News is out that CBC will broadcast a ton of world cup 2010 soccer games, and some will be in 3D. Besides having a 3D capable TV, will this 3D broadcast be via OTA? Is 3D broadcast anywhere via OTA? I assume any 3D broadcast will also be in HD...?
MEDIUM 3D MAKES YOU WATCH TV AGAIN
NBC'S TV SHOW MEDIUM DID IT AGAIN TONIGHT....an episode broadcast in 3D which is causing lots of talk and probably
It was hilarous to read that some bloggers were using their own glasses and mocking up 3D with blue and red markers
http://hollywood2020.blogs.com/hollywood2020/2005/11/medium_3d_makes.html
No. Bi-coloured glasses is old technology and can be used with any TV. Current 3D TVs use LCD shutter glasses, where the TV tells the glasses to alternate which eye sees the image. For this the TV needs to refresh the image 120 fps so until they switch to MPEG4, I don't think there is enough bandwidth to do 3D TV OTA.Besides the need for a 3D capable TV, you'll need a pair of those funkie bi-coloured glasses.
There are 4 technologies for 3D TV (copied from Wikipedia):I don't see all the hype about 3DTV going anywhere until they can provide 3DTV without the need for the glasses.
- Anaglyphic 3D (with passive red-cyan lenses)
- Polarization 3D (with passive polarized lenses)
- Alternate-frame sequencing (with active shutter lenses)
- Autostereoscopic displays (without lenses), sometimes referred to commercially as Auto 3D.
ESPN is doing some of the games in 3D but to the best of my knowledge CBC isn't. See World Cup CBC coverage for details.I hadn't heard about 3D on CBC. Though I wouldn't be surprised if an American network does the 3D thing...
So could you make a simple cardboard stereoscope for your TV that makes it so that your left eye only sees the left image and the right eye only sees the right image to see it in 3D? I guess you would also need anamorphic lenses to expand the image to the proper width, otherwise everything would look squished.Regular TVs display 2 side by side images. (Left Eye,Right Eye)
Its not happening but if it was the answer would be No.I assume any 3D broadcast will also be in HD...?
While Blue-ray uses sequential 3D encoding and thus uses twice the bandwidth, both CBC and ESPN are using side-by-side encoding, thus using the same bandwidth while sacrificing half the horizontal resolution. So while it will likely still be called HD, it won't be as high a resolution as the 2D broadcast.A 3D broadcast needs twice the bandwidth of a regular broadcast.
This is not entirely correct.A 3D broadcast needs twice the bandwidth of a regular broadcast.
toA 3D broadcast needs twice the bandwidth of a regular broadcast.
In other words, unless you double the bandwidth, the 3D broadcast will no longer be in HD.A 3D broadcast needs twice the bandwidth of a regular broadcast in order to maintain the same resolution.
It all depends how you define HD. As I said:But then its not HD which is what the OP asked.
Since there are already two resolutions defined as HD (more if you count the different refresh rates), why not add more? It will still be better than SD or ED.while it will likely still be called HD, it won't be as high a resolution as the 2D broadcast.