DirecTV 3D broadcasts coming in early 2010?

Finding itself with a wealth of a additional bandwidth thanks to a new satellite going up today, DirecTV may have already decided its first big addition will be 3D. Citing the always popular unnamed sources, HD Guru says we should prepare for a CES announcement that the bird will be up and running by March beaming down a collection of movies, sports and TV shows in 3D HD, requiring only a firmware upgrade on existing set-top boxes to tune into the new stations. UK satellite provider Sky has already tipped its hand about 2010 3D plans, with a newly freshened HDMI spec expected to ease things along and nearly every manufacturer either already producing compatible displays or planning to announce them in less than a week there's very little doubt remaining about whether broadcast 3D is coming home this year, only how and when.

[FnuGk Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:29PM]

so any 100hz+ tv will do?

[DylanUK Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:47PM]

@FnuGk

As far as I'm aware you'll need a new TV with the same "shutter"(think thats the word) tech they are using in cinemas at the moment.

I just really can't picture sitting in front of the TV with glasses on, in the cinema you go for the experience but not in your living room. Unless the TV's that don't require glasses become commonplace I can't see this taking off.

I mean I get it from a commercial standpoint, manufacturers need to drive the purchase of new TV's. They've gone from regular CRT to wide-screen, to Plasma, to LCD, to HD and even full HD, there has been constant change in the TV segment for the past 15 or so years. There isn't much place left to go except 3D, but I'm just not sure this is something the consumer is going to gobble up like all the aforementioned techs.

Where's the "entellegence 3D" column engadget, you need to tell me what to think :)

[cardfan Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:29PM]

I'd settle for more HD. Who exactly is demanding crappy looking 3D?

[chipimix Posted Dec 29th 2009 5:40AM]

@cardfan
Have you played arkham asylum or resident evil 5 in 3d ? I think it's the same technology nvidia is using and it's really amazing! after you try it, you won't like it any other way :P

[smartmouth Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:39PM]

Screw this, I'm gonna wait until 6D and anything greater starts showing up.

Multiple dimensions, here I come!

[scratchfury Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:42PM]

I feel like I'm being watched.

[brennok Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:43PM]

Maybe this is why DTV is raising prices in February again.

[BigD145 Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:44PM]

Does this mean sports fans will actually yell more accurate calls at the TV? And it still won't matter one bit?

[Michael Scrip Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:44PM]

@nigra

So... you're gonna go back to j***ing off on the couch?

:)

[smartmouth Posted Dec 28th 2009 7:51PM]

@Michael Scrip

Try having it with the same girl for 20+ years, and see if your answer will still be the same ;)

[LloydChiro Posted Dec 28th 2009 8:00PM]

Robot head!

Who else finds that camera to be creepy looking?

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:44PM]

me!

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:33PM]

Johnny? Johnny 5?

[Starcade Posted Dec 28th 2009 8:38PM]

3DTV is simply not tracking for me. I can't imagine wearing glasses just to watch content. I might put up with it for a single movie at the cinema, but I doubt I'd be walking around the house with glasses just to watch content on TV. And I highly suspect only certain content will be in 3D, which means the majority of the content will not be in 3D. I'd much rather they concentrate on making TVs thinner, lighter, build in a PC/DVR, maybe accept voice commands, and for all content to be in HD.

[xconan Posted Dec 28th 2009 8:41PM]

The only thing about the coming generation of 3d is that it's still passive either you wear glasses to watch 3d or you don't. But the real next step would be holodeck or interactive 3d (for most people who have watched st:next gen) where the pixels are like matter/solids and act accordingly to the programmers' physics. This hurdle is quite a leap i.e. the time that it took communicators in the show to actualize into small pocket sized cell phones and MRI devices that have yet to become pocket sized because of technology restraints.

[lakersin2025 Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:00PM]

@xconan

What?

[DylanUK Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:08PM]

@xconan

Seconded... what?

Are you actually comparing star trek (science FICTION) to real life?

[xconan Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:52PM]

@DylanUK
Hypothetical rhetoric-wise 3d glasses and sitting in front of a screen and pretending to physically interact with something inside a 2d screen is passive but it is a start. Not to say sci-fi is not possible as there are a lot of sci-fi where the science and physics don't make sense and yes it kind of far stretch to use Star Trek as a comparison (the cell phone is a communicator). But most sci-fi thinking have come to pass starting from Jules Vern to ST:original tv series... There was a book written by Michio Kaku "Hyperspace: a scientific odyssey through parallel universes, time warps, and..." comparing today's technology and it's limitations.

