• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You 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. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Question about 3D TV

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Question about 3D TV

    Sometimes you can watch 3D programming on regular TV, e.g. BBC 3D tennis content. You simply see a split-screen effect. I imagine that is exactly the same content a 3D TV would receive, and would simply split the frame into two for left/right eyes, so each eye only sees one half of the picture.

    My question then is, if I could rig something up on my 2D channel so my left eye only sees the left half of the picture, and the right eye only sees the right half, what would happen?
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    #2
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Sometimes you can watch 3D programming on regular TV, e.g. BBC 3D tennis content. You simply see a split-screen effect. I imagine that is exactly the same content a 3D TV would receive, and would simply split the frame into two for left/right eyes, so each eye only sees one half of the picture.

    My question then is, if I could rig something up on my 2D channel so my left eye only sees the left half of the picture, and the right eye only sees the right half, what would happen?
    it would look tulip.

    basic theory is right for shutter glasses (left closes as screen shows right eye picture on whole screen & vice versa) but the distance between images and loss of resolution would annoy you.
    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

    Comment


      #3
      You will need a pair of these to make it work...

      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

      Comment


        #4
        I found the 3D just a quirke when I got mine and very rarely watch anything in 3D bar the big films. Cool and fun at first but IMO doesn't add anything at all. 3D TV's are so cheap now as well.

        Any burning reason why you want to do this?
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
          Any burning reason why you want to do this?
          Scientific curiosity
          Originally posted by MaryPoppins
          I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
          Originally posted by vetran
          Urine is quite nourishing

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
            I found the 3D just a quirke when I got mine and very rarely watch anything in 3D bar the big films. Cool and fun at first but IMO doesn't add anything at all. 3D TV's are so cheap now as well.

            Any burning reason why you want to do this?
            Only been to one film in the cinema in 3d, The Hobbit, put me off to be honest (the 3d, not the iffy interpretation of the book)

            saw a headline this morning saying the bbc have put 3d content on hold for 3 years, not sure if because of slow uptake of 3d or general BBC budget issues.

            Comment


              #7
              You should be able to do it in theory, but you'd have to try to focus into the distance to get it right, which won't be easy.

              It's not real 3D of course. It's effectively two flat images trying to fool your brain into thinking it is 3D, but your eyes are still focused on the screen.
              Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jmo21 View Post
                Only been to one film in the cinema in 3d, The Hobbit, put me off to be honest (the 3d, not the iffy interpretation of the book)
                Like with any technology, some films use it because it's there and some films really make it work.

                Avatar is still the reference for good 3D, but Life of Pi is stunningly beautiful in 3D, the first part at least really is better because of it.
                Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                Originally posted by vetran
                Urine is quite nourishing

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                  Like with any technology, some films use it because it's there and some films really make it work.

                  Avatar is still the reference for good 3D, but Life of Pi is stunningly beautiful in 3D, the first part at least really is better because of it.
                  I think the films that are hailed has being great use of 3d are generally the ones that would otherwise be a bit tulip due to poor plotting, storyline etc.

                  The better the film as a vehicle for the story, the less it needs 3d to make an impact.
                  "Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    You could say the same about colour Vs B&W, stereo VS mono sound, etc. If you only define how good a film is by the plot and acting, almost like you're treating it as a book, you have a point... but films are about immersing the viewer in the experience and grabbing their attention. It's the difference between films and theatre - the latter works on a dusty wooden stage with painted sheets.
                    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                    Originally posted by vetran
                    Urine is quite nourishing

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X