3D content?

[mahrkpat]

There is a post about the Wimbledon final being shown in 3D so I want to know is there that much 3D content and do you need a special receiver or just a 3D t.v?

[Clark197]

Re: 3D content?

of course you need a receiver wich support 3D content(i thing all hdtv receiver with HDMI output support 3D-TV). Your 3D-TV will do the rest.

[bokkie]

Re: 3D content?

most of the newer receivers ( dreambox, vu+, spiderbox, etc ) support 3d. Also need a 3d tv and have to be on the 3d channel. And those glasses of course :-)

[mahrkpat]

Re: 3D content?

How much content is out there is it worth getting a 3D t.v?

[duhoki]

Re: 3D content?

Its all about what you like. If you watch soccer, you can watch 3d games. This channels only opens when there is big cup like world champion or euro master etc... But if it is enough contenct to get anything out of it.. i dont think you should go for anything like that for now atleast. Wait and see if we get more 3d content.

[bokkie]

Re: 3D content?

If you need a new tv then yes, get a 3d one as they're pretty cheap now.
But I wouldn't buy one just to get 3d content as there's not much available yet.

[toby69]

Re: 3D content?

will this 3D innovation really hit off? it has been about now for some time, there has been plenty time for this to materialise, seems only certain (programs) broadcasted in 3D, i for 1 as many others will sit on the fence for a while, any 3D tv owners please add your comments.

[bokkie]

Re: 3D content?

I have enjoyed some 3d movies in the cinema, but that is with a huge screen where almost your whole field of vision is covered by the screen.
I think if your tv over 50 inches the experience would be good.
But 32 inches, forget about it.

[mahrkpat]

Re: 3D content?

Hi
If you buy a frag for whether he is 3 D or 3D redy. I have electronics market demand what it for the difference is. 3D can redy television 3D image represent only dan if you have 3D device eg. 3D BlueRay. He needs a 3D signal.
In full 3D TV can even of 2D a 3D image make it to be but not so good quality. So my opinion if already full 3D buy then. Both need active 3D glasses.

In the main living room already have HD t.v. but mostly watched by wife and daughter (soaps) and I'm relegated to watching what I want upstairs, at the moment only got old analogue t.v so want a new one.

I've been looking around and thought why not go for ones with new technology. There are two makes of t.v that demonstrated 3D the best but they are using different technology: passive 3D and active 3D.

The prices of the 3D glasses for passive are only a few £'s and for active £50 and above. A question for those who already own 3D t.v's what are the pro's and con's?

[percy32]

Re: 3D content?

Passive 3D=half resolution
Active 3D=half Picture per second.
That means taht passive 3D not realy Full HD and aktive 3D the picture sometimes flicker

[pan1300]

Re: 3D content?

my opinion (as said here somewhere before - and won't change fast) - all 3D I've seen until now (tv without glasses, tv with glasses and cinema with glasses) really didn't impress me, even more: it didn't felt naturally and ennoyed me. Ok, last time a bit better, but why not first set the 'full HD' on point, with more programs in HD (surely here - belgium + also holland: some HD channels, but very few HD programs). And afterwards perhaps start thinking about 3D ...

[besit]

Re: 3D content?

3d broadcasting is just stereopair - 2 pictures for left and right eye in one frame. No special receiver is needed - every dvbs2 mpeg4 HD receiver like Dreambox can transfer such picture via HDMI to your tv. Then if your TV is 3d compatible, it will take a stereo pair and work it out for it's output. If it's not 3d compatible you will get two squeezed pictures near each other.
3d glasses must fit the screen. You can't use cheap anaglyph (red-blue) glasses instead of polarized ones e t c
If you use PC to watch 3d content you have more choices.
For example for DVBViewer there is an anaglyph shader which can convert stereopair into anaglyph picture for red-blue glasses. Or you can use a shader which will make a 2d picture from a stereo pair. The same functionality you can find in Pro version of ProgDVB.

Anaglyph picture has a poor color information but it can be viewed on every monitor, even an old fashion **** TVset.

[Andrewcrawford]

Re: 3D content?

not all hd receiver can output 3d even one that can do mpeg4 ive got a cheap receiver and it doesnt do 3d even though i have a 3dtv and my other receiver woks fine

but to be honest in 5-10 years time once uhd come around there planning on releasing 3d holographic tv which wont need glasses

[digicon]

Re: 3D content?

I have had a 3D TV since they became available around 2 years ago and now am on my 3rd one, also i have had both passive and active. Active being the better system that allows the full HD effect.

It would be extremely difficult to find a decent large screen tv now that does not have 3D built in and as suggested go for the biggest you can afford my current one is 60" great field of vision.

[besit]

Re: 3D content?

I have had a 3D TV since they became available around 2 years ago and now am on my 3rd one, also i have had both passive and active. Active being the better system that allows the full HD effect.

It would be extremely difficult to find a decent large screen tv now that does not have 3D built in and as suggested go for the biggest you can afford my current one is 60" great field of vision.

Receiver requrements for 3d
- dvbs2 mp4 compatibility
- hdmi output with 1080 (i or p)

Then if your monitor can handle stereo pair - it will work it out and you will get stereoscopic image with or without glasses depending on 3d system type - there are many of them
If your monitor cannot handle stereo pair - it will show it unchanged - two pictures near each other squeezed horizontally