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

[RobManIn3D]

3D is harder to do than color, or stereo sound, or 4K. Costs more, too. Unless it's going to rake in the big $$$, it won't take off.

[tripletopper]

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.

[tripletopper]

Of course that's 3dvin the most basic sense. Using models, computer graphics and other advanced techniques to make a Blockbuster makes it more expensive, but to make the newscast 3d, the only 2 things you really need are 2 cameras per angle, and a 2D compatible 3Dvbroadcast standard. That last thing no one had.

If 3D would have been an inclusion that was optional like color in the black and white days or Dolby Surround, those who liked it would have enjoyed it better, and there'd be a lot of people who'd hate it just simply because it's 3D.

There is a VERY BIG difference between having everything being 3D, yet only having 30% people try it one time at the most and maybe 2% of people actually engage in it more than once, and forcing people to watch everything in 3D, which requires a membership card of a 3D TV and broadcast signal carrier to gain admission. And if ordinary shows had to be 3D in order to be watched, which is basically the way the industry has it now either watch the 3D channels or don't watch those 3D shows at all.

Actually the industry took the third worst option make 3D optional but make the 3D costly in terms of bandwidth so costly that it takes out two regular standard high definition channels for every 3D channel of the same length of time. Plus you're duplicating content that's on a 2d Channel. so you're burning three channels worth the bandwidth to have a 3D channel and a 2d version of the 3D channel.

As someone who knows about living with limited bandwidth I know throwing down with that stuff gains you some enemies. I went in there an area not worthy of hating being with demanding bandwidth also makes you some enemies.

By the way color stewed for about 10 years until color TVs were only twice the price of black and white then eventually black and white went the way the dodo bird. But still, black and white is an artistic option people can still use. If 60 frames is more important than 3D then at least I tried. But if enough of the TV industry films in 30 frames anyway, and some cartoons animate in 15 frames, why not use that extra bandwidth for something useful like 3D?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by tripletopper

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.

If there was ever a 2D/3D war it is long over. 3D lost.

[tripletopper]

I think the problem was the industry wanted to shove 3D in your face instead of slipstream it's like color was in the 50 s or stereo TV was in the 80s.

The war was caused by people buying HDTVs just before the mandatory switch 2009, and like my dad who is smart did not want to throw out a perfectly good TV bought in 2007 and replaced for free in 2009 due to manufacturer defect, which by the way that same TV we still have, dad had patients that said will eventually get it others just rebelled against it.

Looking through all forums, I heard there was a rumor that's as of 2015 all Sony brand TVs are openly 2D TVs but silently have a special port for inserting a 3D syncher? Could that be the USB port or some other proprietary port?

Has my idea come true? how do you decided not to make 3D TVs but to make every TV 2D and simultaneously potentially a 3D TV but only if you take the initiative?

this is of course if you prefer the shutter style because I don't know what it takes to add polar Shields to existing 2D TVs.

But then again 2D TVs might be silently adding polar Shields and you have to plug something in the USB to activate polar 3D mode.

If so then don't give up on the technology. people don't mind wearing glasses for 3D, when they want. People just hate being forced to watch everything with those glasses.

[veritas]

It really just came down to greed. 3d felt milked at basically every level. It cost you more for the tv, it cost you more in theaters, the discs cost more and even the glasses had inflated prices while also being confusing for which ones you need. That 30% mark up in theaters meant people watched 3d films very rarely so people never got used to the format. The 3d in tvs is hard to demo and was generally pretty expensive while also going through growing pains ( the early tvs that first went on the market with it kind of sucked). It also didint help that early 3d had no quality control so awful conversions like clash of titans might be one of the few times a person sees 3d.

even sound and color might have failed if they had tried to introduce it by charging multiple times the going rate and had little to no quality control.