Sky3D

Did anyone go to a pub to watch today's big football match in 'Stunning' 3D today? According to news reports it was a complete and utter success!

Will you be buying a 3D TV next? The channel launches for home viewers this Autumn - enough time for people to get the relevant kit needed. You can watch the preview now, but on non-3D televisions it shows as split-screen.

Why bother when within a year or two you'll probably need another new TV for the latest fad in television.

I did - I've posted in detail in the Sport thread, but I wasn't exactly blown away.

I think the main issue was that it was a separate production to the regular Sky Sports 1 programme, and had fewer cameras in poorer locations, and a second string commentary team.

If they can find a way to get both a 2D and 3D feed out of the same camera, so that they are producing just one programme it might be better. The 3D graphics were pretty cool though!

If only everyone had that outlook on new technology...

I'm relatively open minded about 3D, but think its more important, in 2010 at least to get HD sorted (and certain channels to even start broadcasting in 16:9!)

Apparently in order to film 3D, you need two cameras close to each other, which would go some way to explaining why they only had a limited number of camera positions.

Yeah this is the kind of thing
http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/611234.jpg

The outputs of the two cameras are combined in a way the the 3D glasses can uncombine, so the left eye sees the output of the left camera only, and the right eye sees the output of the right camera.

It would be good if they were able to use this style of camera exclusively, and take the output of just one of the cameras for the 2D feed so that they could put these cameras in the normal positions - I presume it's not beyond the realms of possibility to have the vision mixer(s) configured so that cutting to a camera put the correct feed onto the 2D and 3D output.

One issue that makes the "2D from 3D" process a bit of an issue is that you want to cover things differently for 3D in comparison to 2D, though for Camera 1 sports like football and rugby this may be a bit less of an issue.

For 3D to really work - and deliver 3D - you need more movement, and/or more depth of shot - which can get a bit annoying in 2D where you don't get the sense of depth, and just the motion.

This is a problem particularly for live productions - where you are less able to take well judged decisions for both audiences.

There isn't any specific 3D kit as yet - so live 3D stuff is cut using standard vision mixers. One bank (or similar facility) cuts one eye-feed, with a second bank (or similar) configured and slaved to cut the other eye-feed.

However whilst 3D remains in its infancy it is cut with far fewer cameras than is required to satisfy a 2D audience used to 20+ cameras covering an event, so just delivering one eye versions of the 3D feed isn't practical yet (the 2D audience would scream 'cheap') Also - the way you cut and shoot 3D is - at least at the moment - very different to the way you cover it in 2D. That isn't to say a half-way house won't be found (as it has been for SD and HD)

When you realise that most 3D rigs currently contain 2 HD cameras and 2 lenses and some ancillary gear - covering a match at 2D production value-levels in 3D is likely to more than double the facilities cost (twice as many EVS / VT channels, twice as many camera heads, twice as many cable runs etc.) you will see why it is cheaper to do a separate mix!

Some manufacturers have produced prototype cameras with a single lens (which avoids the nightmare of ensuring two lenses stay immaculately tracked) but with dual sensors at the back-end that add the eye separation, which comes closer to a "3D camera" (rather than 2x2D cameras+3D rig system)

Viewers of some Six Nations matches will have seen 3D cameras on the opposite side of the pitch to the 2D cameras they were watching on. There was often a 3D rail cam (with 2 lenses) tracking up and down (motion is key to 3D), and a 3D steadicam (with 2 brick-cams on it rather than full-facility devices)

I still think this 3D revolution is heavily mistimed. A lot of people are still getting to grips with the HD revolution, buying new sets and HD receivers and stuff - I dunno about you, but I can't be arsed looking into 3D TV for another 20 or 30 years.

Besides, people who aren't up on the whole 3D stuff will still probably think it'll work in a similar way Channel 4 adopted for their 3D week, and I know a lot of people thought that was balls. Call be pessimistic, but it's a waste of time.

Ooh, look. Sky's 3D competition... *enters*

As with everything - the pace of change quickens. Sky must hate Channel Four for running their spoiler season and continuing the myth that 3D=coloured glasses...

However the advent of 200Hz+ refresh rate displays has made active shutter glasses with less annoying flicker a real "bolt on" possibility - such that it is entirely possible that within a short period, many TVs you buy will be "3D ready" and all you'll need to do to watch 3D sources (like the 2x24p Blu-rays or the side-by-side Sky 3D stuff) will be to buy enough active glasses to use with your TV.

Some early adopters will go out and buy 3D sets (just as early HD adopters did) to replace perfectly good existing domestic sets. However others will just buy a 3D Ready set when they next upgrade I guess. (You won't have to buy the glasses at the same time with the active systems)

Sky are using the passive polarised systems for demos (as the glasses are cheap) - but most manufacturers are pushing active systems for homes. Partially because you don't need anything clever on the screen (no polarised coatings) and partially because the broadcast 3D systems would drop in quality if used with alternate line polarised systems. (Side-by-side drops the horizontal resolution to 960, and alternate line displays drop the vertical resolution to 540 - so whilst active glasses give you 960x1080 on side-by-side and 1920x1080 on Blu-ray, passive polarised systems drop to 960x540 on side-by-side and 1920x540 on Blu-ray)

I suspect, given the relatively low cost of upgrading existing 200Hz+ displays to support active shuttered glasses, once most TVs on sale are "3D ready" the impetus to buying a £75 pair of active glasses (and the price will surely come down) to watch movies and sport at home in 3D will become nearer an "impulse" purchase. They key will be it becoming an "add on" rather than requiring a new TV. This is likely to happy quite soon I suspect - all you need is an HDMI 1.4 and side-by-side HDMI 1.0+ compliant HDMI input, a display that runs properly at 100/200Hz or faster, and a standard IR emitter for the glass shuttering.

But that is Sky's business model,they always need to be introducing a new generation of equipment and they don't wait for the previous 'next big thing' to be universal first

Almost 12 years ago they started moving everyone from analogue to digital, then before everyone had Sky Digital, Sky+ came along and that was the revolution being pushed. Then HD came along and Sky subscribers were being encouraged to upgrade to that, even though a lot of them hadn't even got Sky+.

Sky always need something else on the horizon to move people over to, so now it's 3D, the difference this time is that it's new TV's rather than new STB's that are being promoted.

I do wonder what will be next though, they will need something else in a couple of years