http://www.techradar.com/news/televisio ... ict-667426



It's a short article, but gives a good overview... so, football fans, any hopes/concerns for the beautiful game in 3D?

I'm curious to see how far they can take this '3D in the home' lark (sports thought to be a good driver for it), mostly cos I suspect it isn't remotely ready for Joe Average yet...

Football's surely the wrong sport for it. Most movement in a football match is either left or right, assuming a vaguely traditional viewing angle. Which isn't exactly going to help the 3D effect. I'd have though tennis would be a much more appropriate arena for 3D TV to take it's baby steps.

Also: requiring people to buy a new TV and an expensive pair of goggles each in the middle of the biggest financial failstorm for a century? Good luck with that.

When you can watch TV and it's in 3D without having to buy goofy specs for everyone int he family, then I'll consider it.


JOn

I can't see why you need a new telly for it?

I thought the technology just took two feeds and "merged" them both onto one, and the glasses did the work of splitting them out again?

I don't understand why a new TV is needed.

If Avatar is anything to go by then the ball in tennis would be incredibely hard to watch as it´s small and moves quickly, 3D is a gimmick in its current incarnation, I think the bubble of interest will burst, I don´t think it´s the next generation, rather the final chapter of the increasingly anachronistic living room television set.

I would have thought in-car shots in motorsport would be the best candidates...

That said, as long as I need to wear silly glasses to watch it, I won't be bothering with 3D.

I would agree. I saw Avatar in 2D and I do not think that I lost that much of the experience of 3D. The effects were good enough.

I don't really see the point if I'm honest. What they call the beautiful game is only really beautiful for about 10 seconds, but there is 89:90 of crushing boredom to go with it. 3d isn't the wonder-solution unfortunately.

Stuck this in the Random Sh*t thread yesterday, thought it was funny -

3D is no good for me, as I have a dodgy eye, but if it's football I would imagine that putting a camera behind the goal would be quite effective.

True but the glasses need a way of differentiating between the images.

This can either be done by polarising each half of the image through po degrees to each other (like RealD cinemas) or by alternating each image onto the screen at around 120Hz and synchronising the glasses to block out each alternate image (like NVidia do with their graphics cards).

Neither of these are possible on a standard TV.

Viewing angle is important too - the problem we have with 3D TV is the equipment needed by the viewer:
•a new TV
• Glasses, which are increasingly looking like shutter lenses

In the cinema, where you are in a set place in front of the screen, you should be OK. But viewing at home is more mobile, and seating angles are more casual. I am told by someone I know who works with 3D technologies that for the best viewing experience at home, screens would need to be curved in some way so that everyone gets the “straight on” experience. In effect - everyone needs to be directly in front of the centre screen to get the best 3D effect. This is clearly not possible, so the solution would be to ensure that this view is projected at varying angles, and to do this, the screen needs to be curved.

The only way to get 3D on a standard TV at the moment is some form of anaglyph system - unless some bright spark works out how to retro-fit existing TVs for shutters or polarisation.

That is the only way I think that football will look good in 3D.

Believe me, it's an awful way to watch football. Ever noticed in most grounds the away fans are stuck behind one of the goals? And in virtually any sport (that has one) the most expensive seats are on the half way line? And the default view on Match of The Day is along the long side of the pitch?

If you're sat behind one of the goals, especially if you're low down (i.e. at the front) your sense of perspective is foreshortened and it makes interpreting what's going on very difficult. I was once sat on the very front row at The City of Manchester Stadium behind one of the goals and I had almost no clue as to what was actually happening when play was at the other end of the pitch. I could see the ball traveling left to right (from my perspective) but had no real idea how quickly it was moving back to front. And that's with a 3D system that's had millions of years of evolutionary improvement that I understand implicitly .

'one end' perspective 3D may possibly work with sports that have relative few moving objects or low pace. It might work for tennis; at the most extreme it may work for basketball. It might work well for snooker thinking about it. But football or rugby? No. Replays and highlights yes because you can filter it down to the footage that actually works but I can't see it working for live coverage at all.

Having something in 3D rather than 2D doesn't change the fundamental mechanics of the footage. If a given perspective or presentation doesn't really work in 2D it probably isn't going to work in 3D either.

Jon

Expanding on this, if someone only has sight in one eye, is watching something in 3D better or worse than in 2D? I'm just wondering if some point down the line if all channels will have to be broadcast in both 2D and 3D to maintain accessibility.



You've said this many times Dave, is it possible to achieve 3D from a single screen without them?

I'll be thinking about getting a flat screen TV long before I think about getting 3D.