Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

OLYMPICS

London Olympics to be broadcast in 3-D, Panasonic says

Sports Sep. 01, 2011 - 07:00AM JST ( 20 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

20 Comments

0

the_sheriffSep. 01, 2011 - 08:05AM JST

Market data shows that people are unhappy with 3D and returning their sets in droves. Obviously the manufacturers are still trying to push their wares but I really hope they realize that very few people actually want this. If you can't do 3D well, then don't do it at all!
0

soldaveSep. 01, 2011 - 08:36AM JST

Really? What's the source for this? Would like to read where people are returning their 3D TVs, and if it's just Japan or in other countries too.
0

NetNinjaSep. 01, 2011 - 08:42AM JST

I think 3D will be alright. We have to lose the glasses though.
0

tajSep. 01, 2011 - 10:09AM JST

What's with the four medals in the photo? I see Gold, Silver, Bronze and ??? Sponsor?
2

gogogoSep. 01, 2011 - 10:37AM JST

3D no thanks... I could do without the headache
1

WeaselSep. 01, 2011 - 10:51AM JST

I'm more concerned about who'll broadcast the games, as opposed to whether or not it's in 3-D. Almost tempted to see if I can watch the Olympics on Canada TV. The US coverage of the games (with NBC) with their constant annoying barrage of one-sided US "sports perspectives" from their journalist, is nothing short of being sadistic with their viewers.
0

sf2kSep. 01, 2011 - 12:32PM JST

are all sports bars in the world going to outfit their patrons? What's that? No? No.
2

sf2kSep. 01, 2011 - 12:46PM JST

@Weasel

depends who gets to air it, CBC or CTV. Lots of retired people lately too. (Mr Olympics Brian Williams retired)

The website streaming was good for Vancouver 2010. I could pick what I wanted and either the short version or the whole thing. It makes for great television on it's own... especially without a TV ;)
-1

soldaveSep. 01, 2011 - 02:21PM JST

sf2k - I'm not sure it's saying that every sports bar in the world will be forced to show the broadcasts in 3D. Although I may be wrong, I've only read the article once.
-1

mrsynikSep. 01, 2011 - 03:34PM JST

I'm more concerned about who'll broadcast the games, as opposed to whether or not it's in 3-D. Almost tempted to see if I can watch the Olympics on Canada TV. The US coverage of the games (with NBC) with their constant annoying barrage of one-sided US "sports perspectives" from their journalist, is nothing short of being sadistic with their viewers.

How is that any different from the jingoistic perspective that broadcasters in Australia, New Zealand & Japan take? I feel sorry for those in Australia who will have to suffer with Channel 9 being the broadcaster there - at least here in the UK there will be the BBC, probably the best of the bunch when it comes to Olympic broadcasting.
-1

lucabrasiSep. 01, 2011 - 03:52PM JST

the BBC, probably the best of the bunch when it comes to Olympic broadcasting.

I'll second that. Whatever you think about the BBC politically, you have to admit they're scrupulously fair and unbiased when it comes to sport. Compared to the constant "GANBARE, NIPPON!!!" nonsense you get over here, the BBC are a breath of fresh air.
0

SquidBertSep. 01, 2011 - 04:00PM JST

Lets give up on this 3(2.5)D madness already. Believing that stereographic images is the same as 3D is insane. The visual center of the brain is more complex than that.

Try closing one eye. Did the world around you suddenly go 2D, did you loose all depth perception? No? I didn't think so..
1

smithinjapanSep. 01, 2011 - 04:07PM JST

3-D televisions was a bad idea from the start, and the companies know it and are panicking. They were already supposed to have broadcast some past events in 3-D but didn't/couldn't. Do they really have the broadcasting equipment set up to do so for 2012?

Let's say they do -- I can imagine some people rushing to get the sets before the Olympics, and regretting it soon after. Who wants to wear glasses in their home to watch TV? And what about people who need glasses to see? Do the 3-D glasses cover the regular glasses? special prescription 3-D lenses?

3-D can work in theatres for some time yet, but the technology for home use will last as long as MDs did, and die as quickly. The future is in holographic television, and that will be soon enough.
0

lucabrasiSep. 01, 2011 - 04:10PM JST

@Squid

Try closing one eye. Did the world around you suddenly go 2D, did you lose all depth perception?

Actually, you do lose all depth perception. You can compensate for this with common sense and local knowledge, but only one eye means vision without depth perception. It's physics, not biology.
0

SquidBertSep. 01, 2011 - 04:19PM JST

Actually, you do lose all depth perception. You can compensate for this with common sense and local knowledge, but only one eye means vision without depth perception. It's physics, not biology.

So you are telling me that after closing one eye, I wont be able to the the difference between a large high quality photograph of an object and a real object? I beg to differ, very minute movements of our eyes and head provide us with more than enough information to provide us with depth perception.

Not until 3D systems are able to respond to such movements of our eyes, heads and viewing positions will there be any true perceived 3D image. Ive been to 3D theaters and I always end up taking of the glasses within 15 minutes, because the illusion is incomplete and uncomfortable.

I would say this is somewhat like the fact that I would prefer watching a black and white film to one which could only reproduce the colors green and blue.
0

lucabrasiSep. 01, 2011 - 04:31PM JST

very minute movements of our eyes and head provide us with more than enough information to provide us with depth perception.

Exactly. But the key word is "eyes". A single "eye" is no different to a single camera lens. Surely you'd agree that you can't get a 3-D image from a single camera lens?

Again, common sense tells you a lot, but it won't increase the information from a single eye. Look at Gordon Banks, greatest ever English goalkeeper, who had to retire from first-class football after losing an eye in a car-crash. The reason? Lack of depth perception.
1

SquidBertSep. 01, 2011 - 04:57PM JST

Exactly. But the key word is "eyes". A single "eye" is no different to a single camera lens. With movement a single eye can provide enough information to the brain to provide it with enough information to tell 3D from 2D. You see, the brain is not working with static pictures or frames, so information does not have to be from the exact same moment to be incorporated into you view of the world.

Surely you'd agree >that you can't get a 3-D image from a single camera lens?

You could, in a number of ways. But lets take the easiest one: Take one shot, move the camera, Take another shot. Present the two shots as a left and right channel to the viewer. This will off course only provide the crappy 3D I am complaining about, but still.

The more complicated version is something along the lines of: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200910/09-117E/

But sure, I get what you are trying to say:

You need two (one for each eye) channels of viewing information with slightly different perspective to feed 3d information to the brain. What I am saying is just that, those two channels are not enough as the brains 3D perception also depends on other things. Thus the illusion is incomplete.

Which was why I was comparing it to a color movie missing one color channel. And stating that I would prefer a black and white (grey scale) version until the complete experience can be provided.
0

lucabrasiSep. 01, 2011 - 05:00PM JST

@Smith

Entirely get what you're saying too. Thanks :)
2

zabutonsenbeiSep. 02, 2011 - 04:48PM JST

The large medal on the right must be the 3-D one.
2

smithinjapanSep. 04, 2011 - 03:56PM JST

lucabrasi: Not to get all technical on you, but you DO still have depth perception with only one eye. If I remember my biology correctly you can use what are called 'monocular cues of depth', although granted it's not nearly as easy as with two eyes (using the horopter) and might take practice. I can't remember all the names of the cues, but the easiest two cues would be motion parallax (where things close up appear to move more rapidly than things far off; say... gravel at the side of the road and a mountain in the distance, while driving, with the grass in between) and occlusion (things closer up blocking those further behind), not to mention perspective, lighting and shading, and so on.

These most certainly won't help you in fast-paced sports like soccer, since you mentioned it, but still. I have no idea if 3-D would be possible unless they made a special lens (which of course would not be typically sold with said TVs), but anyway.