[DylanUK Posted Dec 30th 2009 9:21AM]

@xconan

Hypothetical rhetoric-wise? Those words would barely make sense together in any sentence, and they certainly don't in the one you put forward. It's almost like your trying so hard to make yourself sound like your intelligent your trying to mix words that you don't really know the meaning of, and in the process making yourself sound like an idiot. Please go back and read your two posts and ask yourself if they would really make sense to anyone outside of your own mind.

[thornd7 Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:11PM]

I agree with Brennok.

This doesn't make me feel any better about the upcoming Feb 9, 2010 price hike. :(

[questionexclamation Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:23PM]

What ever happened to OLED? Did it die? I'd rather have a 50in OLED tv than watch things in 3d all the time...it will probably be a total headache.

[Ualdayan Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:30PM]

I think this is a great step. First they get what they can make cheap enough for mass production right now out there so that content starts being made in 3D, then when you come out with TVs that can do 3D without glasses you already will have a backlog of content that was recorded in 3D ready for people to watch.

[Martin C Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:36PM]

I really don't understand why we're trying to relive the 80s with all this 3D shit. It sucked then, it sucks now. The only difference is the glasses are slightly less dorky and cost more.

[Xerxesqados Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:47PM]

@Martin C Just curious, have you gone to see a 3D movie lately? Because most of the people not impressed with the technology haven't actually seen how it looks nowadays.

The glasses are only acceptable in the theater, of course. Until autostereoscopic TVs are cheap and reliable, that's where it's staying.

[Martin C Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:55PM]

I've gone to see a few lately. The technology has improved from the standpoint of providing a 3D picture, though for me personally it adds nothing valuable to the experience.

I do plan to see Avatar in 3D, simply because some close friends have raved about it. Perhaps that will make a difference in my opinion.

[PerryAJ Posted Dec 28th 2009 10:14PM]

@Martin C: 2 weeks ago I felt the same way. Seeing Avatar in 3d really impressed me with how far it has come. While I wouldn't be interested in viewing all content in 3D, if it was available on select channels for high-def movies, I would certainly be willing to toss on the glasses for it now and then. The glasses wreak havoc on my eyes though, so it's not something I would be interested in doing all the time.

Then again, having a new 65" plasma, I am not even sure it would work for my set and there is no way I would upgrade just for 3D.

[Maxthedog Posted Dec 29th 2009 2:19PM]

@Martin C, you must have only one eye. 3D won't work for you.

[Xerxesqados Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:44PM]

@smartmouth Unless his computer is hooked up to his TV, it will most certainly be the same answer.

[Barkus Posted Dec 28th 2009 9:49PM]

Improve the tech that's already out in making it more efficient and cost effective before trying to add more spokes to the wheel and calling it reinvention.

[ummhello Posted Dec 28th 2009 10:33PM]

Just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D which requires glasses, no way in hell I'd watch 3D tv with glasses.....make a 3D tv without glasses and I'm there, though.

[MJ Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:00PM]

Maybe they should offer ALL the locals in HD FIRST!!! Why not finish what you started D*TV... or at the very least fix your HD audio problems ... this is bull****

[lakersin2025 Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:02PM]

Avatar in mini IMAX 3D was awesome! I'm sold. Maybe you guys were too close to the screen.

[CMA Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:18PM]

Much like the Buckeyes this man is filming, I believe at this moment that 3D is over-rated.

[wshwe Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:19PM]

This will be the first big tech flop of the new decade.

[pretol Posted Dec 29th 2009 3:59AM]

@(Unverified)

Noone listens to AM radio anymore. And nobody listens to records. In 20 years, people will laugh at the nearsightedness of 3d-critics. It is going to happen. How/when/etc. is not exactly known. But it will, and this is only the beginning. A lot of you view in 2d is already recorded in 3d, it's only a matter of time before technology catches up.

[TheSmartOne Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:20PM]

@pachi72 What the hell?

[iPaul Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:26PM]

3D who cares.

I am still waiting for all the channels in 1080p

How can we be moving to 3D when content providers are barely using 1080p.

This is stupid.

[iPaul Posted Dec 28th 2009 11:41PM]

SKY has barely 30 odd HD (not all 1080p) channels and yet they are moving to 3D that nobody will watch on a regular basis

[niteriderxp Posted Dec 29th 2009 2:35AM]

This makes my blood boil.

I bought a $2000 52" TV a year and a half ago, expecting it not to become obsolete for a decade. Now I find out that my TV will be obsolete at year 3.

Not to mention the fact that Comcast finally got off its rear end and deployed a decent amount of HD channels. Not exactly sure if they will have enough capacity for 3D channels though.

In my opinion it will take much longer than a year for this stuff to become mainstream. There are too many established transmission standards that need to be revised and if a standards/regulatory commission gets involved it will take a decade. Just take a look at what happened with 802.11n. We be using 3DTV draft 2.0 for years and cross manufacturer compatibility will reek.

[xconan Posted Dec 29th 2009 3:09AM]

@niteriderxp
Wonder if the video network infrastructure will need terabit capacities for high res 3d as it definitely will be hogging up bandwidth...

[pretol Posted Dec 29th 2009 3:52AM]

1080 signal is 6 times more bandwidth than 480 signal. If satellite TV companies have managed that, I don't think it'll be a problem to double that for stereo vision. If anything 720-3d is about same bandwidth as 1080. If anything 3d should compress very well as well. So bandwidth concerns are bogus, because we're already over that hill (or at least, getting over that hill).

And to all nay-sayers: The 3d has to start somewhere. No manufacturing company is going to present a 3d monitor if noone is broadcasting any 3d source. As soon as something is broadcasted in 3d, they will figure out how to do it. Many companies already have glass-less prototypes, but there's no way they're going to push it into production until there's 3d material out there.

I don't understand how people can shoot this down. Even with glasses, I'd love to be able to watch an action flick in 3d in my own home. It's not like they're making you wear 3d glasses, you can still watch it without glasses (presumeably half the signal out of only one camera)- if you're that stuck up. You can also listen to 45rpm records, while you're doing it.

[iPaul Posted Dec 29th 2009 8:40PM]

@pretol We can shoot this down as the current content line up is not all 1080p and I would prefer that it was before we get asked to purchase more equipment.

Spend your money on 1080p content 3D is a FAD

[Brian Posted Dec 29th 2009 8:39AM]

I love how I spent thousands on my new 1080p TV and now there is this? It will be years before I plan on going 3D and hopefully by then there will be something better for 3D such as not having glasses, being after to look at the screen at an angle, etc...

[Smurf Posted Dec 29th 2009 10:13AM]

Lots of 3D haters here... odd.

These people are no different than HDTV opponents. It is incremental increase in clarity and immersion... why oppose it? It's not like you won't be able to watch 3D TV in 2D if you don't have a 3D capable set. Like I said before: If you have two eyes, you have no reason to resist. Hell, even people with one eye can still enjoy their TV shows, so they shouldn't be complaining either.

I want 3D gaming, and if 3D broadcast television is what it takes to get 3D TV's into homes (and that is what it takes), then bring it on!

[Brian Posted Dec 30th 2009 1:44AM]

@Smurf

There are several differences. And most people aren't against 3D. I hate how 3D is being done, glasses, new TV, etc... I don't oppose 3D at all and would love to have it. But I don't plan on investing in it for at least several years. And I think just about everyone you think is against 3D feels the same way, that they don't oppose it at all, they just hate some things about it.

[SOOPERGOOMAN Posted Dec 29th 2009 10:30AM]

I think Johnny 5 is going to be PISSED that they're using his Brothers head to make 3D. Johnny 5 is gonna make 3D out of your Guts.

[bobjfs Posted Dec 29th 2009 12:00PM]

I'd settle for HD on all the available HD channels. AMC, Travel Network, MSNBC, BBC America, Turner Classics... you name it.

[The Fuzz 53 Posted Dec 29th 2009 1:31PM]

Until EVERY channel is in HD, I couldn't give a shit less about 3D.

[Maxthedog Posted Dec 29th 2009 2:27PM]

@The Fuzz 53, so unless you can see the Oxygen network in full HD you won't give a crap about seeing say Avatar in 3D at home?

I say add the capability to the channels that would benefit from 3D since most channels won't need it nor have the content for it. However it would be great to have that as an option on some of the premium movie channels.

I love 3D and would love to get it but I don't want to deal with shutter glasses where you need either a cable running from your glasses to a box or batteries to run it. I want the polarized type as demoed in the laser projection TV that they might produce soon.

[The Fuzz 53 Posted Dec 30th 2009 12:25PM]

@Maxthedog

Nope, I really do not give a shit about 3D from my tv provider. The capability on a blu-ray player, maybe, but for TV, I really don't care.