@engadget ... on what do you base this ".. closer to believing that the format actually has a chance at catching on in the home." granted, sports fans will buy anything (ESPN360 is the proof of that ... $10 for a soccer match ?!) as will gamers (most of us have multiple consoles) so 3D will definitely find a place in the home, just like quadraphonic sound ...
objectively though: 1) Current TV transmissions standards (SDI) mean that for live 3D to be transmitted over normal TV channels the signal is interlaced one way or another ... this means that we loose 1/2 the information (not resolution) per eye for each frame, it also means we lose 4 times the information for a given time-interval. This mostly means we get a very flat color picture ... see Avatar, most people will agree the normal version had much better color resolution
2) 3D doesn't work for all shot-types, it means overall he viewer looses out on fast transitions, action-shots ... shame really
3) The current 3D camera lens systems always gives you the feeling that you're floating over the field like in a video game ... only the wider-angle shots with little zoom give a believable picture. (though Sony seems to be working on a new prototype that tries to eliminate this ) but it never gives an accurate view "as if you were there"
The more I look at this the more I get the feeling the broadcasters are forcing this technology on us to 'keep us sweet' in the hope something better comes along soon ...
I feel what you're saying, I really do. In fact I was a big 3D hater not even a year ago. But after being exposed to the technology over and over again I learned to love it and now I'm an evangelist. I'm telling you, this new 3D technology has some really cool applications and sports is one of them.
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.
@engadget ... on what do you base this ".. closer to believing that the format actually has a chance at catching on in the home." granted, sports fans will buy anything (ESPN360 is the proof of that ... $10 for a soccer match ?!) as will gamers (most of us have multiple consoles) so 3D will definitely find a place in the home, just like quadraphonic sound ...
objectively though:
1) Current TV transmissions standards (SDI) mean that for live 3D to be transmitted over normal TV channels the signal is interlaced one way or another ... this means that we loose 1/2 the information (not resolution) per eye for each frame, it also means we lose 4 times the information for a given time-interval. This mostly means we get a very flat color picture ... see Avatar, most people will agree the normal version had much better color resolution
2) 3D doesn't work for all shot-types, it means overall he viewer looses out on fast transitions, action-shots ... shame really
3) The current 3D camera lens systems always gives you the feeling that you're floating over the field like in a video game ... only the wider-angle shots with little zoom give a believable picture. (though Sony seems to be working on a new prototype that tries to eliminate this ) but it never gives an accurate view "as if you were there"
The more I look at this the more I get the feeling the broadcasters are forcing this technology on us to 'keep us sweet' in the hope something better comes along soon ...
@xabra
I feel what you're saying, I really do. In fact I was a big 3D hater not even a year ago. But after being exposed to the technology over and over again I learned to love it and now I'm an evangelist. I'm telling you, this new 3D technology has some really cool applications and sports is one of them.