UK's Channel 4 To Broadcast In 3D 126
fatnickc writes "The UK's Channel 4, from the 16th of September, will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D, the full list of which can be found here. While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert aren't exactly groundbreaking, this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity, paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future. In partnership with retailer Sainsbury's, Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses so that as many people as possible can watch them, although it's unclear which of the various types they'll be. "
Can't be true (Score:5, Funny)
I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone didn't watch last night's Family Guy -- Miley Cyrus is an android, not a clone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My daughter and I watched Miley's concert in 3D. She's definitely not 1D or 2D. More like DD. It was fun watching her bounce... and wiggle... and gyrate...
Ooops gotta go.
Something came up
Isn't true, in fact (Score:2)
No, actually, you didn't. You watched it in stereo - two static viewing angles, one per eye, that give you exactly one perspective on the content. 3D would allow you to see the performance from many viewing angles -- for instance, from the left or from the right. Stereo is a far more limited approach. It is a common error, propounded by bad marketing, that characterizes stereo media as 3D. Geeks should know better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory? I say, put her in the LHC and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So this is the way the world ends, not with a whimper, but with a skank.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.
I guess you are unaware of the power of modern CGI tools to fix this :-)
16 Sept 2010? (Score:5, Informative)
No, 16th November
BBC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BBC (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Dimensions In Time which was a Doctor Who/Eastenders crossover for Children In Need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions_in_Time [wikipedia.org]
To wind up a Doctor Who fanatic, all you have to do is tell them that you believe that the story is canon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So Red Dwarf WASN'T The first Sci-fi show to ruin itself by cross-polinating itself with a soap opera...
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the Doctor Who equivalent to the Star Wars Christmas Special?
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is still dabbling in it. I saw the BBC Research labs demonstrating two different 3D display technologies at IBC in Amersterdam back in September. With the advent of 3-D for Blu-ray, and TV manufacturers pushing 3-D, I imagine we will see more from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know about that.
Part of the 3D season is 'Flesh for Frankenstein'.
Re: (Score:2)
And we should tag all airtravel news related to the USA with American Airlines, and of course any space stories with NASA. I mean, after all, they're all launched by SOMEONE's national space agency...
Re: (Score:2)
And all cops are in a CIA, and INTERPOL is a FBI, and there's an NSA in North Korea.
Red Green 3D (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides which, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "greatest ever 3D moments". Any 'greatest' list that includes Jaws 3(D) and the American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist.
Still, I love Udo Kier so I'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein (and once against try to place his accent)
Re:Red Green 3D (Score:4, Informative)
I picked up a pair in Sainsburys yesterday. They are blue and yellow.
Re: (Score:2)
Or can I just walk in, pick a pair up, and walk out?
Re: (Score:2)
They were between the checkouts and the door. You can just walk in and pick a pair up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist
Okay I'm sick of hearing this again-and-again-and-again over the last two decades.
Yes it aired on FOX, an american network, but it was written by a BBC writer, starred a BBC actor, was funded almost-entirely by BBC money, and first aired on BBC TV. If you don't like that mid-90s series pilot, fine, but don't blame americans since it was largely the BBC in charge of it.
ALSO: remember it was the British that produced the abomination
Blue and Yellow glasses. (Score:1)
Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.
Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.
Apparently you have no idea what you're talking about. [wikipedia.org]
Apparently he knows more about it than you do. Try watching something with them. The blue side's so dark it causes a big shift in what you're seeing. The result is very monochromatic and not very believable to boot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try watching something with them. The blue side's so dark it causes a big shift in what you're seeing. The result is very monochromatic and not very believable to boot.
The whole concept of ColorCode glasses is that they allow for better quality color to come through the pale yellow eye than red/green where both eyes have their color screwed up.
Unfortunately, I think ColorCode perceived quality may be different depending on your eye dominance. If the yellow one is over your dominant eye, it probably looks
Re: (Score:1)
Producing free 3D glasses (Score:1, Redundant)
Why don't just everybody produce thing for free?
