[opendtv] Re: 3-D TVs for industry: $64B; health research: zero
- From: "Stessen, Jeroen" <jeroen.stessen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:36:07 +0100
Hello,
(from home, web-mail, evil)
My favorite Mark wrote:
> As we don't yet really have 3D TVs, we don't yet know what the issues will be.
We have prototypes, one has toured California for the purpose of
illustrating certain problems to important people in the movie industry.
Unfortunately they've taken it back to Europe before the Tech Retreat.
Jeroen:
>> There will be more interesting issues (artefacts) to solve first.
>> In some 3D theaters some horrible mistakes are being made, because people
>> have not yet been sufficiently trained. That will improve with experience.
Mark:
> In your previous message you spoke in glowing terms of your local Pathé
> cinema:
I did, because he has his business taken care of, most problems solved.
The guy is a genius, and he also takes good care of your operas.
I remember a discussion during some break at the Tech Retreat (we had
an organizer who made sure that we always had the required amount of
break time, hehe), where someone (and I have no idea who it was)
mentioned some theater where something with 3D was really horribly
wrong, and nobody had an idea what was wrong, let alone how to fix it.
Somehow a specialist was called in and he had to solve it. That happens.
(I wish I had a better memory for such things, now it sounds like gossip.)
> So that seems like 3D at its finest: Superb source material (Avatar) and
> superb projection. Yet you seem to report that SOME viewers still have
> problems;
Yes, I meant in another theater on another continent, and a different movie,
due to some avoidable mistake. But until all relevant people know how to
eliminate such mistakes, they will happen. Growing pains. It's different from
a fundamental problem, that's what I wanted to say.
> "virtually no complaints" is different from no complaints. So, even under
> optimum conditions at long viewing distances, at least one viewer in that
> cinema has had a problem.
Different case. Sorry for the confusion.
>> Maybe it's just a very unwise idea to watch 3D on mobile to begin with...
> Which, unless I am very much mistaken, is precisely the difference of opinion
> between you and Schur that I suggested above. He thinks it is NOT an unwise
> idea.
I think it's asking for trouble, and I'm glad it's not my problem. Stereo
screens (non volumetric, single panel) at short distance will not work.
And by the way, I did spend my first breakfast at his table.
>> Yes, some people (myself included) will probably need to see an
>> eye doctor first, but they should have done that sooner or later anyway.
> It's that range of "some people" that we need to be concerned about.
I was thinking that 3D can reveal eye problems that already existed, and
this is a good time to take care of them, either by eyewear (duh, in combination
with 3D glasses) or eye training. Like, I only notice that my right eye is
unsharp
when I put on the 3D glasses. In normal life it does not bother me.
> In-Three, who are in business exclusively for 3D, posit a home viewing
> distance
> of six feet, not three meters, and there will be some who sit closer than
> that.
What happened to the Lechner (spelling?) viewing distance ?
Well, if they reduce the relative depth accordingly (and Banks' slides will
tell you how much), then they should be okay. Or accept some discomfort.
I'm in the bigger screen business, preferably 21:9. Should be okay.
> If a stereographer sets something in a scene at infinity, that's a certain
> distance apart; let's call it 65 cm.
Let's call it 65 mm, if you don't mind.
> On any screen that's large enough, the distance can be 65 mm. But video
> signals
> don't have distances. If something is set to be 65 mm apart on a 32-inch
> screen,
> it will be 130 mm apart on a 64-inch screen and 33 mm apart on a 16-inch
> screen.
Larger than 65 mm is a problem, obviously, as eyes do not like to di-verge.
Smaller might work well enough, as the perceived depth scales down too.
> At the HPA Tech Retreat, as you know, three of the prizes were seven-inch TVs,
> and, in the Panasonic truck, there was a 103-inch plasma.
The former will show very little depth, which is a good thing as it eliminates
the vergence-accomodation issue. Infinity will shrink to just behind the screen
The 103" plasma is a non-issue, as it has been used only for showing dedicated
demo content. That panel will never show designed-for-32"-TV content.
> Perhaps Philips will come out with a 3DTV that automatically adjusts disparity
> for screen size. I look forward to it.
Well, that's one reason why Philips has proposed the 2D + depth map format
for 3D signals, because such a signal can be more easily adapted to the various
screen formats. Otherwise it's probably not an attractive format to produce.
And if it is a necessity to adjust the disparity, then we will do it, of course.
Evolution tends to find the inevitable proper solutions. It's still early.
> So are we in agreement that there are physiological issues related to 3D TV
> that need work?
Sure. But few of them are fundamental or blocking, unless you choose an
impossible display technology, or a totally wrong screen size and distance.
Greetings,
-- Jeroen.
________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message.
Other related posts:
