then why don't they make separate Dolby and DTS editions of movies cuz if they did I would certainly make sure to buy Dolby every time because I have Turtle Beach Dolby headphone encoders. Unfortunately 70% of my movies are DTS and my Turtle Beach es unable to decode them into surround sound stereo.

that's exactly what happened with the 2D and 3D markets if the 3D was either a small printcfeature that was available on all copies of the movie,. And if 3D discs were truly 2D compatible which they are not on a basic Blu-ray then you you are premiumizing a feature which should be standard like Dolby and DTS around no one pays for foreign languages either or closed captions, but you have to pay for 3D content.

And the reason why you have to pay for 3D content is because the industry thought they could premiumize 3D, unlike what they thought of Dolby and DTS where they made it an extra feature you added on if you cared about it and was on the disc if you wanted it but didn't advertise a separate Dolby or DTS version. When you advertise a 3D pack and a 2d pack you make it sound like you got a choice instead of you get both versions in the same pack.

And yes 2D friendliness is important in broadcasting because if a 3D channel is twice the size of a 2d Channel then for every 3D simulcast you'll have to make a 2d version and get rid of two existing 2D channels. the math doesn't add up to make 3D channels make sense. But since enough of the industry films in 30 frames anyway, by the way I'm talking about the TV industry not the movie industry, where TV prefers to film in 30 rather than 60 for the look of it (it's a more realistic less artificial look) if enough of the TV industry does film in 30 Hertz anyway then that would be a guinea to open up the other 30 Hertz as a default 3D standard. And yes 480i was 30 Hz so don't tell me Todd AO was the only 30 HZ standard. So instead of 480i by 30 HZ it'd be 240p by 30 HZ by two eyes. Or if it's a modern show 720 p by 30 HZ by two eyes. unless the interlace look is preferred somewhere, and if enough people want to film in 30 Hertz in progressive anyway then why not use that other 30 Hertz for the hidden second eye? They encode stereo in a mono signal. they encode closed captions in a signal. They include Dolby 5.1 within a stereo signal. They encode color within a black and white signal? So night so why not encode the second eye in a binocular presentation within a monocular presentation?

You guys like to throw bandwidth at everything it's people like you that keep me in the country dog paddling at 1.5 megabits in 400k out as my fastest possible land-based option, therefore if I want to go faster I have to think outside the box and use visible Wireless for tethered cellular internet in unlimited quantities that's faster than that.

the problem is that internet is a utility in the sense that you can't go to the store and buy a water stream or buy a sewer or buy electrical source running to your house. In all those cases they bring it to you.

What if you're in such a screwball area that you're begging people to come and no one comes? Are you being denied service? If there's only one carrier and the carrier is not even legally broadband does that even count? and when that carrier tries everything in their power to maintain their Monopoly by by reporting that they are fulfilling the minimum requirements but actually fail how do you stop that?

I know enough about bandwidth scarcity to know that that is a smart move that since most TV studios film and 30 hurts anyway might as well have a 30 HZ by two eyes mode which equals the minimum of 720P by 60 HZ by one eye.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

I think we're we're saying the same thing in 2 different ways.

The government ordered the demise of SDTV broadcasts (NTSC) because it was eating more broadcast space per "unit of content". If I recall right, before MTS, FM channels were used for Stereo simulcasts of shows. And There needed to be a second frequency for color difference info. Digitization saved bandwidth and since the government was the people's agent in managing bandwidth, (the FCC) they had an interest in reclaiming old bandwidth, and getting more content out of the same bandwidth.

The feds had many false starts on dates to cancel Analog OTA. A few low power stations still have until 2021.

The government did not order the demise of Standard Definition TV (NTSC). They ordered the demise of analog broadcasting: had to go to digital. There are still hundreds and hundreds of SDTV channels today.

These are the channels available in the greater Albuquerque, NM area. If the channel is in HD you see the HD symbol. If it's not there than the channel is in SD.

https://www.titantv.com/Default.aspx

3D was not part of that plan. Most 3D schemes "eat" bandwidth. It doesn't save it.

The government wouldn't fund a 3d-to-2d adapter is because the government gets no advantage with that. Some would argue 3D hurts its own cause.

The only way 3D would be both bandwidth-neutral and simultaneously not require an add-on box for basic 2D TV viewing is giving show makers an option for a 30 Hz x 2 Eye mode and designing a 3D form that is 2D friendly (even frame lockout when 2D)

Since enough production companies still actually prefer 30 Hz over 60 Hz, it will simultaneously remove artifacts as well as have a 2D-friendly 3D option.