Blue / Orange 3D glasses (Score:5, Informative)
They're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of "Chuck" in this system. I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first. They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.
Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.
From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.
Re: (Score:2)
The only effective glasses for viewing "Chuck" are ones that make you blind.
Re: (Score:2)
The C4 3D thing will use the same "ColorCode" kind of glasses.
Re: (Score:1)
That would explain what I thought was poor image quality (yellow/blue jaggies around stuff) in that particular episode.
Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember trying the blue/red glasses in the 80s with special TV shows. They never seemed to do anything for me.
Neen there, done that... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect [wikipedia.org]
unfortunatly, for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti_Frutti_(1990_TV_series) [wikipedia.org]
This is scary (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use a very small television.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes and by hypnotism I will now demand you! (Score:2)
*A hypnotic voice talks in the back of your head*
When you hear the trigger-word "cleaner", you will send all your money to me; (the bank account details will follow soon by e-mail).
Thank you very much for doing business with you, we love customers like you.
Toodooloo, and remember, customer is always right!
will it really pave the way for anything? (Score:5, Informative)
This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television. The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993, among them a Dr. Who special [wikipedia.org], but the experiment didn't catch on then. Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago, also.
Re:will it really pave the way for anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, I've not watched any "new" 3d movies. I've heard that it looks really nice, but then you also need to wear the glasses--srsly, I already wear specs. Hate them, don't want another pair. As far as in home theaters, do you need a special tv that can display it? Or does the movie have to be specially formatted for 3d? Either way, it sounds like paying at least a small (per movie) to large (for a special tv) amount extra over the non-3d version. Until I watch such a film and find myself in need of a fresh pair of pants and my ambulatory extremity undergarments expelled from my personage via sheer amazement, I remain skeptical.
Movie studios won't be pleased (Score:2)
I'm sure that movie studios are spitting with rage over home 3D. It's about the only qualitative USP that cinema has over home theatre right now.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology is only part of the problem (Score:2)
This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.
This happens every 10-15 years (just like it does in the cinema). I remember Channel 4 (I think) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan (which, unlike red/green gave some, limited, colour).
Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as "never gonna catch on" - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message. Even if the systems improve, that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving, 3D scene with a 20" windo
Re: (Score:1)
If it's broadcast TV it can't be based on polarisation, since no one has a TV that can superimpose two images with different polarisations.
TV can use glasses with different colour lenses, i.e. the classic red and blue , or in this case Blue and Amber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_glasses#ColorCode_3-D_.28blue-amber_method.29 [wikipedia.org]
There are other options, e.g. the Pulfrich effects.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, broadcast TV can't carry polarisation information in any of the current specs. Polarisation and shutter based 3D displays will be supported by new broadcast standards, but they'll work by broadcasting a stereo video image and leaving it up to the receiving equipment to convert it into anaglyph, polarisation, or shutter controlled 3D
Re: (Score:1)
Well yeah, there is that too.
What I think is odd is that (as far as I know) neither Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or HDTV have a 3D mode. With a bit of foresight they could have made 3D one of the killer features to get people to buy those.
Disney made Ghosts of the Abyss in 2003, and Blu-Ray wasn't finalized until 2004. At that point there were quite a few 3D films in production and cinemas were being fitted with the gear to show them.
You'd think someone would have put a 3D mode into Blu-Ray. I think it would be possible
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, broadcast TV can't carry polarisation information in any of the current specs.
While this is technically true, many of the polarization filter based 3D displays (Hyundai, JVC) can use half-resolution stereo pairs presented simultaneously (left/right, under/over, or line-by-line "interlaced") using existing 2D HD video standards. These displays are inherently half-resolution per eye anyway to produce simultaneous left/right eye views with different polarization.
