A 2D-compatible 3D and saving bandwidth for more 4k, 3d

Browse the programming support forums for any questions you may have about your DISH programming.

Re: A 2D-compatible 3D and saving bandwidth for more 4k, 3d

Postby tripletopper » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:57 pm

Chadt4141 wrote:There is absolutely no reason to invest into 3D in any way shape or form right now, for any telecom company. There is no extra revenue to be had, but significant cost. From a former 3D tv owner, it just needs to finish dying, 3D has been a cancer for decades, and really has not shown too much for it.


I don't want to say 3D is alive and kicking, but despite the fact you have to special order a 3DTV directly from the manufacturer, and not be able to pick up a 3D TV off the shelf in a store, 3D MEDIA seems to sell out on day 1. Those 3D Blu Rays for the last 2 titles I tried to pick up were sold at Best Buy, the only place I know I can be guaranteed a 3D copy if I want one. Rogue One I had to find at Target, and Kong Skull Island was sold our in both regular 3D and 4K+3D, but there were plenty of 2D copies to be had.

Chad, did you read the original post? The reason why I thought 3D failed and the best solution to make it work had to deal with accommodating both the 3D and 2D audiences, If There was an external 3D->2D / 3D-> Red and Cyan converter, then a) all copies of movies and tv shows would be 3D if it were designed to be that way, so there would be no 3D shortage, b) it would not intrude on 2D viewers c) if you don't have a 3D TV but want 3D, you can get Red and Cyan, and d) you can later upgrade to a 3D TV and don't have to buy a new special version of the Blu Ray.

If all Blu Ray players were 3D, but converted it to 2D for 2D TVs, or let you convert to Red and Cyan, then you don't have to make a separate 3D and 2D Blu Ray or TV Broadcast. It's kind of like the Video Game model. There are some video games that have stereoscopic modes, so much so, that they don't sell a separate 2D and 3D version. All copies of video games are 2D/3D. If TV and Movies would have followed the video game model, then those who want a 3D video could add it without much cost, and there would be more 3D content without offending the 2D crowd.

The main reason why 3D doesn't work well on TV is 3D/2D segregation. Games work in either mode, and just change at the flip of a switch. If 3D/2D integration were to happen, then more shows would try 3D without pissing off their 2D audience.
tripletopper
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 11:11 am

Re: A 2D-compatible 3D and saving bandwidth for more 4k, 3d

Postby Chadt4141 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:22 pm

The market is not there for that. I can tell you, everytime I have looked for movies, there is an overabundance of the 3D copies when available. Sounds more like your store under ordered on purpose, since there is not a market. Again, there is no point in investing anything in 3D technology, at all, currently. It would not bring them more customers, and it would cost more than it would make... honestly, business wise, that's all that matters.

Your claim is that only if the video market changed entirely, then things would be different and cheaper. Flaw in that, is it was tried, and it failed. ESPN lost out on tens of millions on that one, and so did DTV. It is a fad that had no chance at life on the main circuit.
I do not work for DISH, and all posts are made based on experience. EMPLOYEEs names only show in GREEN.
PM a mod for account specific answers.
Your friendly everyday guy, I AM CHAD!
Chadt4141
 
Posts: 7787
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:08 pm

Re: A 2D-compatible 3D and saving bandwidth for more 4k, 3d

Postby tripletopper » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:47 am

Chadt4141 wrote:The market is not there for that. I can tell you, everytime I have looked for movies, there is an overabundance of the 3D copies when available. Sounds more like your store under ordered on purpose, since there is not a market. Again, there is no point in investing anything in 3D technology, at all, currently. It would not bring them more customers, and it would cost more than it would make... honestly, business wise, that's all that matters.

Your claim is that only if the video market changed entirely, then things would be different and cheaper. Flaw in that, is it was tried, and it failed. ESPN lost out on tens of millions on that one, and so did DTV. It is a fad that had no chance at life on the main circuit.


One problem is that 3D was a separate channel, and cost extra bandwidth. It's the 3D segregation. The main problem is that 3D is not 2D compatible. Currently, you either buy the 3D version and it's sold out in the places that stock it, or is not stocked period in other places, or you buy the 2D version. ( By the way, I'd like to find the place where 3D movies are abundant, because ebay is not it, and best buy is becoming not it eventually, so If you got a store that has more 3D copies than they know what to with, tell me, and I'll bring my debit card. Hopefully they're a short drive from the county one southwest of Cleveland Ohio.) Networks have to choose whether they air in 3D or 2D. Since 3D was at best 30% potential market at it's peak based on 3D CAPABLE units, and in actuality more like 5-10% of the people actively pursuing 3D, it'd be smarter to listen to the 70% who don't want their 2D programs ruined. But if there was a way the 70% can get their programs in 2D without skipping a beat, then the 5-10% who said "3D, Hell yeah" can have their 3D without stepping on the toes of the 70% who said "3D, Hell no", and the 20-25% who said "3D, Why not?" can individually decide whether they want to take advantage of their co-incidental 3D or not. Pay TV carriers, had one other option, to dedicate 3D-specific bandwidth which means less bandwidth for other programming which means more expense per channel. If 3D was integrated in the current setup, which it could with side-by-side half, and could easily be filtered for 2D audiences without taking up more bandwidth, then it won't be Pay TV actively squelching 3D, but it will be given a fairer chance.

Also, Chad, how do you feel about Aspect ratio? Do you think everything should be 16x9 even though some things look better in fatter aspect ratios (Cinemascope movies) or thinner ratios? (tv shows produced in 4x3 before HDTV) Currently you have to accommodate either the market that wants to fill their screen, or the market that wants to see the complete picture. If you showed the whole picture, and then add an integer to the signal to indicate where horizontally along the 2.35x1 strip it will be scanned for that frame, or vertically along a 4x3 strip, then you can have active pan and scan and original ratio presentations in the same broadcast, and one integer per frame from 0-4000 takes about 16 bits per frame, compared to 2 separate channels, one pan and scan, one original ratio. If you're an aspect ratio snob in either direction (I admit I'm one for the ones I want to keep in favor of most picture information, but it's your choice.) then you can appreciate this argument. There was interest when Laser Disc media (not necessarily players) sales were going up in the mid to late 90s, so they created DVD to make movie discs hit critical mass. And they had separate "widescreen" and "full frame" pressing of lots of movies. (even though in some cases they zoomed in on a 4x3 picture to create an even smaller [though zoomed in] 16x9 picture, or even more ridiculously, a 1.85x1 picture, instead of preserving the original picture. Ripoff.) Blu Ray and HD-DVD initially promised all their movies would be in original theatrical format. Now that Blu ray is dirt common, that's sometimes gone out the window.

Exact same argument for 3D.
tripletopper
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 11:11 am

Re: A 2D-compatible 3D and saving bandwidth for more 4k, 3d

Postby tripletopper » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:23 am

Two other things. In the 30% peak, the Super Bowl was going to be in 3D. It wasn't broadcast in 3D because there was no way to simultaneously have a 2D and 3D broadcast without running into problems somewhere, and, as I said before, showing a 3D broadcast would (without a device I propose) piss off the 2D audience. If someone would have though of my solution back then, then everyone would be happy, and 3D would be more popular because broadcasters and pay TV providers don't have to pick a side, and alienate the rest. Some people would either artistically or for business reasons choose to stay in 2D, but 3D won't be squelched on the airwaves actively.

Networks in the 60s advertised "in color" in the first 5 seconds of the show, Heck the NBC logo, the peacock, is based on the fact they were first in color. in the 80's there was a graphic overlay saying "in stereo where available" When both Color and Stereo TV were cheap enough and had enough content where more than just the fringe bleeding-edger thought it was worth it, it proliferated. They even added it on HD shows. But 3D was incompatible with 2D. More networks would advertise "In 3D where available. 2D compatible."... if they could, but the problem is that 3D is currently 2D incompatible. Same argument with original theatrical ratio. Everyone would love to have their cake and eat it too.

Finally, one last argument. one no one's brought up. Side By Side half 3D reduces the horizontal resolution in half. There could be a hybrid 1.5k 3d standard which has twice the resolution in width in one of the 2 frames, so that it can be stretched into a 1080p monocular frame, and that would be the default frame if stretched and made 2D so no one complains about lost resolution in 2D. The rest of the frame has the standard 1080p side-by-side half, which has half the pixels, so the main frame would down-convert the 2k frame into 1080p sbsh and combine it with the other sbsh frame to make a 1080 sbsh 3D image. The only compromise is SOMEONE has to decide which of the 2 oculars is the definitive frame for monocular presentation. It could be the director, or it could be the unnamed pan-and-scanner which pans and scans movies for 4x3 or 16x9 presentations. But satellite is usually has more common tastes than buff snobbery. If you want the original, get it on Blu Ray. But my suggestions make it easier to accommodate more audiences without pissing off other audiences, and isn't that what everyone wants, peace between neighbors? Instead of imposing one's will on the other? Everyone gets the TV experience they want.
tripletopper
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 11:11 am

Previous

Return to DISH Programming Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest