The cheap way to implement 3d is to send an additional channel of data to the TV representing the depth of each pixel. It would probably adds 30% to the bandwidth and probably less with encoding. Then the TV can use the image plus the depth to split the image out into left and right versions. How the TV does this depends. Some TVs might split the image into red / green versions, others might alternate frames with shutter glasses, others might have fancy polarising tech to display both at once.
Something on the other end also has to be broadcasting this data which probably means a profile 4.0 player at some point.
I still think its a gimmick. If a TV does support 3D, it had better be a damned good 2D TV first and foremost. Very few people are going to buy a TV just to watch a limited selection of 3D CGI movies which is what it amounts to.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The cheap way to implement 3d is to send an additional channel of data to the TV representing the depth of each pixel. It would probably adds 30% to the bandwidth and probably less with encoding. Then the TV can use the image plus the depth to split the image out into left and right versions. How the TV does this depends. Some TVs might split the image into red / green versions, others might alternate frames with shutter glasses, others might have fancy polarising tech to display both at once.
Something on the other end also has to be broadcasting this data which probably means a profile 4.0 player at some point.
I still think its a gimmick. If a TV does support 3D, it had better be a damned good 2D TV first and foremost. Very few people are going to buy a TV just to watch a limited selection of 3D CGI movies which is what it amounts to.