A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 31st 17, 07:06 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
T i m
external usenet poster
Posts: 228
Default 3D TV RIP

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:46:07 +0000, Adrian Caspersz

On 31/01/17 10:06, Pinnerite wrote:

My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

It's a minor novelty, once you've seen the effect that adds nothing to
the story, and then go back to watching 2D you won't be searching to
replace your library (if you could) with 3D versions of it all. And that
still would be the case if current 3D worked perfectly.


I think that hits the nail on the head.

It's all down to the least amount of effort (and cost etc) for the
best result and as you say a good 2D picture (and possibly some
*reasonable* sound) gives that.

I even have a very basic surround sound setup that a mate who spent
fortunes on his suggested was 'very effective', hasn't actually been
used for at least 5 years. ;-(

Our 'main' TV is only a 23" (and I can't see all of that where I
typically sit because a corner is chopped off my the HiFi stuff) but
I'm really not sure how much 'better' a bigger TV would make the
content / enjoyability?

The only time I would say we could do with a bigger TV (or better
glasses) is when they assume we are all using 60" TV's and put very
small writing on the screen (or show you a text on a mobile phone

The irony of all this is there is a 32" TV round Mums for us but I
haven't been bothered to get it round here and set it up.

However, the old Topfield 5800 is to us that (apparently) unique beast
that can tick all the right boxes for, now anyway.

Cheers, T i m
Old January 31st 17, 09:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
T i m
external usenet poster
Posts: 228
Default 3D TV RIP

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:01:51 +0000, Graham.


I wonder what percentage of the TV viewing public would spot that sort
of thing (other than us here and the audiophiles of course). ;-)

'Having an ear' can also be a curse of course as we also hear all the
distortion, hum, crackles and noises that most others are blissfully
oblivious to. ;-(

Speaker phasing is the one the uninitiated always get wrong, because
they don't even know of the concept.


Granted, stereo they have a 50/50
chance of getting it right,

The thing is, they don't even seem to think to RTFM or ask someone who
might know. If it has two connections and they hook it up and seems to
work then it must be right. ;-(

but with 5.1 its more like...
well you do the math(s).

Quite. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Old January 31st 17, 11:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
Posts: 75
Default 3D TV RIP

"Pinnerite" wrote in message news


My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

The flat card effect seems to be a function of the two points of recording
and playback. I remember the 3D films of the 50's and have seen a couple of
large screen ones. With the exception of 'Gravity' which I thoroughly
enjoyed, they all seemed to have that appearance.

Maybe one day .....

Mageia 5.1 for x86_64, Kernel:4.4.39-desktop-2.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

Some 3D content he https://www.youtube.com/user/3D
If you know how to use torrents you can download 3D content.

Old February 2nd 17, 03:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
Posts: 4
Default 3D TV RIP

HDR has more of a 'wow' factor than 4K over HD, (and it can be applied
to HD too, so you don't really need to worry about 4k HDR)

Does HDR have to be broadcast that way for best effect?
Can the TV software "improve" a non-broadcast HDR signal - if

Similarly do 4K TVs do a good job of" upscaling" a broadcast HD
signal? Given bandwidth limitations, I expect 4K Freeview to be a long
time coming.

[My biggest TV purchase mistake - not buying a larger screen. My HD
is fantastic at 6', but can barely tell it's HD at normal viewing
distance. I recall being in a large Tesco electronics dept where they
had a chart of viewing distance and "optimum" screen size for HD and
SD. I tended to agree.]

Old February 4th 17, 03:27 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 513
Default 3D TV RIP

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:52:53 +0000, NY wrote:

"Graham." wrote in message
If normal vision without optical aids gave you any kind of 'wow' factor
then there would be something the matter with your perception. The
perceived, world is supposed to be 'just there'. It's our constant
hankering after arousal that makes us seek artificial stimulation,
whether it's stereo sound, colour photos or recreational drugs.

Yes I agree, what I am saying is binocular/stereoscopic vision gives us
two advantages, a wider field of view, and depth perception.

If I deprive myself by closing one eye the former becomes a problem,
but the latter is not noticeable. I said before that maybe we need to
evolve more, but thinking about it, maybe as a species we have outgrown
the need for binocular vision.

I find that stereoscopic vision *is* an advantage. If I close one eye, I
see a narrower field of view but also I can't judge distance as
accurately. I tested this by trying to touch an object, sideways on,
that was somewhere between my face and arms' length away. I tended to
touch an inch or so in front or behind it. It's only difficult if it's
strange surroundings. Objects on my desk were easy because I know how
far away things are and my muscles "know" it too.

Answering both you and Graham (I wish to say this only once). Firstly,
we, as a species, most definitely *haven't* outgrown the need for
stereoscopic vision. Admittedly, it becomes less effective at gauging
distances beyond the first 25 metres or thereabouts and we start relying
on other visual clues to assess the remoter parts of the visually
perceivable environment from thereon out towards the horizon.

Secondly, for distances of 3 or 4 metres and beyond, the loss of
stereoscopy due to blindness in one eye or severe impairment is trumped
by the reduced field of view that results when reduced to the (effective)
use of just one eye.

The eyes (and the ears) are merely the collectors of raw visual (and
audio) data which is processed by that part of the brain known as "The
visual cortex". In truth, it's a part of the brain more accurately
described as the audio/visual cortex since it essentially acts as a
virtual reality suite which keeps itself dynamically updated from the
steady stream of visual and audio data coming in from our eyes and ears.

Our "visual cortex" controls how we use our eyes to scan the immediate
surroundings so as to refresh the remembered fixed parts of the scene and
also track any interesting changes such as those resulting from the
traffic within the scene (people, animals vehicles etc) as well as our
changing point of view as we move around in this visually perceived

It recreates a virtual copy of our surroundings so well that we put
unflinching faith in such 'imagery' as to accept it as an uncorrupted and
faithful reproduction of what is actually out there before our very eyes.
Since this is the only way we can perceive the larger world around us by
using light and sound, we have no choice but to place blind faith and
trust in our visual cortex's inner workings.

If the idea of being forced to blindly trust in something you don't
fully understand worries you, you can take comfort in the fact that your
visual cortex's sophistication is the culmination of some 550 million
years of evolutionary R&D. :-)

Johnny B Good
Old February 4th 17, 02:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
external usenet poster
Posts: 11
Default 3D TV RIP

NY schrieb:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:56:55 -0800 (PST),

I saw 3D at my sister's house a year or so ago: they had a 3D TV with
alternate-shutter glasses which showed two viewpoints in rapid
succession, with only the shutter for the left glasses being open for
the left image, and likewise for the right shutter. Sky box menus looked
very odd when they were closer to the viewer than the background image
that they overlaid. Landscapes and other scenes of mainly distant
objects were most convincing, but anything involving objects coming
towards the camera or passing close in front of it looked OTT, as if the
depth axis had been exaggerated.

The question is, which function you really saw - many 3D TVs have an
artificial 3D mode, that tries to make any video a 3D one with only a
small chip function. That cannot work correctly for all objects!

Good 3D cinema movies have a stereograph specialist at the set who
corrects every scene taken by the double camera device. Such 3D Blu-rays
can give a really spacial imagination on good 3D screens - the bigger
the better. Latest LG UHD OLED TVs are the best solution for 3D home
cinemas needing only a light-wheigthed polarizing glasses for Full HD
3D. And 3D movie productions are going on anyway...


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.