Thursday, 25 November 2010

3D

Hmmm... 3D TV and Sky TV, and now I see how some of it works.

First off, yes, the 3D effect works - there is depth. That is the plus point... I seem to be able to watch live football in 3D! (I don't watch football).

Now for the crap...

1. It appears that there is no signal to tell the TV that the feed is 3D - you have to turn on and off 3D mode on the TV. It is thankfully one button. And to be fair you have to put glasses on, so that is not so hard. I think this is a limitation in the Sky box not telling the TV it is 3D to be honest.

2. It appears that a 3D feed is just a squashed picture and another picture on the same frame. I.e. it is not actually two full HD pictures, but two half resolution pictures. Con or what?

3. It appears there is clearly no standard for that, as the TV has top/bottom or side-by-side modes. Sky seem to send side-by-side. So if you watch Sky 3D on a normal TV it is just two images width squashed, side by side on the screen. Seems you can get 3D for free too, so you can try that on a normal TV for a laugh. Arrg! The TV forgets the setting...

4. The TV, a nice (expensive) 55" Sony, is fine I am sure, but I can see the flicker with the active glasses. I expected that this might happen. I have yet to see if I can get used to that. We'll see.

5. This crazy way of sending two pictures for the price of one does have the side effect that existing kit will just work as it is not aware it is doing 3D, just a rather odd picture. So it will just work with a blue ray player, or whatever, that has 3D.

6. The sky box has no clue it is 3D (see above), which means the menus, and the pause logo, and so on, are all seriously screwed up. The sky box needs to know, and to display its menus half width on both sides. I am sure that would be easy for them to do, but they have not done it. Doh!

So, not entirely impressed yet, and shocked that 3D seems to be technically a bodge on normal HDMI.

6 comments:

  1. I'm shocked that you're shocked... Still, you need to "believe in better" as per their advert... perhaps that means suspending all grasp on reality, whilst you concentrate on believing in better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 55" 3D TVs! What next? Real life in 3D? Surely nothing THAT advanced!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I knew it would not take you long to get on lol Enjoy it xxx

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm actually really surprised the box is not aware of 3D, that it is just two squashed pictures, I thought it may be a bit more technically advanced, especially as they have spent money making content for it.

    You would have thought they would have made the menus and graphics look normal.

    However, if it wasn't for the fact I was in a flat with only one feed, I would give it ago.

    I wonder if the 3D enabled Virgin Media Tivo boxes, will implement something similar, or will it receive two high HD images?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm surprised you're shocked - this is the first public release of a new technology. After a couple more major revisions (which may obsolete current equipment!) they may have got it to the stage where it really hangs together properly
    At the moment they're just conducting a "Public Beta" at the early-adopters' expense!
    Personally, I'm very sensitive to screen-flicker, so I won't be going for it until they can do it without the special glasses...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Likely to always have glasses, but ideally you just want simple polarized ones like the cinema. That is probably tricky and is down to the TV.

    I watched a whole film, and it was tricky keeping your head level, but something I expect you get used to. Otherwise was not too bad.

    It is amazing how such subtle variations in horizontal position has such a big impact on the perception. A shame the throw away half the horizontal resolution to do it!

    And yes, some films are over-doing it - like a pick axe in to your face. It is better when the 3D aspect is just part of it and not something thrown at you. Avatar was good for doing it right.

    ReplyDelete