3D on Dish??????

DishSatUser

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 22, 2003
302
0
Seattle, WA
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.

That's precisely the movie I watched and was underwhelmed with. Not that the clarity and the movie itself wasn't spectacular, but that the brand new $3500 HDTV I was contemplating flickered with the glasses.

But I digress, I suspect your comment wasn't directed towards me, but to those that had not actually sat and tried the tech.

I did, and it's a mater of both opinion and watching out for the health needs of my spouse and family. Seriously, serious headaches and potential seizures are not going to encourage the WAF in a positive direction for this tech. It just cannot flicker "AT ALL" before I can purchase it.

So it's currently a pricy high-tech "toy" and not true enthusiast in my opinion "YET". When the frequency of the image alternation is ramped up much higher so it's not visually perceptive, then I'll be the first in line.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,788
17,844
Northern VA
I watched "Alice." Nice. But ni$e enough? And as impressive in the home on a 52 or 61?
 

ekilgus

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 22, 2007
1,168
717
Southeast US
Regardless of everything being said in this thread, no matter how long it takes, 3 years or longer, it will take glassless 3D TV for 3D to become mainstream.
 

ChetK

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 14, 2004
981
8
Round Rock, TX
I've tried 95% of the technology. The only thing I haven't tried is the 3D without glasses that's not even available yet.

I've tried anaglyph (I hate it), I've tried polarized at the theater (this is really good, darkens the picture a little bit, but still nice for the theater since the glasses are cheap), I've tried shutter glasses on the Samsung (LCD), Sony (LCD) and Panasonic (plasma). I've tried 3D animated features that are completely CG, I've tried live action features at are mostly CG (Avatar) and I've tried live action features that are almost entirely live action (My Bloody Valentine 3D, IMAX Nature-type movies, etc.) I've even tried PC gaming (using an NVidia 3D graphics card) in 3D at the Panasonic 3D road tour.

To me, the only things NOT worth watching were anaglyph 3D and the LCD displays. I love 3D at the theater (polarized) and I love 3D on the Panasonic plasma. 3D on an LCD screen causes flickering and smearing (frame lag). I don't suspect that these issues can be resolved. It's just the nature of LCD technology. Plasma does not have this issue.

As far as HDMI 1.3 vs. 1.4, I have done a considerable amount of reading on this topic as well. If you look at the peak bandwidth of BOTH (1.3 & 1.4 that is), they are the SAME. If you don't believe me, look here.

Maximum clock rate (MHz): HDMI 1.3a = 340 HDMI 1.4 = 340
Maximum TMDS throughput per channel (Gbit/s): HDMI 1.3a = 3.40 HDMI 1.4 = 3.40
Maximum total TMDS throughput (Gbit/s): HDMI 1.3a = 10.2 HDMI 1.4 = 10.2
Maximum video throughput (Gbit/s): HDMI 1.3a = 8.16 HDMI 1.4 = 8.16
Maximum audio throughput (Mbit/s): HDMI 1.3a = 36.86 HDMI 1.4 = 36.86
Maximum color depth (bit/px): HDMI 1.3a = 48 HDMI 1.4 = 48

3D Over HDMI: HDMI 1.3a = No HDMI 1.4 = Yes :confused:

Huh? How can that be? Why would 1.3a NOT be able to handle 3D, but 1.4 can if they have the same technical specs.? I can only conclude one of two things: Either the industry is trying to FORCE us to upgrade ALL of our equipment to be 1.4 compatible or the source is incorrect.

I HOPE that there's just not enough information out there yet to conclude that full 1080p 48fps is possible with HDMI 1.3a. I HOPE that the PS3 can do 1080p 3D. We shall see. It has proven to do some pretty incredible things.

I will NOT be buying a new surround sound receiver. I may buy a new 3D TV. I may buy a new BD player with dual HDMI outputs, but I refuse to buy another surround sound processor when the one I have will decode ALL of the lossless soundtracks. It can't get any better than that. Buy another surround sound receiver just to pass a new signal to the TV? I don't think so.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,788
17,844
Northern VA
The link I posted said something about defining input and output protocols for 3D communications, so I don't think bandwidth is the thing. It might just be the ability to recognize (or pass) certain codes/commands.

And perhaps earlier versions of HDMI 1.3 were missing something.
 

whatchel1

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 30, 2006
9,099
48
Great High Plains
Talking to each other & glassless 3D

The only difference tween 1.3a & 1.4 HDMI is the way they talk to the units. Hence the codecs as navychop said.
Phillips and company by the name of Ocean Shores already have proto-types of glasses less 3D STB's. I've posted info on these before. Don't have time to look for them right now.
 

hometheaterman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 9, 2004
604
0
I don't see 3d TV's taking off either for home use, but I could be wrong.

The two things holding me back from even having a desire to have a 3D TV are, the fact that I currently have a projector with a 106" screen. After having this setup there is no way I'd consider going back to a regular TV or anything with a screen under 100" even if it is in 3D. I just don't have any desire for a tv the size that 3D tv's come in. If they make 3D projectors for the home market I guess it would take care of that.

The second reason is I don't want to wear glasses just to watch TV. Nor do I want to have to buy a new set of glasses for each person in the family to watch TV and then a couple extra sets for friends in case they come over. That will get expensive and will be a hassle wearing glasses while watching TV.
 

rglore

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Mar 12, 2006
1,653
94
Louisville
My three year old 3D ready Samsung DLPs do a pretty good job with 3D. I have the Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player and iO-Systems's shutter glasses. The picture quality is a tiny notch above DVD resolution, there is no flicker and just a little darkening. I only have the player's demo disk and the movie Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs so far. Only problem is it seems to tire my eyes after watching a full movie and my TV seems to suffer from data overload and reboots a couple of times.

I love the technology but 3D doesn't add near as much to the viewing experience as HD did. The added dimension of depth is nice but just doesn't justify spending a lot more money and having to wear the glasses. I would not recommend anyone spend thousands to upgrade to 3D but it only cost me $120 for two pair of glasses and the required emitter plus a couple of hundred extra for a Blu-ray player that can do the checkerboard 3D my TVs require.

I'm hoping that when Dish adds 3D they provide the option for checkerboard output for the 4 million owners of older DLPs that are 3D ready like mine. Else, it will cost me a couple hundred more for a converter and EDID spoofer.
 

rglore

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Mar 12, 2006
1,653
94
Louisville
The link I posted said something about defining input and output protocols for 3D communications, so I don't think bandwidth is the thing. It might just be the ability to recognize (or pass) certain codes/commands

Actually, there are six different official HDMI 3D protocols plus the older checkerboard format. Combinations of 720p60, 1080i60, 1080p24, side by side, top/bottom and frame packing formats. Four are normal HDMI bandwidth (lower viewed resolution) and will work with any HDMI 1.3 cable. Two are higher bandwidth (full viewed resolution) and require HDMI 1.4 chipsets, they usually refer to these as Full 3D. Any "high speed" HDMI 1.3 cable will work as well as 1.4 cables for Full HD.
 

tomcrown1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 20, 2008
2,321
16
San Francisco
navychop said:
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.

3D porn without touch vision is cruel real cruel
 

MikeD-C05

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 25, 2003
26,250
16,241
Nederland , Texas
The only way I can see 3-d tvs ever being popular is if they stop making any other kind of tv other than 3-d tvs. Kind of like the hd conversion took about 12 years to make it so that every tv sold is at least HD. There are no more sd tvs. If the market only sold 3-d hd tvs then as people replaced defunct hd tvs , they would buy a 3- hd tv to replace it. Other than that I don't see many running out to replace all their hd tvs with 3-d ones. Not during the Great Recession anyway.
 

Primus

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 10, 2007
234
0
St. Louis, MO
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.

I'm not so sure. Early next year the Nintendo 3DS will be out. It offers a glasses-less 3D solution. Obviously this isn't exactly the same technology that would be used for glasses-less 3D in televisions but I think it proves that it's a possibility in the near future.
 

cashmonee

Well-Known SatelliteGuys Member
Dec 24, 2008
34
0
Fresno, CA
I'm not so sure. Early next year the Nintendo 3DS will be out. It offers a glasses-less 3D solution. Obviously this isn't exactly the same technology that would be used for glasses-less 3D in televisions but I think it proves that it's a possibility in the near future.

The problem with the 3DS and all glasses-less 3D is off axis performance. If you are not in the exact right spot, the 3D does not work. On the 3DS, this really isn't much issue since it is a single-user device. On a TV however, it is a showstopper as they say. I believe there was a glasses-less 3D television at CES, and it had a set number of viewing positions, can't remember how many. 3D, even glasses-less just has too many variables and requirements that do not fit in with today's viewing habits.
 

Primus

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 10, 2007
234
0
St. Louis, MO
The problem with the 3DS and all glasses-less 3D is off axis performance. If you are not in the exact right spot, the 3D does not work. On the 3DS, this really isn't much issue since it is a single-user device. On a TV however, it is a showstopper as they say. I believe there was a glasses-less 3D television at CES, and it had a set number of viewing positions, can't remember how many. 3D, even glasses-less just has too many variables and requirements that do not fit in with today's viewing habits.

Understood. As I said, I wouldn't expect it to be the same tech, just that I think it's only a matter of time because they are very close to making it a reality, so to speak.
 

tnsprin

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 27, 2003
1,601
0
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.

Quadrophonic is alive and well and currently popular in 5.1 and 7.1 formats.

I think that the broadcast 3d need to change. Currently, as broadcast by DirecTv, its so called side by side format. This format is essentially unwatchable by conventional HDTVS. It appears as squished images on the left and right of the TV. They need a format that will appear normally for those who do not have 3D sets. Otherwise we will again be adding another duplicate channels as we did for SD and HD channels.

The Blu-ray 3D did get this right but of course uses the MVC standard (based on AVC). Perhaps Mpeg4 cable/satellite boxes can handle this but other boxes and OTA cannot.
 
Last edited:

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,788
17,844
Northern VA
Perhaps the future of "glasses less" 3D will actually be "TV less" 3D. Each person may just wear a headset so that there is no "off center" viewing. No actual TV needed. I just don't see it taking over the market.

BTW, I'd call Quadraphonic a whole different animal. IIRC, it came in at least two incompatible versions. I think when it came to 5.1, they started with a clean sheet of paper.
 

old corps

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Jan 13, 2005
1,707
21
Mid-Michigan
I got an email from Dish today asking me to complete a survey regarding 3D which they said was coming later this year (soon???). I answered the survey,of course. Surprised I didn't see any other posts here from others getting the survey.:confused:

Ed
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top