I've noticed that Direct TV has some 3D content and was wondering if anyone has heard anything about Dish Network having any 3D. Also, what about the equipment?
3D on Dish??????
- Thread starter JimP
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 8K
3D is coming later this year.
Existing VIP receivers should work fine.
Where can I find the official news on this? I'd like to see the channel lineup and any technical details I can educate myself on for 3D on Dish Network.
Thanks!
...and content.
I was listening to a podcast where the question was asked when 3D without glasses might become available and they're saying 3 to 5 years. Times like this, I wish I was younger just so I'll be around to enjoy it for a long time.
I was listening to a podcast where the question was asked when 3D without glasses might become available and they're saying 3 to 5 years. Times like this, I wish I was younger just so I'll be around to enjoy it for a long time.
Personally, I'm wondering if 3D won't go the way of Quadraphonic Sound. If it does last, I will wait for the glass-less solution.
I just don't understand what all the fuss about 3D is.
As I bought a 42" plasma just over a year ago I will NOT be buying a 3D TV anytime soon.
I looking in the adds I see that just two pairs of 3D glasses are in the neighborhood of $300. Also I remember when they tried 3D out in the movie theaters, it did not last very long and it really did not do all that much. I know I am showing my age what with actually going to a theater to see a movie.
In any case I really don't see me ever buying a 3D TV.
Have you seen many movie trailers lately? Almost every one I've seen lately shows that it will be available in 3D. Granted, they may not be shot natively in 3D, but there is a 2D to 3D conversion processes that are happening before hitting the theatres. Studios wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't a market for it.
There are no "true" 3D networks. Most content, of which there is little, is 2D "converted" to 3D. Future genuine 3D production will be limited and slow in coming, as they test the waters, despite all the hype. It is much more costly to produce 3D. Quality varies tremendously Some people can't see 3D. Some have problems with the glasses. Some don't care for or value the 3D effect. There are questions about 3D being bad for the eyes, especially for the young. New equipment is needed, decidedly uncheap. New AV receivers might be needed (HDMI 1.4?).
Hype outpaces reality by a wide margin. You'll have a long wait before you'll see a lot of regularly scheduled 3D programming.
The ONLY reason I think it might make it all the way to niche status is 3D porn. Nobody ever made any money betting against porn.
Hype outpaces reality by a wide margin. You'll have a long wait before you'll see a lot of regularly scheduled 3D programming.
The ONLY reason I think it might make it all the way to niche status is 3D porn. Nobody ever made any money betting against porn.
So far I am underwhelmed by the 3D technology currently available. Even if given to me for free, I'd not use it much.
It's that persistant flickering. I can handle it, but there are some epileptics in my family it'd likely seize. But even when testing it out on display at the various home theater outlets with movies of my choice, I can't see putting that much money into something that flickers.
Moving to HDTV and the progressive scan modes was the selling factor for me in the first place.
Hopefully the 3 to 5 years for TV's without glasses will also yield a technology that is signifcantly smoother and without flicker. Perhaps if it could refresh the 3D at a significantly higher frequency to reduce or eliminate the visual ability to perceive it.
Sort of like a standard CFL at 60Hz (flickers) and the high end models at 2700Hz. A florecent with no flicker, that's the only kind I can switch to now that Incandescents are on the way out.
It's that persistant flickering. I can handle it, but there are some epileptics in my family it'd likely seize. But even when testing it out on display at the various home theater outlets with movies of my choice, I can't see putting that much money into something that flickers.
Moving to HDTV and the progressive scan modes was the selling factor for me in the first place.
Hopefully the 3 to 5 years for TV's without glasses will also yield a technology that is signifcantly smoother and without flicker. Perhaps if it could refresh the 3D at a significantly higher frequency to reduce or eliminate the visual ability to perceive it.
Sort of like a standard CFL at 60Hz (flickers) and the high end models at 2700Hz. A florecent with no flicker, that's the only kind I can switch to now that Incandescents are on the way out.
I'm an old gut too but I hate seeing a response referring to a 3D movie seen 20 or 30 years ago and thinking that is today's 3D. If you haven't seen Avatar in 3D then you cannot even fathom the differences between then and now.
As far as buying a 3D TV now, I would wait. The TV's themselves are not much more $$$ but the one major concern you should be aware of. Glass-less 3D will be the next big step if 3D TV wants to become a household item. And all the powers that be in the TV, broadcast, and movie industry will make absolute certain that this happens. So ask yourself this, will existing 3D TV's be able to be watched glassless, NO. If TV shows are broadcast in a glassless TV technology your current 3D TV will be worthless as a 3D display, as will your current 3D Blu-ray player except for watching your no longer being manufactured glasses required 3D discs. The same can be said for current 3D game machines and games. Not to mention that all of your equipment will need to be HDMI 1.4 compatible. Will you need an as yet engineered HDMI 1.5 to handle glassless 3D? Best wait a couple of years and see how the end 3D product shakes out.
As far as buying a 3D TV now, I would wait. The TV's themselves are not much more $$$ but the one major concern you should be aware of. Glass-less 3D will be the next big step if 3D TV wants to become a household item. And all the powers that be in the TV, broadcast, and movie industry will make absolute certain that this happens. So ask yourself this, will existing 3D TV's be able to be watched glassless, NO. If TV shows are broadcast in a glassless TV technology your current 3D TV will be worthless as a 3D display, as will your current 3D Blu-ray player except for watching your no longer being manufactured glasses required 3D discs. The same can be said for current 3D game machines and games. Not to mention that all of your equipment will need to be HDMI 1.4 compatible. Will you need an as yet engineered HDMI 1.5 to handle glassless 3D? Best wait a couple of years and see how the end 3D product shakes out.
Glasses-less 3D is 3-5 years away from consumer use, and has been for the past 20 years.
Commercial Fusion power plants are 30 years away, and have been for the past 60 years.
Hi there, I'm from Washington, and I'm here to help you.
We'll get that well capped right away, and it's not leaking all that much anyway.........
SEE the pretty bauble? Isn't it pretty? You want it, don't you? Well, it'll be available Real Soon Now. Really. BELIEVE.
Commercial Fusion power plants are 30 years away, and have been for the past 60 years.
Hi there, I'm from Washington, and I'm here to help you.
We'll get that well capped right away, and it's not leaking all that much anyway.........
SEE the pretty bauble? Isn't it pretty? You want it, don't you? Well, it'll be available Real Soon Now. Really. BELIEVE.
Hmmm...Since the PS3 will be updated to output 3D in September, I don't think HDMI 1.4 will be a requirement. None of the PS3s have HDMI 1.4.
If I recall, the 3D on the PS3 is not true HD, the resolution is cut in half, for each eye - a good picture, sure, but not 1920x1080 in each eye!
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/3d.aspx
See the above. I'm on my iPhone right now, so making it a pretty link is a bit tough. In fact, this is the first time I've copied from Safari into the SatGuys iPhone app. A little Googling will turn up better links discussing it.
Anyway, it appears the discussion continues about how bad HDMI 1.4 is needed for so-called "full" 3D, with full AQ as well. I have a PS3 but no 3D TV. I have an Onkyo 805 and am in no hurry to replace it to fully support 3D.
By the time I and many others are ready to spring the bucks for 3D, it might already have fallen by the wayside. I'd certainly want to see it in a home setting before handing over any more dollars.
See the above. I'm on my iPhone right now, so making it a pretty link is a bit tough. In fact, this is the first time I've copied from Safari into the SatGuys iPhone app. A little Googling will turn up better links discussing it.
Anyway, it appears the discussion continues about how bad HDMI 1.4 is needed for so-called "full" 3D, with full AQ as well. I have a PS3 but no 3D TV. I have an Onkyo 805 and am in no hurry to replace it to fully support 3D.
By the time I and many others are ready to spring the bucks for 3D, it might already have fallen by the wayside. I'd certainly want to see it in a home setting before handing over any more dollars.
There's a few threads about 3DTV over at the AVS Forum. The majority of posters don't see 3DTV as practical for the home environment due to many of the factors that have already been brought up in this thread.
IMO, the more info I read about 3DTV, the less of an advancement it really seems. I'm reading about lost of screen resolution, lack of brightness, and possible "ghosting" around images.
I do believe that 3D has a lot of potential at the theaters and in gaming. At the theaters because 3D becomes part of the event of going out, and in movies where from the start it was produce for 3D (not a 2D conversion) like Avatar, it can be a feature that helps "pull you into" the movie.
Now with gaming it's more of a "you & the game". Even if playing with others, once it's your turn, and you have the controller in your hand, it's just you and the game. So wearing a pair of glasses to see the game in 3D wouldn't seem as much as a burden. You need to concentrate on the game, not what's going on around you, and 3D could really help you do this.
Take a look at these articles:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...ml?tag=nl.e702
HDGURU.Com » DirecTV’s New 3D Channels-Exclusive HD Guru First Review
Ghpr13
IMO, the more info I read about 3DTV, the less of an advancement it really seems. I'm reading about lost of screen resolution, lack of brightness, and possible "ghosting" around images.
I do believe that 3D has a lot of potential at the theaters and in gaming. At the theaters because 3D becomes part of the event of going out, and in movies where from the start it was produce for 3D (not a 2D conversion) like Avatar, it can be a feature that helps "pull you into" the movie.
Now with gaming it's more of a "you & the game". Even if playing with others, once it's your turn, and you have the controller in your hand, it's just you and the game. So wearing a pair of glasses to see the game in 3D wouldn't seem as much as a burden. You need to concentrate on the game, not what's going on around you, and 3D could really help you do this.
Take a look at these articles:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...ml?tag=nl.e702
HDGURU.Com » DirecTV’s New 3D Channels-Exclusive HD Guru First Review
Ghpr13
Last edited:
Not sure about that first link.
Second one is nice. Describes how the resolution is cut in half and how poorly much of it is done. Not my idea of a true 3D network. Just a handful of converted titles.
Second one is nice. Describes how the resolution is cut in half and how poorly much of it is done. Not my idea of a true 3D network. Just a handful of converted titles.
