-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
3D-TV IS IT JUST THE LATEST "LASERDISC"
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
In my opinion, 3D TVs with active glasses are a non-starter. When you get a big TV, you want to show people, but you can only show people with the glasses, and even if visitors bring theirs, if they're from another manufacturer, they won't work.
If anything, a system that uses passive glasses will need to exist. It can probably use the current encoding techniques (broadcast split-screen superimposition) but it'll have to support polarization of the screen's pixels so that cheap polarized glasses can be used.
Better yet, a system that doesn't use glasses; Toshiba's managed to get the viewing angle to increase to 40 degrees with their latest demo models.
Thankfully, the methods of display and the methods of transmitting are separate, unlike the old anaglyph color method - as long as a display can understand how to decode the input, it should be able to handle rendering the 3D picture, so it's not quite laserdisc. More like the way a BluRay player can play every other 5-inch (and even 3-inch) disc format (CD, mini-CD, DVD, mini-DVD...)
If anything, a system that uses passive glasses will need to exist. It can probably use the current encoding techniques (broadcast split-screen superimposition) but it'll have to support polarization of the screen's pixels so that cheap polarized glasses can be used.
Better yet, a system that doesn't use glasses; Toshiba's managed to get the viewing angle to increase to 40 degrees with their latest demo models.
Thankfully, the methods of display and the methods of transmitting are separate, unlike the old anaglyph color method - as long as a display can understand how to decode the input, it should be able to handle rendering the 3D picture, so it's not quite laserdisc. More like the way a BluRay player can play every other 5-inch (and even 3-inch) disc format (CD, mini-CD, DVD, mini-DVD...)
...or "HD-DVD".
I think that there's a great desire in the consumer electronics industry to have no format war on this one, since we just had one (Blu-Ray won.) Remember how everyone agreed pretty quickly on CD after the VHS/Beta fight? I think that might be where we are now - no desire to obsolete things any time soon.
I think that there's a great desire in the consumer electronics industry to have no format war on this one, since we just had one (Blu-Ray won.) Remember how everyone agreed pretty quickly on CD after the VHS/Beta fight? I think that might be where we are now - no desire to obsolete things any time soon.
Laserdisc came on the scene in 1978 and hung around officially till 2000 though, and I'll give you this, in the videophile circles. IMHO Laserdisc was as mainstream as Macintosh computers pre iPod.gregg75 said:
In the 'hard core' circles it's still here, and near my feet as I type this response (Pioneer CLD-D505).
But what if you DO NOT need the 3D glasses?
Toshiba figured out how to make this possible...
----> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/04/toshiba-3d-television.html
Toshiba figured out how to make this possible...
----> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/04/toshiba-3d-television.html
I don't think 3D TV will last. HD TV has been around for many years and the majority of homes still don't even have HD TV's (I believe it's less than 30%). And the people who have upgraded to HD sets are not going to shell out even more money now to upgrade to 3D. I have no interest in even watching anything in 3D, let alone going out and buying a 3D TV set.
I have watched 3D TV once. I stopped after two minutes because my eyes got sore.
M.J. said:
Doesn't it also give people headaches? I have yet take a look at a 3D TV so I have no clue how good it looks. Also their isn't much 3D programing so what good is a 3D TV?
Costco had a 3-D TV set up recently - to get the effect, you had to look through glasses set up on a stand. The video was a 3D blu-ray of swimsuit wearing buxom women and cute men playing volleyball. It was impressive. But it's too soon to say whether 3-D will be a hit.
Like most people, I wouldn't even consider it until it comes way down in price. Not to mention the fact that millions of Americans just made a big investment in HD TV, and most people are probably not ready or financially able to upgrade so soon.
Also, in my opinion, they need to develop some technology that doesn't require those awkward glasses. I'm not even sure if that's possible.
The analogy to laser-disc is compelling, but I'm not sure it really holds water. All laser-disc had to offer was better analog picture quality, and all people had available to them at the time to watch that higher quality was their low definition TV sets. And at the time, people had already invested their dollars in VCRs, which they could also use to record and time-shift TV shows. Most consumers really didn't see the need for another appliance for watching movies...which for the most part, they would have to buy, since video stores rarely stocked a decent selection of films on LD for rental.
I ran a video store in that era - for the first few years, we stocked most films in both VHS and Betamax, which was already a burden. We would have added LD if there was any real demand, but customers rarely asked.
Like most people, I wouldn't even consider it until it comes way down in price. Not to mention the fact that millions of Americans just made a big investment in HD TV, and most people are probably not ready or financially able to upgrade so soon.
Also, in my opinion, they need to develop some technology that doesn't require those awkward glasses. I'm not even sure if that's possible.
The analogy to laser-disc is compelling, but I'm not sure it really holds water. All laser-disc had to offer was better analog picture quality, and all people had available to them at the time to watch that higher quality was their low definition TV sets. And at the time, people had already invested their dollars in VCRs, which they could also use to record and time-shift TV shows. Most consumers really didn't see the need for another appliance for watching movies...which for the most part, they would have to buy, since video stores rarely stocked a decent selection of films on LD for rental.
I ran a video store in that era - for the first few years, we stocked most films in both VHS and Betamax, which was already a burden. We would have added LD if there was any real demand, but customers rarely asked.
My school had a few laserdisc players and we watched few a few science class lasersdiscs. I didn't know anyone who had a laserdisc player besides the schools I went to.
Who bought laserdisc players besides schools?
I had known about laserdisc since they went for sale in Atlanta in 1978. When I went to CSU Fresno I had some money and wanted a player so I could watch movies in broadcast quality. Up to that point VHS wasn't very satisfying as the picture was soft with mediocre color rendition. I had a CED disc player but that was only slightly better than VHS. Laserdisc had, and still has, a high quality picture.nomadcowatbk said:
nomadcowatbk said:
That's what I was thinking too. I remember watching educational programs in school on laserdisc. I didn't even think they were commercially available because the cost of the player and discs were too high for the average person. Also, I don't recall ever being in a store and seeing Hollywood movies sold on laserdisc. What store sold these?
Lkeller said:
LaserDisc wound up as a technogeek format, much like SACD. Although standard-def, the video quality was stunningly better than anything VHS or Beta was ever able to reproduce. But you are right, the inability to record, as well as the high cost of the disks pretty much killed the format. DVD's may be playback only as well, but they exist alongside DVR's these days, which solves the time-shifting issue, and the cost is reasonable.
If you are looking for old LaserDiscs these day, they aren't hard to find. The Half-Price Books flagship store in Dallas has several hundred of them, for example.
ansky212 said:
Most of the laserdiscs the school had were produced by publishers of the textbooks
- Status