By the way, there are still OTA stations, they are all now just digital OTA stations.

The government held firm when they promised more channels and subsidized 80% of the cost of the HDTV-> SDTV adapters, and it was down to $10 with subsidies.

The government is not going to encourage bandwidth waste by funding 3D-to-2D converters for those using digital OTA

The government has nothing to do with 3D. Nor HD. That would be up to the individual channels themselves. As long as they follow ATSC 1.0 standards. The same holds true with the NextGen TV format: ATSC 3.0. They can broadcast in 4K, HD, SD and even 3D.

[tripletopper]

Okay maybe I'm confusing terms but I did say that ntsc had to go which was the analog system which is always standard definition. The atsc is the digital system and though it's main purpose is high definition it can do the old standard definition television. it also compresses the TV signal relative to the amount of bandwidth so you can have more channels or better channels with the same UHF and VHF frequencies.

My point is no one thought of 3D as a mainstream format. Dolby 5.1 is optional on atsc. Closed captions are required by the government.

There are different ways 3D could be impractical. One is with an explicit government ban on 3D. Obviously that did that happen.

I was mainly talking about from my consumer points where Dish Network was my main cable carrier since 2001 (technically satellite but same difference except different delivery system) no 3D broadcasts were available anywhere except on pay-per-view on Dish Network at all. Because of that I thought broadcast 3D would be the first 3D.

Yes it's true that you could have 3D sub channels on both over the air and pay TV.

you could throw bandwidth at the problem and make a separate 3D channel which is twice the bandwidth of a 2d Channel. But you got many complications. First some of those substations are leased to other companies. All those various networks I could find on Dish Network. In Cleveland where the late night horror host was invented with Ghoulardi, now the only thing on TV that is local in Cleveland is the news and the commercials. That's it. So the sub channels are least to other companies and whenever someone advertises a 3D event someone's at least one channel is going to have to move because of it. Probably more than one for two reasons. one reason is that those sub channels usually have less bandwidth therefore only carry standard definition. And I don't know what standards they brought playing to broadcast 3D in but is it 60 HZ times 2 eyes or 30 HZ times 2 eyes? If the 2D broadcast is 60 hertz then you triple your required bandwidth just to carry both a 3D version and a separate version.

However if people designed 3D and ATC with more bandwidth conservation in mind, the 30 Hertz by 2d standard would have been the standard minimal 3D standard. Since most TV studios prefer the look of 30 Hertz versus 60 hertz on most shows, you've opened half the bandwidth of the channel for the second eye plus you don't have to take off any existing channels for the second eye. And if I remember right, wasn't ntsc standard definition supposed to be 480i by 30 HZ? you're not sacrificing anything by going back to a standard that more TV studios prefer but now you added the third dimension.

If that single channels worth a bandwidth could carry the 2D signal and the 3D signal as one unified signal with encoding to deal with the second eye as opposed to explicit 2D and 3D, now you don't have to take off any other channel to allow a 3D show. Every station could in theory be a 3D station. I'm not saying everyone's going to optimize for 3D or even make a big deal of it, but, if I'm diagnosing it right, if there is no such thing as a 30 Hertz broadcast, and I noticed on a daily Show consistently that the Price Is Right on the showcase showdown the wheel spinning round the animation looks awkward. I don't know the exact answer but if what I'm saying is true and Fremantle films Price is Right and 30 Hertz and the minimum broadcast is 60 hertz, if it uses interpolation to get those middle frames, then and really fast wheel spins screw up the animation output, then not only the Price Is Right would look better by getting rid of those required middle frames, then it would look better in 2D and then all you got to do is put another camera on the side and use the encoding and you got prices right in 3D. It's not like exactly Drew Carey's going to throw something at the camera everyday just to prove it's 3D. The automated translation from 30 HZ to 60 HZ sometimes has some funny artifacts. Like I heard if you're using 30 HZ

My point is if the only solution having 3D TV is to have a separate broadcast simulcast with a 2d version, who's going to be the channel that gets bumped off for 3D on a particular VHF or UHF station?

But if cutting the Hertz in half letting you double the eyes is a legal option, an acceptable option, and if what I hear is correct, the preferred option, then that would have been the best solution and made 3D TV an actual viable option and not just a pie in the sky theoretical possibility. You can have 2D compatible 3D all day, everyday.

