News - BBC to suspend 3D program making

[kalniel]

I would have much preferred to watch it in 3d, the actual picture looked great, and really added to the occasion.

However: the camera angle for the 3d cams was awful, far, far too low to get a good view of what was going on over the other side of the net. I can only assume they had to be low down so all the nobs in the Royal Box didn't have their view spoiled.

Yeah that was the main criticism we had of it as well. Was a slightly more 'player's eye view' but actually, the 2D cameras were in better places.

Why couldn't they just set up the 3d stuff next to the 2d cameras?

I don't think they had all that many of them.

[Brewster0101]

and all those that paid £££ are going ouch ...still they have blueray .. but for how long

Love my LG 3d TV. Won me over seeing the 3d in store. Only ever watched Wimbledon in 3D over the last two years from a broadcast - and some of the Olympics opening ceremony.

But films from Bluray are a different kettle of fish... A good 3D film set up correctly is much better than 2D.

Fair enough. Wimbledon final in 3d was great though

Yeap, was very good, although the camera angle was slightly lower than 2D camera, so was harder to see the far side of the court.


People who claim 3D adds nothing to films/Tv are having a laugh. Imagine if one day you woke up and could only see 2D through your eyes. Think you'd notice a difference and wish for 3D vision back again.

[MustardCutter]

People who claim 3D adds nothing to films/Tv are having a laugh. Imagine if one day you woke up and could only see 2D through your eyes. Think you'd notice a difference and wish for 3D vision back again.

Silly comparison. A bit of depth to an image is nice in a film (I liked to story 3D's 3D), but when it's used to make things appear right in your face it's obtrusive (in my opinion) and gives many people head aches and is totally different to real life vision. Not to mention the screens never fill your full field of view so the edges of the screen look all wrong, nothing like normal vision at all. It also encourages film makers to make pointless scenes that serve no purpose other than "this might look cool in 3D".

[kalniel]

I don't think for one instance he was saying it was like real life vision

But I completely agree that negative image distance (the pop out effect) is horrible - the best 3D is when it's used far more subtly, especially for things like landscapes where it can look very natural and quite superior to 2D.

[MustardCutter]

I don't think for one instance he was saying it was like real life vision

But I completely agree that negative image distance (the pop out effect) is horrible - the best 3D is when it's used far more subtly, especially for things like landscapes where it can look very natural and quite superior to 2D.

The second part I totally agree with you, but he/she tried to make out 3D over 2D TV is beneficial like being able to see in three dimensions in real life rather than two, it just isn't.

[kalniel]

The second part I totally agree with you, but he/she tried to make out 3D over 2D TV is beneficial like being able to see in three dimensions in real life rather than two, it just isn't.

But being able to see in three dimensions over two really is beneficial!

In the same way, a 3D image on TV can be beneficial over a 2D image.

But that doesn't mean that a 3D tv image is going to be like a 3D real life scene.

[scaryjim]

Let's be honest, seeing 3D in "real life" is just as much an optical illusion as it is on TV - you want to try life in 2D, close one eye. Want to know how easy it is to live in 2D, ask someone who's blind in one eye or only has one eye. Just because you live in a three dimensional space doesn't mean you perceive all three dimensions - your retina is still a 2D surface. Your brain simply interprets the different images each eye receives and adds depth-perception. The big differenec between life and watching a film is that you decide where to look at life from, rather than a director deciding where the camera goes. Otherwise, there's really not a lot of difference.

[kalniel]

Let's be honest, seeing 3D in "real life" is just as much an optical illusion as it is on TV - you want to try life in 2D, close one eye. Want to know how easy it is to live in 2D, ask someone who's blind in one eye or only has one eye. Just because you live in a three dimensional space doesn't mean you perceive all three dimensions - your retina is still a 2D surface. Your brain simply interprets the different images each eye receives and adds depth-perception. The big differenec between life and watching a film is that you decide where to look at life from, rather than a director deciding where the camera goes. Otherwise, there's really not a lot of difference.

Well when we can capture and display images with anything close to the dynamic range that we can in real life I'll be very happy. Resolution is one thing, 3D is another, but it's dynamic range that I notice the most between 'real life' and a reproduced image.

[MustardCutter]

But being able to see in three dimensions over two really is beneficial!

I know, I never said it wasn't. My initial point was that it was definitley beneficial and on TV it isn't particularly...

In the same way, a 3D image on TV can be beneficial over a 2D image.

It can, but subjectively so, where as real life vision is definitley better in 3 dimensions, which was the point I tried to initially make.

But that doesn't mean that a 3D tv image is going to be like a 3D real life scene.

I never said it was and that's why it can be nauseating, artificially created depth doesn't always look right to the brain.

[crossy]

But I completely agree that negative image distance (the pop out effect) is horrible - the best 3D is when it's used far more subtly, especially for things like landscapes where it can look very natural and quite superior to 2D.

Agree with the utility of 3D to landscapes, in fact it seems to me that the bigger the "sweep" of the picture the better the 3D is. That said, how many people have gone to a cinema to see a "3D" film and then come out wondering what the heck they paid for.

Not that I've tried a lot, but invariably when I've tried a 3D set in the likes of Currys etc, the picture looks a bit "fuzzy". And given that the sets I'm looking at are a lot more than their 2D cousins I'm left wondering why pay the extra for a worse picture.

Must admit to liking the idea of 4K TV's more than 3D, although of course if Samsung, Sony, etc come out with an affordable glasses-free 3D set with excellent picture and wide view angles then I might be tempted, (especially if there's a trade in deal for my current set).

[kalniel]

Not that I've tried a lot, but invariably when I've tried a 3D set in the likes of Currys etc, the picture looks a bit "fuzzy". And given that the sets I'm looking at are a lot more than their 2D cousins I'm left wondering why pay the extra for a worse picture.

You should never try a TV in Currys etc - the environment is nothing you'll ever have to put up with at home. I've got a recent Panasonic plasma with active 3D and the 3D picture is just as pin sharp as the 2D, but you'd not want to show it on a very bright show room or in direct sunlight as 3D does cut the brightness significantly. But again with the Panasonic plasmas the best sets in 2D happen to also be 3D capable, so if you want the best 2D image you have to get a TV that happens to be 3D capable.

Must admit to liking the idea of 4K TV's more than 3D, although of course if Samsung, Sony, etc come out with an affordable glasses-free 3D set with excellent picture and wide view angles then I might be tempted, (especially if there's a trade in deal for my current set).

I'm really looking forward to 4k, but as I've only just moved from CRT to plasma I can wait a while - Also waiting for OLED technologies as I can't put up with LCD at the moment (hence going straight to plasma from CRT).

[Lowe]

Only because you don't really have much choice, 3D is now at the point where it's an 'inclusive' technology with rather than it being an extra feature.

I've had 3D for some time and still haven't used it. Personally it's something I have absolutely no interest at all in, I find the effect very distracting.

[jigger]

I actively avoid 3d as I find it detracts from the image quality and gives me a headache. I watched World War Z in 3d and just couldn't enjoy the film as I found myself constantly thinking this would be so much better without being constantly distracted by effects that look out of focus and just seem completely unnatural to me.

I hope 3d completely goes away and manufactures focus on developing better screens.

[keithwalton]

The 3D content wasn't particularly well publicised.

Bingo, I only found out I had it when they announced that they were stopping it.
I did manage to catch some of the tennis on saturday in 3d, but it did make me laugh that they mentioned the new red button service after the mens final.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wouldn't going to 2D sets be a bit complicated??

[Agent]

It'll all kick off again when proper lenticular displays come out.