It is unclear if any of the
Re: (Score:2)
No. Way.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect [wikipedia.org]
Lack of clarity, or lack of will to find out? (Score:3, Insightful)
It has in fact been clear what type they'll be for several months, since this was announced mid-August in fact: ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters. Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury's yesterday (and possibly before). http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn [t3.com]
Live 3D Broadcast (Score:1)
A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert, you had to have 3D glasses of course, first time i have seen something like this live. After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it, 96% (or 94%?) said yes.
You can see the video in YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y [youtube.com]
The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start (so you can safely skip 45 seconds).
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that the people who couldn't see 3D didn't stick around to see the phone-in number after the show.
So, those that watched the show, could see it? (Score:2)
The scientific implications of this are staggering. 4% of people called into a show they couldn't see when asked to call in on said show. HOW! We NEED TO KNOW! Why is the government trying to cover this up!
Out with the old, in with the new (Score:4, Funny)
Yay! Goodbye brainless 2D crap, hello brainless 3D crap and migraines!
Re: (Score:1)
downside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo, presumably the downside is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance. Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses, or who strongly dislike wearing them (for instance, glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses); for these people, the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program.
Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!
Re: (Score:1)
Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses
3D GLASSES NOT AVAILABLE IN ALL AREAS! It's like I can touch you [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
what on earth are they thinking?!
That's an easy one.
From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the statement of programme policy [channel4.com], attached to the Channel 4 licence:
“[channel 4 shall] foster the new and experimental in television. It will encourage pluralism, provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen”.
Nick.
Re: (Score:2)
They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years. Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content. It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadca
Re: (Score:2)
They are thinking that it is a great way to advertise.... and since this is on /. it worked ....
It's a gimmick and nothing else.... all these 3D system's are low resolution, eye strain inducing, and will put people off who don't have the glasses, or cannot use them
In a 3D cinema you expect to wear glasses and expect to sit through a movie length presentation ... at home you channel surf and get on with other things while watching ....try that with glasses ...
When 3D at home is without glasses and can be vi
Re: (Score:2)
essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit
A phrase which describes a lot of the output from Channel 4, so no change there.
(Deal or No Deal, The 50 Greatest..., The 100 Greatest..., Wife Swap, Come Dine With me, How to Look Good Naked, Real Housewives of New Jersey, Gok's Fashion Fix, Gordon Ramsay (anything he's in really)...and the liost goes on!)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!
Where's your sense of fun? We get a couple of hours of entertainingly tacky gimmickry, and then once we've had our fun, things go back to normal.
I'm thinking back fondly to the time the cinema I worked at did had a midnight showing of Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D.
Why, oh why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.
But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique can't be imitated on TV panels. Instead they're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.
Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?
In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.
If only it worked for me when I tilt my head over on one side. Yes, it's a silly habit I picked up somewhere, but I really do have an issue with the 3D systems based on polarization because it's really hard for me to stop. Color works better, but then you're watching in (effective) monochrome.
The best system I've seen was a special monitor (this was back in a lab in 1994!) that directed a different image at each of about 16 directions at once. This meant that your eyes picked up different images naturally,
Re: (Score:2)
I think C4 know full well that it's ineffective, but they are attempting to jump on the 3D bandwagon mainly to attract advertisers (snoop around their press office and you can find an appeal to advertisers, asking if they'd like to be the first to broadcast a 3D commercial)
Nope, it isn't. (Score:2)
A bad movie is a bad movie, no matter how many gimmicks you throw at it.
The heart of a good movie is a good screenplay, that is a good, consistent, plot.
Most people that have watched 3D films so far agree that 3D adds precious little to what makes a film good or bad, 3D is mostly a gimmick aimed at children first (or child like minded people) and at piracy second, which is why you will see several efforts in the next couple of years to translate the 3D experience to TV screens: they will want to replicate t
3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Gag effects" can be quite fun, though, and I'll always take 90 minutes of vertigo and manhandling my "duck" reflex over 3 hours of robots arguing about matrices and sparks when it comes to winding down my brain on a Friday night. My Bloody Valentine also showed occasional flashes of what might be possible, from an artistic perspective, once you start playing around with depth: one dialogue scene was staged as though for the theatre, using the 3D to support the movement of the characters through the space t
Re: (Score:2)
It took me a second, but I think you're referring to a Transformers movie... and I can only imagine you don't realize that there was an epic animated version released back in the 80s that didn't suck. Go find a copy, and revel in Orson Welles last great role. In stunning Two Dimensions!
