backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Sep 3 at 11:16 PM

Panasonic is working with popular Hollywood director to help promote 3D

Panasonic hopes to build up hype for 3DTV, this time announcing an agreement with "Titanic" director James Cameron, who will help promote 3D TVs in Japan and across the world.

"I believe 3D is how we will experience movies, gaming and computing in the near future," Cameron said, regarding his deal with Panasonic.  "We want to get global interest rolling," he continued.  "As a consumer electronics company, they are setting new standards in technology. Panasonic’s brilliance is demonstrated by their 3D presentation for the home.  I’ve had an opportunity to view Panasonic’s Full High Definition 3D technology first hand and it was remarkable."

The advertising deal makes sense as Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox Film prepare to release the movie "Avatar," a film that has been shot in 3D only.  Panasonic has rented several trailer-vans that will tour parts of the United States and Europe promoting the film, using a large-screen 3DTV on the outside of the van to show viewers trailer clips from "Avatar."

Even though several 3D animated films have been released in 3D only, "Avatar" will be the first live-action Hollywood movie to be released in 2D and 3D.

Although several other companies are working with 3D technology, including Sony, Samsung and others, there is a major issue that faces companies hoping to become involved in 3D.  There is no working agreement on broadcast or disc formats, which opens the door for a pricey format battle.

Last November, Panasonic submitted a proposal to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) that would create guidelines for companies and studios using "left / right-eye two-channel Full HD images" on HDTVs with Blu-ray.  Furthermore, the company also created a 3D research lab in Hollywood, and gives researchers a place to develop 3D technology.

In the future, a 3D broadcast and disc format must be created -- and agreed upon -- by a majority of the companies, hopefully avoiding a content war.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

incredible
By tastyratz on 8/24/2009 9:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
in theory. There are several obstacles to 3dtv.

1. you have to see it to experience it - you cant see it online or get it from a commercial on a 2d display. This is going to be a chicken & egg scenario - until its rolled out people will hesitate and until people buy manufacturers/stores will hesitate. a lot of red/blue glasses mentality

2. twice the picture content requires twice the space and twice the processing power. 2 video streams for 1080p would be massive - but I suspect in time that some creative codec work could cut size quite a bit.

2.(a) off that note, more processing power means current generation players couldn't play high definition 3d content. There would need to be another generation of 3dhdtv players. We saw with current generation hd optical players that penetration is weak. Can we get people who just sprung for a bluray player to get ANOTHER one? (or convince the people who wouldnt spring for one to get this now?)




RE: incredible
By FITCamaro on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: incredible
By trisct on 8/24/2009 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, no. 3D streams will depend on adoption of HDMI 1.4, which has increased bandwidth to handle binocular video without losing 1080p resolution.

So, the HDMI 1.2 output on our PS3s won't cut it, unless it downconverts everything to 720p first. Anything less would result in some visible flicker, and additional eyestrain.


RE: incredible
By FITCamaro on 8/24/2009 10:06:30 PM , Rating: 1
I actually thought the PS3 had HDMI 1.3.


RE: incredible
By pwnsweet on 8/25/2009 2:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
RE: incredible
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/24/2009 10:34:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
twice the picture content requires twice the space and twice the processing power. 2 video streams for 1080p would be massive - but I suspect in time that some creative codec work could cut size quite a bit.


MPEG compression lends itself very well to this. The difference between what the left and right eye see are very slight and are mostly just offset images. Current encoders can designed to pick up on these frame to frame similarities (it's what allows compression). I'd be surprised to see a 10% increase in data rate to support a 120hz 3D video stream over a 60hz 2D video stream of the same quality if h264 was used, without any special 3D codec tweaking.

As for the processing power, what we're seeing here is a solution looking for a problem. Over the last 4 years we've seen die shrinks, memory prices drop, IP costs for h264 decoders paid for. Now vendors can produce chipsets that can decode 2 or 3 1080p 60hz streams for less than one that couldn't even do 1080p 4 years ago. To create a market for chipsets like this they need a problem to solve, like 3D video.


RE: incredible
By DopeFishhh on 8/25/2009 4:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more worried about how artifacts from any compression could damage the 3dness of the resulting image. If badly compressed you could end up with a chaoticly moving image in 3d that might just make you sick.

A loss less compression format would be the only way to avoid this for certain. Or a post decompression clean up filter to make the 3d look right.


RE: incredible
By AlexWade on 8/24/2009 11:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
What if the TV had multiple layers. We already have in testing OLED or something lime that can be clear at times (It was in another DT article recently). What if the TV just multiple layers.

Then, when filming a scene, multiple cameras are used so that the 3D image is like real life. The 3D image would not just be multiple layers where the back layer has not picture information where the front layers exist. For example, suppose a person is standing in a field. The back layer would have the entire field, a front layer would have the person. When you walk around the room, you will see a different angle.

Hey, it doesn't hurt to think big.


RE: incredible
By Murloc on 8/24/2009 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
it would just be a 2d person (like if it was printed) standing in a more advanced position than the backgrond.

There's nothing 3d on that.

A 3d screen with pixels made by cubes would do that maybe, but I'm not sure it would work for films with background.

Anyway if this 3d TV requires the glasses then it's nothing new...


RE: incredible
By mircea on 8/24/2009 1:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's too close to a holodeck to be released as a simple multilayer display. They'll just do the holodeck instead.


RE: incredible
By tophat on 8/24/2009 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is already implemented in HDMI 1.4. If you look at the standard, you'll see that the bandwidth requirements haven't actually gone up all that much (even at 12-bit DeepColor). What the standard actually did was play with the horizontal and vertical blanking lines in addition the the fps. 1080p 3D video is only 24fps while the other two flavors of 720p is either 60fps or 50fps. Just a perspective on numbers, every 3D video option regardless of resolution is 2.2Gbps per RGB channel at 12-bit color.


Why with glasses?
By BaDaBooM on 8/24/2009 9:37:03 AM , Rating: 4
Ok, I am confused. I recall that many years ago there was a company (can't remember the name but Anandtech did a review) that sold 3d monitors that didn't need glasses. Also every now and then I hear about breakthroughs where they increase the viewing angle, etc. Right now if you google 3d monitor without glasses, you get a number of hits on company announcements about it. Why on earth would you waste time creating a standard based on glasses then? Am I missing something? Is there a problem with the tech that I am unaware of?




RE: Why with glasses?
By Silver2k7 on 8/24/2009 10:10:51 AM , Rating: 3
There has been many anouncements regarding 3D tv's the last couple of years.. I believe atleast a few of them have been from companies wanting to make a real 3d tv.. aka one without any need for special spectacles.

If this one needs glasses, I can't see it becoming mainstream or a success.


RE: Why with glasses?
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/24/2009 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Those LCDs had a very small viewing angle to get the 3D effect. And I'm not talking small like 90 degrees, I'm talking small like 10 degrees. Acceptable for desktop use, useless for a living room.

There are some promising 3D technologies that don't need glasses though. But they're at least 10 years away.


RE: Why with glasses?
By HighWing on 8/24/2009 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are some promising 3D technologies that don't need glasses though. But they're at least 10 years away.


I'm guessing you mean 10 years before being sold to consumers. Because just last weekend I bumped into a guy walking around with a hand held camera filming things in 3d. And to view it, he had a headset that would playback what he shot in 3d. Granted this was one of those headset's with two small LCD screens, (one for each eye), but even looking at them from a distance you could see that the image was in 3d and looked great, no glasses required.


RE: Why with glasses?
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/24/2009 3:19:18 PM , Rating: 3
I would consider a headset as a form of "glasses"... in fact I'd consider it worse :)

There are technologies out there that allow for a holographic like 3D image. Where many people can look at the same display, with naked eyes, and all see 3D. The difficulty with developing a display like this is that you need to come up with a technique so that a pixel on the "screen" can be assigned different colors based on the angle it's viewed at.

The most promising technology that comes to mind that accomplishes this involves a spinning mirror and a laser as the light source.


RE: Why with glasses?
By Silver2k7 on 8/25/2009 5:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
there was a prototype many years ago of a screen you lay down on the floor, and the image would be real 3d that you could walk around and see from all angles.

IIRC it was a small prototype, and it would at the time (I think they where talking about larger versions) require 500 times the processing power compared to a standard home computer... not sure when this was but probably 5-7 years ago..

with todays multi-cores and especially getting the GPU to perform such tasks, today we might have the processing power needed.


RE: Why with glasses?
By HighWing on 9/3/2009 11:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would consider a headset as a form of "glasses"... in fact I'd consider it worse :)


I think you kinda missed my point. While they are technically "glasses" the image was being displayed by LCD screens. In other words they were just smaller TV's/Monitors. And the only reason why he was using a headset is because obviously it would be a little cumbersome to carry around a full sized monitor.


RE: Why with glasses?
By glennc on 8/27/2009 12:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
philips wowvx. discontinued.


how
By SonicIce on 8/24/2009 8:50:56 AM , Rating: 3
so how exactly does it work? if you need glasses then i don't see it becoming anything more than a feeble escapade




RE: how
By MrPoletski on 8/24/2009 9:12:13 AM , Rating: 4
yeah but what if it did 3D pr0n!


RE: how
By Nobleman00 on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: how
By GaryJohnson on 8/24/2009 9:22:25 AM , Rating: 3
RE: how
By ClownPuncher on 8/24/2009 12:26:08 PM , Rating: 1
Hooray for eyestrain and fatigue.


RE: how
By mircea on 8/24/2009 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
From my understanding, it all starts with the cameras.
They are based on the human eyes <-plural. The camera has two lenses that focus on the action just like a humans giving the depth perspective, thus 3D. The glasses are used to somehow block on your right eye the footage shot with the left lens of the camera and block your left from seeing the right lens footage, thus keeping the depth perspective the camera had during filming.
That's the reason you can't see how it works until you actually go and see it yourself.


RE: how
By monomer on 8/24/2009 6:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The glasses are used to somehow block on your right eye the footage shot with the left lens of the camera and block your left from seeing the right lens footage, thus keeping the depth perspective the camera had during filming.


That's the problem the OP was talking about. Wearing the glasses invariably gets uncomfortable due to eye-strain, or just plain irritation from wearing the glasses.

What will make 3D become viable is when some bright minds come up with a way for the TV to display 3D images without the use of polarized or shutter glasses.


for sure?
By the goat on 8/24/2009 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Avatar" will be the first live-action Hollywood movie to be released in 2D and 3D.


Pretty sure Journey to the Center of the Earth was released last year in 2D and 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_Center...




RE: for sure?
By Spivonious on 8/24/2009 9:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the horrible-looking "Final Destination" movie.

And what about the old 3D movies? Like from the 50s/60s? I'm sure that not all the theaters got 3D versions.


RE: for sure?
By zaxxon on 8/24/2009 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Was Final Destination 4 not good? (sorry, off topic ;)


RE: for sure?
By Swamp on 8/25/2009 12:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
I remember being a kid watching a Nightmare on Elm Street movie in a theater in 3d.


RE: for sure?
By glennc on 8/27/2009 12:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
did you actually see part six in the cinema?


By on 8/30/2009 9:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki