Our friend Mari at the official Motorola Blog just got back from checking out the
3D demo at Cable-Tec and was able to dig up a few extra details in addition to sharing her impressions. Overall she said the circular polarized and active shutter demos both "looked good" but each was driven by a different set-top-box so it was hard to do a fair a to b comparison. This also makes us continue to wonder how compatible these two 3D display technologies are -- we suspect they are compatible and that this was just to prove that both IPTV and QAM worked as delivery methods. The most interesting tidbit is the fact that, thanks to new Multiview Video Encoding techniques, the 3D stream only requires about 30 percent more throughput than the same image in 2D. This isn't as much as Panasonic is claiming the new
3D Blu-ray spec will require, which is estimated at 50 precent. One other thing we're left wondering is what the frame rate of the demo was, but earlier this week CableLabs did confirme that the demo is 1080p and that the SCTE has already added 1080p at 60 fps to its encoding standards. We assume the frame rate had to be at least 30 fps per eye though, because otherwise the flicker would probably be noticeably annoying.
posted Oct 28th 2009 11:08PM
3D needs to die already
3D with glasses needs to die. It's a dead-end technology.
Ah, you haven't seen good 3D yet. Sorry.
"... both IPTV and QAM worked as a delivery methods."
--> ... worked AS DELIVERY methods.
"...The most interesting tidbit is the fact that thanks to new Multiview Video Encoding... "
--> ... the fact that, (comma) thanks to new...
"... only requres about 30 percent more throughtput then the same image in 2D."
--> ... more THROUGHPUT THAN the same image in 2D.
"... CableLabs did confirmed that... "
--> ... CableLabs did CONFIRM that...
Wonderful. You've succeeded in correcting someone. I hope you feel good about yourself.
It is important to write correctly when you're trying to be a respectable news organization. Engadget and other fledgling sources undermine their credibility when they (apparently) don't proofread.
Hire someone, perhaps two people, for proofreading before articles are posted online. Hell, you could find a few English majors for a pittance.
It's not a big deal at all, but grammar is an easy way to improve the site. Engadget does want to improve their site, don't they?
In other news, is that the U-Verse box, or is that some kind of standard thing?
@Gimboa
+1
@Gimboa - Indeed,
and to be honest, it's not like it's hard or anything just to know it in the first place, then check over it!
Do these writer's get paid? If they don't, then I don't mind too much. If they do, they proabably get paid more than me so yeah, it ticks me off!
A mate went to see Up in 3D, said it was great, however he doesn't wear glasses. Glasses on glasses don't really work in the 'bigger picture'!
Super sweet. Now the rolls on the fatty in the porn just POP out at you.
Yeah we need off 3D glasses 3D!;)
Nice hat...
The compression ratio of 3D vs. non-3D of course depends upon how different the left-eye & right-eye images are. If they are very much the same, then 3D requires little additional bandwidth, and as they differ more & more, more bandwidth is required. Of course, having a 3D effect requires that there be some differences, or else the image would look flat.
You can expect that 3D movies that throw a lot of stuff near the viewer will compress more poorly than 3D movies where stuff is generally further away from the viewer.
Oh !Thank you . But I don't understand
-----------------
| ngan hang cong thuong | ngan hang a chau
Is anyone else looking at the screen on the right and seeing something a bit rude?
No? Good, just me then.
Man is it me or that tv image on the right looks like a girl with her legs spread out >:)
As the proud owner of 2 HD-DVD players, I'm not investing in any 3-D technology until someone certifies some standards :)
needless mention of an unrelated technology much?
SO, for 35 years I've been upgrading my av gear untill I finally have a very very seet system and tv provoder, the image quality is fantastic... and what, now I'm going to scap it for something that I have to watch through cheap colored glasses and end up with a funky, blurry picture just so it's in fake 3d???
I don't get it.
Can someone who has watched these things in action explain to me if the image quality is as sharp and clear as 1080p on my g10?
thanks.
it's not colored glasses. they are polarized. Full color and not dull like the old 3d at the cinemas.
This is what we calla a good feature but it also has to been seen in good amount of lights in the room.
http://techmation.org