3D TV - The biggest...
Clear all

Forum 141

3D TV - The biggest con ?

31 Posts
9 Users
0 Reactions
Posts: 4055
Noble Member Registered

I have seen the illegal jamming equipment on sale and the power varies according what you want to block.
This reduces wasted power being used on bands that the target device is not operating on.
They would not be treated too harshly if there was a sign asking that phones should be switched off and also the inside of the seating area was screened. Screening works both ways and the two devices are combined to get the effect desired.
I have been asked to investigate this by an unnamed individual a few years ago.
Shielding plus 500mw on the edge of the dress circle would do it for sure and the projectionist would still be able to call for the password for the film on his mobile and also the front area where the shop is would not be screened or blocked.

Posted : 25/12/2012 7:52 pm
Posts: 96
Estimable Member Registered

MikeT wrote:

If the story is good enough I guess you would be happy to watch it in 405 Black and White!

In the 1950's when television was becoming popular in black and white 405 lines people deserted cinemas in their millions, and many closed down. To fight back the cinema used more colour films, Cinemascope, 3D and stereophonic sound, even a large film HD format with 70mm film instead of 35mm, however the public were still happy with 9-12" screens with 405 lines.
Colour, stereo, wide screen etc cannot make a bad film good, but it can make a good film better.
Of course film will be extinct in nearly all cinemas by the end of next year.
As Dolby sound was in its last film use a Digital format for sound on film, and"films" now shown are on hard disk etc. Dolby Digital have lost out, however they are bringing out a new Dolby sound for movies called Dolby Atmos which has speakers in the ceiling as well as all around. I think this is being installed in London's Empire Cinema Leicester Square.
Dolby also has "Dolby 3D" but most cinemas use a rival companies "Real D 3D". Apart from the glasses it costs the cinema a bit more to show a film in 3D as the Xenon lamp needs to run brighter (using more power) as there is a lot of light lost using Polaroid glasses.

Posted : 25/12/2012 8:28 pm
Posts: 4055
Noble Member Registered

I always used to think that 70mm came along to compete with 625 colour TV and that 35mm was to compete with the better later 405 and proposed 625 sets.
I am pretty sure a cinema would do better if it were to share the free parking with a large supermarket that would have plenty of space in the evenings. It would also have the advantage that the site is used for more of the time with plenty of soles around to report crime or to put off casual criminals.

Posted : 25/12/2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 4055
Noble Member Registered

That is fine as long as the film ends before the last tube.
It may not be worth running a car in a big city these days anyway.
There is most likely a night bus too.

Posted : 25/12/2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 16868
Group Deactivated Account

I always used to think that 70mm came along to compete with 625 colour TV and that 35mm was to compete with the better later 405 and proposed 625 sets.

35mm was there from the beginning. 525line was chosen to be comparable to decent 16mm.

625 is about 1/4 the quality of 35mm!

35mm is comparable to or better (depending on film stock, matte, anamorphic or not lens etc) than 1920 x 1080 HD!

70mm is better than Ultra HD.

Posted : 25/12/2012 10:06 pm
Posts: 16868
Group Deactivated Account

I did say "depending". slower Film stock with brighter light is generally higher resolution than "fast" film "cooked" more for low natural lighting. Even my aged 8mm SD resolution Digital Sony beats 35mm photo (about x2 film frame, so twice as good) at low light levels. But my "studio lit" stills easy beat Ultra HD (more than divide by 2 for cinema as the frame is at right angles).

But it's likely in the future that projection is "digital" even if production was on film (often isn't). The final cinema quality does depend hugely on the intermediate processing and prints. Matte generated widescreen is about 1/2 resolution on vertical axis than anamorphic. Both are poorer than Academy (approx 4:3).

2.40+ format wide screen certainly benefits from 70mm on larger screens.

The drive for Digital is though to reduce cost (prints cost a lot!) and piracy (simultaneous everywhere release isn't possible with cost of film prints, on Digital you can simultaneous release and reduce the Pirate's market).

35mm varies hugely in quality and widescreen makes it poorer (Matte more so than Anamorphic). The 1.85:1 format (slightly wider than TV Widescreen 16:9 = 1.78:1) is less demanding than full 2.4:1 A few films shot in 1.66:1 which is better again, but barely Widescreen. Personally I think for TV 1.66:1 would have been good. 16:9 and especially 2.4:1 really needs a screen that reaches peripheral vision or else it can seem like viewing through a slot. 4:3 (1.33:1) up to 1:66 work well on smaller screens.

Posted : 25/12/2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 4005
Member Rest in Peace

If you go back to Marion's original theme but recast it in Vintage TV terms, then the same question might have been asked about colour TV in 1967.

The difference, though, is that such a discussion would have been a non technical one or, at least, carried on by non-technically minded people.

In the first release of sets, only the Baird 701 failed to break the £300 barrier. The Bush CTV25 was more typically priced - at 330 guineas (£349 10s) it was equivalent to a tad over £5,000 in today's terms.

Not surprisingly, the public were suspicious - as was born out by many comments in our shop from customers who gave the BBC2 Trade Test Transmissions a really detailed examination.

In all honesty, I think the price range far outstripped what the majority were capable - or willing - to pay, and they were really looking for ways to convince themselves why they wouldn't buy one!

The problem was that all the daytime colour transmissions were films - and films from the likes of Shell and BP - no doubt made on much much smaller budgets than cinema films.

However, there was no way that they could compete with live colour television. Apart from any other consideration, all colour films have a colour cast. I had a colleague who could accurately determine the film stock used by analysing the colour cast in the blacks and lowlights and it was this cast that attracted the vast majority of the criticism.

It was obvious that no matter how well you explained the cause of the problem that they walked away totally unconvinced ...

During this period I paid a rare visit to the local cinema to watch the latest Bond offering. My eyes and brain being highly tuned to colour accuracy by my daytime experiences, I sat in the back stalls of the State Cinema in Grays and was appalled by the overall poor quality of this highly promoted feature film.

And did anybody else seem to notice ...?

Still, I suppose when you're paying 2/9 instead of £350, perhaps your expectations are expected to be somewhat lower ...

When all else fails, read the instructions

Posted : 26/12/2012 12:37 pm
Posts: 96
Estimable Member Registered

The Phoenix Cinema East Finchley is unusual in that the auditorium was reversed in the 1930's. The auditorium is similar the the Ritzy Brixton, long narrow and no circle. For an original cinema that has not changed much since 1937 you could go to the Rio, Dalston, (East London) which still has a single screen with circle and stalls.
It is much cheaper to distribute a film "digitally" , with 35mm hundreds of prints needed to made and transported to theatres around the world. Now distribution cost is very low. The 35mm prints would also wear. Digital should be the same quality for every performance. Of course cinemas can now also show live events, several cinemas in the UK had the Olympics showing live, with free admission too.
I have never liked 16:9 TV, wide screen needs a very large expanse as has been mentioned in another post, else you get the effect of looking through a slot.
Another competitor for 3D in the cinema was Cinerama, which used 3, 35mm projectors and a huge curved screen. It can still be seen at the National Media Museums PictureVille Cinema. Every Spring they have a Wide Screen Festival and show many Cinerama and 70mm film in their original formats. If you have never seen these types of presentation it may be worth a visit.
http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/B ... %20Weekend

Posted : 26/12/2012 12:47 pm
Posts: 16868
Group Deactivated Account

I think addition of Stereo to FM is a better comparison. Or even Widescreen. Both Enhancements, but more useful than 3D/Stereoscopic TV

Mono vs Colour TV isn't as good a comparison.

Compared with FM, Stereo, Colour, Widescreen, Nicam. HD, the "3D" is a very minor enhancement with serious drawbacks

1) Because it's totally unnatural (far more so than Stereo Audio), it's tiring after 3 to 4 hours on average. For 20% of people it doesn't work at all.

2) It needs twice the bandwidth for same quality

3) Needs special production

4) Most content is made poorer by Stereoscopic (3D) TV production, only some content is enhanced.

5) Full quality is ONLY achievable with LCD shutter glasses. Polarised displays are poorer. "Glasses" free displays will INHERENTLY always give poor viewing angle and degrade non-3D content. Unless a true 3D "tank" is using Stereoscopic images to generate a real 3D image.

Really 3D?
Actual non-Holographic 3D display is possible by two main methods...
1) Hundreds of LCD panels in Z-axis. Image is 1920 x 1080 x 300 perhaps.
2) An angled ground surface spinning disk. If Frame rate is 25 fps, and there is a separate image every 1.2 degrees, then the colour projector runs at 25 x 300 = 7500 fps. A tall order. Most 3D tanks have a lower 3D resolution than that!

With encoding differences, the data rate is a lot less than 300x

Holographic 3D might maybe be generated electronically, but unlikely to be transmitted that way as the data would be millions of times more! I've not actually seen other than static holography, but there are ways to build a flat panel that can do colour Holographic images. You have to re-create or synthesize a wave front, so some combination of non-projection DLP / Mirasol panel is needed. The trick is you can in software create a fake 3D model from say 3 camera views (Stereoscopic video recording only gives lateral data), and in real time calculate all the light rays and compute wave front to give a holographic "image" for the display panel. It would not be the same as real holograph as the data is "faked".

The software to create a 3D CAD model with surface textures from multiple 2D camera images exists today. But each frame takes a while to compute. Then a SEPARATE processing step can instead of rendering as 2D or Stereoscopic 3D image (two frames) can calculate the wavefront that would be captured by a holograph. The 3D model and rendering would be in real time in the TV, so the multiple LCD display, the spinning disk with image projected on it or the Holographic "Interference" single panel just a different step to render

Using this approach means the cameras,recording and Transmission is only 50% "worse" than today's totally unrealistic 3D (Stereoscopic). The display would have good viewing angle, handle 2D and existing stereoscopic based "3D" can be pre-processed to give a limited 3rd angle.

No viewer fatigue, works for 100% population that have any sight (even one eyed). If you move your head unlike the current system you will see parallax change (which ever of the 3 displays is used!). No glasses.

{3 x Cameras ->[recording]-> 3 axis MPEG compression -> transmission} (50% to 300% peak more data than HDTV) --> {reception ->Create 3D textured model at frame rate --> Render one of 3 ways depending on screen technology}

We will get the nearly real 3D (using real time "model" building inside TV) eventually. Will a "PVR" be able to let you "grab" a 3D extent and print it on a home 3D printer (like today's plastic melting types)?

Posted : 26/12/2012 1:17 pm
Posts: 780
Honorable Member Registered

Jeffrey wrote

At a given point on the MTF curve HDTV may have better resolution than 35mm film, at very high spatial resolutions film will have some repsonse where TV has none. I am not sure of the subjective effect of this.

It sounds like the film should have pictures with sharper detail, I expect subjective effect translates to a future debate about Film vs Digital in much the same way as Vinyl vs CD?


Posted : 26/12/2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 16868
Group Deactivated Account

Depends ENTIRELY on the Digital Camera. Unlike CD, Professional Digital Cameras can be as fine as you pay for.

The Film vs Digital Debate started in 1990s. It was a moving target as professional Digital Still and Video improved. The debate has moved on to Frame Rate (24 vs 48 vs 60, and 48 will "win" as you can "make" 24 from it if you want). The kind of character in "You've Got Mail" that loves and uses his Typewriter for Journalism may continue to use Film. The actual Film vs Digital debate for Professional Cinema or Still photography is practically irrelevant as you soon won't be able to buy the Film stock!

Kodak mysteriously sold off their best Digital Assets and have gone bust. Sale of most remaining IP realised a tiny fraction of what they hoped and their new "business" plan is a recipe for slow suicide (Domestic Printers!).

Cinema Digital production doesn't usually use Domestic HDTV (1920 x 1080). It uses 2K and 4K formats and higher. The best Professional Digital gear may be on a par or better than 70mm film.

Posted : 26/12/2012 3:24 pm
Page 2 / 2