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.
Be at least honest. Thats not the fault of ANY 3D technology. This WILL have to end, if 3d wants to really stay alive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
if you aren't, go and try if you can find the 3D-Version of "Dial M for murder" somewhere.
And from what I saw in the "Christmas Carol" trailer et al - avoid the other 98% of 3d movies!
Don't forget Action/Sci-Fi! (Score:2)
(some gratuitous lowercase letters with a sprinkling of spaces for good measure)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they said about photography, computer games, theme parks, and pretty much any other form of entertainment out there.
"It's just a fad. It will never become serious. No matter how much progress humanity makes, and how many new use cases spring up. Never ever ever something new will become a normal part of life! Gaaahhh!!"
Wait for porn to save it again! :P
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.
I thought so too, but I had to watch Up [imdb.com] in 3D (didn't notice the theater only showed it in 3D until it was too late) and came away pretty impressed. No "gag" effect that I can remember. Instead I had the impression of looking through a window, rather than looking at a poster on a wall.
2 birds 1 stone (Score:1)
red/blue 3d sucks (Score:2)
Real 3D, as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen, is mind-blowing. Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible.
Polarized TVs will be next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a product designed to do this ; I think it had the existing polarised layer composed of 1-pixel wide vertical stripes of alternate polarization. I'm not sure how well it actually worked.
Stereoscopic (Score:2)
Forget 3D cinema, look to games (Score:1)
I have a $2500 3D setup at home. 2 720p projectors, each going through polarized lenses, onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light. I took my gaming computer (cost not included), installed the iz3d drivers, and now every game I play is in full 3D. Yeah, I have to wear glasses, but so what? I wear glasses when it's bright outside, too. Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors, polarized sheets, and a teleprompter's mirror. If you have something with a high refresh-rate, you can also use shutt
Re: (Score:1)
nVidia looks like they have a nice, simple solution. I'll be buying their monitor + shutterglasses combo soon. My graphics card is a bit dated though (9600 GTX); hopefully it can handle rendering the extra frames. I just need 120hz right, not 120fps?
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, I remember this gimmick (Score:2)
Welcome back to 1990. Same dodgy 3D glasses that probably every household in England had, same rubbish colours and fairly iffy 3D once the novelty wears off. Only with blue/yellow instead of red/green. Progress!
Except that it isn't 3D. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's stereo.
Similar to stereo audio not being binaural audio.
Because there is only one fixed viewing angle and focus plane. Which is also the reason for the additional eye strain.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hear hear! Who shops in Sainsbury's in this financial climate either?
they should have teamed up with Lidl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hear hear! Who shops in Sainsbury's in this financial climate either?
People who can no longer afford to shop at M&S or Waitrose.
(I shop at Sainsbury's. The alternative is Asda. Whereas Lidl cut costs by not having enough staff and not stocking much range, Asda seem to cut costs by selling poor quality tasteless food.)
Re: (Score:2)
Asda sells food?!
Admitedly, there isn't a Lidl within walking distance of my house, but I used to live next to one hence my outburst :D
I shop at Morrisons now as the only alternatives are a Sainsbury's, an M&S Simply Food, and a Tesco Express (Which doesn't even sell Weetos).
Re: (Score:2)
Asda are owned by Walmart - go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Asda pizzas are awesome though and they usually have some good booze offers. I'm not posh enough to live near a Sainsbury's anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A poke in the other one !
My lawn is *not* accessible to the disabled
Re: (Score:1)
You could manually do this with the handed out glasses. Create some stable holder (aka your mother) for the glasses and move your eye to switch between red and orange.