Now excuse me but, my main point was that the main way 3D was going to be used in the Super Bowl was most likely side by side half. if that was the case then one of two things were going to happen. Either a) they have to boot one of their sub channels off for a few hours, or b) for those who didn't have a 3D TV, you would be watching split images twice as thin. Plus what if you didn't want to watch 3D. For 30 of the 32 teams and most of the rest of the world the Super Bowl is just a social occasion go to a house for a party. That is the only venue I know where people go to the bathroom during the main game and make sure they don't miss the commercials.

No cable and satellite is even trickier. If painting shows are 60 hertz, and 3D requires 60 HZ in the same resolution by two eyes, then people would be jockeying buying each other off to allow a 3D presentation by kicking off other channels.

I would say 2D unfriendliness is the only reason why 3D TV failed. But if flirty hurts by two eyes encoded to be 2D friendly would have been used, then just like color TV between 1955 to 1965, if you were a Rockefeller you probably had color TV in 55. some of the tech heads may have read about it in the newspaper but most people didn't care till it came closer to 65. Color was passively there and a lot of shows that you thought that were broadcasting in black white actually were produced and broadcast in color and you're actually seeing for the first time in retrospect in color. The 1% enjoyed color TV and the 99% were just enjoying TV period.

Just like you could still be impressed by the picture of a LaserDisc in the 80s but not know about Dolby AC3 until much later, or enjoy black and white chosen the 50s when they were actually color, if 3D could have been done my way, with a 30 HZ by two eyes format, that would be compatible with both ATSC as well as NTSC through converters.

Maybe it wasn't official NFL programming that mentioned this, but it might have been sports talk radio mentioning the 2d incompatibility, and with a certain percentage people having an old world mentality in Cleveland most of the calls say let us keep our Super Bowl free.

They've been floating tribal loons of 3D Super bowls the last of which was 2012. I think that's when public knowledge let the cat out of the bag, and said the current 3D format is incompatible with 2D TVs. It might have been the 2011-12 Super Bowl that had that realization. I just couldn't act on it till September 2012 when I got out of debt, and December of 2012 when I saved up enough money for a PlayStation 3D TV.

The funny thing is the more light more of life you live the more things seem to be a jumbled spaghetti mess. And it's not senility, there's just more data in the banks you have to sort through and certain ones you put front and center and certain ones you put deep until something springs it up.

If 3D could have been actively enjoyed by those who were seeking it, passively enjoyed in 2D, and cost the same amount of bandwidth as a regular 2D channel does, better would have just been small print in the extra feature section of the TV guide or the Blu-ray jacket.

the fact that you can get a cheaper price by removing 3D kind of segregated the market. No one gave me a choice of whether I wanted Dolby or DTS. If I could I would have taken Dolby every time, due to my Turtle Beach. But as of last count 70% of my movies are DTS. some people if they could have they would have saved money by just getting the two Channel version of movies.

No one complains when they tack on subtitles or foreign languages. the main reason why 3D is different is because you need to actively buy a separate 3D version. If it was hidden in the background waiting to be decoded, and those who couldn't give a flip either way had no idea was in there and then would be surprised when they get their first 3D TV, then we wouldn't have had a 2d versus 3D War.

And unlike an HD DVD versus Blu-ray War, or any of the major video game console wars, there was no stereoscopic association promoting 3D nor were there flat screeners promoting 2D.

Actually this reminds me more of the DVD days of full frame versus widescreen. Wasn't DVD supposed to cure this with dynamic ratio discs were basically the DVD was stored as a 480i original theatrical ratio cut, and then there would be digital zoom information to show where the 4x3 frame goes. I've only seen one movie that uses it Top Gun for DVD. Some people made flippers, some people offered then separately. MGM really messed up some of their DVDs by instead of the widescreen version being the original theatrical ratio the widescreen version is even a further zoom in and chop off of the regular 4x3 version itself a Zoomed in chop off.

As noble as some "business manifestos" sound businesses eventually find ways around it. Remember when one of blu-ray's main selling points is was that was always going to be in the original theatrical ratio in the founding manifesto? That has seem to going out the window too as you have to check the box to make sure it's what you want.

By the way I want Dolby versions of everything I have in DTS. How am I supposed to listen and Surround Sound if it's in DTS and there's no such thing as a DTS headphone decoder, just Dolby? (I know now I can thanks to the DTS headphone app on Xbox One. but no other players than the Xbox One have the right headphone players as software.

[tomtastic]

It's interesting reading some of these older posts. I think there's a few reasons that broadcast 3D failed and mostly it didn't have anything to do with 3D.

Take ESPN3D. Did any of you guys watch it? I did and I can't remember too many games that were actually live. I think I may have watched one game live and in 3D, the rest was rebroadcast. That doesn't work for sports. Sports is a live event entertainment and most of the content on ESPN3D was not live. So ESPN3D was doomed to fail from the start.

Another was programing. There were two channels on Directv, besides ESPN3D and the CINE channel. N3D and 3Net and both channels didn't offer much in the way of content. 3net threw in some IMAX documentaries but you could also buy them on Blu ray of course and would look better. But the made for broadcast programming was let's say not made for prime time. I liked a lot of what 3net put on in 3D but I'm sure many wouldn't too.

Yeah, I really miss that time period. 2012-2014 when there were 3 or 4 3D channels on. I had Blu ray 3D or I could just turn on the TV and have broadcast 3D all the time, 24/7 3D. Yes, the commercials were repetitive but it was in 3D and I think, despite being half resolution and lower bitrate, still looked decent at the time.

I was able to record off of 3Net the National Park series in 3D which I put up on YT but I wish I had recorded more. They shut down 3Net rather quickly in 2014 around September and I didn't get a chance to get any more content. It's now gone forever I suppose.

I remember watching the Olympics live in 3D. I don't remember what channel it was on. That was pretty cool. Yeah, most reasons they failed weren't even about 3D. It didn't really get a chance to take off with better programming.

[BLMN]

Originally Posted by tomtastic

Take ESPN3D. Did any of you guys watch it? I did and I can't remember too many games that were actually live. I think I may have watched one game live and in 3D, the rest was rebroadcast. That doesn't work for sports. Sports is a live event entertainment and most of the content on ESPN3D was not live. So ESPN3D was doomed to fail from the start.

The World Cup in 2010 had a delay on the 3D feed, I remember seeing a few NBA, NHL and College Football games but not sure if they were actually live or delayed as well.

[MC123ABC]

What is a better goal to get 3D more accepted by 3D Haters?

This 3D hating phenomenon needs to be studied more. Members of my family refuse to wear another set of glasses. Others don't seem to ever be wowed or see it.

This is not like 7.1 to Atmos, they both provide a surround 3D experience. Even for the non audiophile.

Going 3D Blu ray to 4K you lose so much image shape. The flat 4K picture quality might be slightly better but it has no 3D technology emitting from it. Nothing to come out and wow me, creating NEW interest.

Active 3D motion and camera placement, is so superior , it is obvious to me the haters just cannot see the 3D.

4K fans seem to want drama flicks with the stars gigantic eye ball sticking in the camera..why? Bunch a wonky eye'd mo fo's if you ask me.

I want the 3D. I want the truth.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by MC123ABC

What is a better goal to get 3D more accepted by 3D Haters?

Get rid of the glasses. Go Stereoscopic 3D.

[MC123ABC]

Have you used a Nintendo 3DS?

Only one perspective can get full 3D viewing it straight on.

The parallax barrier deflector shield cannot be angled for more than 1 viewing perspective.

From a certain distance also, too far and the pupilary distance ratio changes.


How about we make movies as TRUE holograms. Hollywood can make HOLLYgrams.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by MC123ABC

Have you used a Nintendo 3DS?

Only one perspective can get full 3D viewing it straight on.

The parallax barrier deflector shield cannot be angled for more than 1 viewing perspective.

From a certain distance also, too far and the pupilary distance ratio changes.


How about we make movies as TRUE holograms. Hollywood can make HOLLYgrams.

That is ancient stereoscopic 3D TV technology. Both Toshiba and Phillips had briefly released glasses free TVs during the 3D TV boom.

Now we have inexpensive AI which can track people's eyes so that say 3 people sitting on a couch can view 3D without glasses and if their eyes stray to the left or right, the AI can adjust the images so there is no smearing or ghosting. Each person sees perfectly presented Auto 3D.

[MC123ABC]

Never saw an AI 3D TV with eye ball tracking. Did they have a demo setup at Best Buy?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by MC123ABC

Never saw an AI 3D TV with eye ball tracking. Did they have a demo setup at Best Buy?

It doesn't exist yet. All the pieces exist. No one has put them all together yet.

The only real negative is half resolution. 8K gives you 4K. 4K gives you HD.