News - BBC to suspend 3D program making

[Brewster0101]

Thanks Kalniel for understanding my point. Mustardcutter kinda took my point a little too literal.

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.

Funny how you think 3D films distract you because stuff is out of focus, try looking at two things in your room at different distances and focusing on both - you can't. If anything 2D on TV/Cinema is false because generally everything is in focus regardless of the distance in the scene between objects.

[aidanjt]

Funny how you think 3D films distract you because stuff is out of focus, try looking at two things in your room at different distances and focusing on both - you can't. If anything 2D on TV/Cinema is false because generally everything is in focus regardless of the distance in the scene between objects.

The difference is you can choose to focus on one real object or another. That's entirely natural. With stereoscopy you have no choice but to focus on what the director wants to force you to focus on, that's massively unnatural and distracting. If someone figured out how to combine light-field, stereoscopy, and eye tracking technologies to automatically follow your focus, then that would be less of an issue.

[kalniel]

The difference is you can choose to focus on one real object or another. That's entirely natural. With stereoscopy you have no choice but to focus on what the director wants to force you to focus on, that's massively unnatural and distracting. If someone figured out how to combine light-field, stereoscopy, and eye tracking technologies to automatically follow your focus, then that would be less of an issue.

The tech's kind of there for one person at least - pupil tracking + lyto camera.

[MrBozack]

If the BBC says 3D hasn't "took off", then you know they're lying. They can't be trusted. It's official and irrefutable. They lie all the time.


I personally know plenty of folks with 3D - and none of them watch BBC. Pixar, Dreamworks, IMAX must all be wrong. 3D isn't what people want.

Perhaps the BBC should talk about other things?
I think they should comment on the way they "deliberately withheld information" about their organised paedophile network?
Or the fact they use Capita Business Services (who also "hunt down" asylum seekers for UK Border Agency) to intimidate and lie to people.

[crossy]

If the BBC says 3D hasn't "took off", then you know they're lying. They can't be trusted. It's official and irrefutable. They lie all the time.
I personally know plenty of folks with 3D - and none of them watch BBC. Pixar, Dreamworks, IMAX must all be wrong. 3D isn't what people want.Perhaps the BBC should talk about other things?
I think they should comment on the way they "deliberately withheld information" about their organised paedophile network?Or the fact they use Capita Business Services (who also "hunt down" asylum seekers for UK Border Agency) to intimidate and lie to people.

Was there an opinion in that rant?

See also Foil Hat 101

Do a Google (or whatever your favourite non-tracking search engine is) for articles on the scale of real 3D uptake and it's interesting. There are a lot of 3D TV's sold but the US broadcasters reckon that there's only around 120,000 watchers of 3D content daily. And demand for 3D films from the public also seems to be falling - although it has been suggested that this is more to do with the "premium" charged for those being unpalatable when we're all strapped for cash (apart from MP's and their cronies). As noted in the article, the Beeb is following the lead of other broadcasters - 3D audiences are falling, so the service is making less sense economically. Or are you suggesting some machiavellian ulterior motive - discontinue the 3D service, then use the (minor) public outcry to attempt to justify a license increase?

Not saying that the Beeb are whiter than white (they aren't) but compare their current affairs output to the competition - Sky News, Fox "News" - and only the most purblind would fail to give a grudging "they're not so bad".

And no, I don't work for the BBC.

[3dcandy]

Whichever way you look at it 3D quality must suffer as you have to produce twice as many images for it too work the same as a 2d picture. However it seems that people just don't watch tv like they used to, it's not always the main focus in the room anymore...

[kalniel]

Whichever way you look at it 3D quality must suffer as you have to produce twice as many images for it too work the same as a 2d picture.

So you use two lenses instead of one, but why would quality have to suffer for that? Or do you mean displaying those images? In which case, yes, you're displaying at 60hz rather than 120hz I guess, but most 2D content is ~60hz anyway.

[azy141]

i thought watching tennis in 3d was horrible as i like quality. the bbc 3d was sbs and this meant the picture was only half hd which looked rubbish

[3dcandy]

So you use two lenses instead of one, but why would quality have to suffer for that? Or do you mean displaying those images? In which case, yes, you're displaying at 60hz rather than 120hz I guess, but most 2D content is ~60hz anyway.

Yup exactly. I can see the slower refresh with 3d

[kalniel]

Yup exactly. I can see the slower refresh with 3d

Even when the source is 24fps in both cases? You're not getting any more information in 2D, just usually refreshing the same information or at best (/worse) generating intermediate information to overcome any particular limitation in your display technology regarding image retention. Active shutters should theoretically do at least as good a job of that kind of thing if you want it, while depending on the TV you might get a better image if you sync with the material frame rate anyway.

I completely take on-board azy141's comments that 3D broadcasts are inferior at the moment due to bandwidth constraints. That doesn't have to be the case though for films through blu-ray or internet.

True that you could instead use the bandwidth to double the 2D information - but experiments like The Hobbit HFR suggest we're not there yet. 4K however, I think would be better

[3dcandy]

Even when the source is 24fps in both cases? You're not getting any more information in 2D, just usually refreshing the same information or at best (/worse) generating intermediate information to overcome any particular limitation in your display technology regarding image retention. Active shutters should theoretically do at least as good a job of that kind of thing if you want it, while depending on the TV you might get a better image if you sync with the material frame rate anyway.

I completely take on-board azy141's comments that 3D broadcasts are inferior at the moment due to bandwidth constraints. That doesn't have to be the case though for films through blu-ray or internet.

True that you could instead use the bandwidth to double the 2D information - but experiments like The Hobbit HFR suggest we're not there yet. 4K however, I think would be better

Perhaps it's just me and the limitations...I can just see the quality being somehow worse. Of course I currently do not own a 3d set or 3d bluray, but my sister does, and it's all a subjective thing...peoples mileage may vary!

[Barakka]

Doesn't bother me, when i've tried home 3D glasses I can only manage a few minutes before I start to feel the pull in my eyes, and none of the films I watch are filmed in 3D so I don't watch 3D at the cinema either.

If you've not read the article by Walter Murch to Roger Ebert "Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case Closed" it's well worth a read, he is possibly the most respected film/sound editor living today and his argument is based on the realities that current 3D presents and creates for visual imagery.

[DanceswithUnix]

Some of the ott 3d gimmicks do seem to be in line with the over-acting you got in early silent movies. I'm sure with practice film makers can do some good stuff, if they can stop mucking about trying to push objects at you to make you jump.

4K sounded nice until, after a bit of thought, I figured my eyes wouldn't resolve that with a 50" screen (about the biggest I could get on my wall) from the sofa and it would look just like 1080p.

I really wanted to see Kung Foo Panda in 3D, was it any good?

[DanceswithUnix]

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.

From seeing the trailer, I think your problem there was watching the film. You probably should have read the book, so much better if they don't go messing with the plot line just for visual effect

[Tropi]

3D always was and always will be nothing but a cyclical fad, a passing novelty that no one REALLY wants. Surprised the BBC wasted as much time and money as they did. Thank goodness for belated common sense at last.