CableLabs® Develops 3D Test Support, Opens Laboratory for 3D TV Technology

[Shane]

CableLabs® has expanded support for development of 3D television technology. This effort results from the positive responses of the consumer electronics and programming industries.

CableLabs is providing testing capabilities for 3D TV implementation scenarios over cable. These capabilities cover...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2010/01/cablelabs_develops_3d_test_support_opens_laboratory_for_3d_tv_technology.php]Read Bulletin[/url]

[hharris4earthlink]

I would really appreciate an analysis of what this announcement is talking about because it has me totally confused.

"A "frame-compatible" 3D format is one that carries separate left and right video signals within the video frame used to convey a conventional (2D) high-definition signal by squeezing them to fit within the space of one picture. The advantage of such a format is that it can be delivered through existing plant and equipment as if it were a 2D HDTV signal."

Yes, but that means, if I understand this correctly, that in this format, 3D will have half the resolution of my current HD TV. Speaking for myself, the added dimension of 3D isn't worth sacrificing resolution and polarized 3D was never very popular in the theater so I don't see why it would be popular at home.

The other question I have to ask is WHY? There seems to be some muddled thinking here. Jumping on the 3D bandwagon only makes sense if the TV experience emulates the QUALITY of theater 3D. It's quality that's driving 3D, not just the idea of it.

“As with 3D cinema, the viewing of 3D TV in the home will require special glasses. Cable delivered 3D video works equally well with displays using active shutter glasses and with displays using passive polarized glasses,” said David Broberg, Vice President of Consumer Video Technology at CableLabs."

This really has me confused. Active shutter glasses time sequence the left and right views. Passive polarized glasses would imply a 3D set that can create electronically a polarized display, essentially two superimposed images, each with its own orthogonal polarized picture. I have serious doubts that these two 3D methods work equally well. Active shutter technology almost certainly should be better than polarized 3D since Active shutter technology delivers a normal (but sequenced) picture and polarized images have well-known limitations.

What this sounds like to me is an attempt to sell people new TV sets using the popularity of Avatar (and others) without really creating a standard that accomplishes the seamless effect you see in the theaters. I'd be very happy if somebody would tell me I'm wrong.

Besides why can't existing TV sets show 3D? This would mean that the television SOURCE needs to be synchronized with a set of active shutter glasses. Thus nobody would need to buy a new TV set. But that isn't the objective is it?

[Richard]

We are trying to get my 3D article out...

Yes, broadcast 3D will take a hit in performance. Will you notice? If you do how bad is it? Unknown...

Blu-ray will be providing the 3D full meal deal you want.

There will be different 3D display technologies but only one 3D standard.

Gotta have a 120hz display (3D ready) to support the 3D full meal deal at 60 frames.

[hharris4earthlink]

Thanks! In your analysis could you address the question of why not just adding a 3D synch signal to the existing standard wouldn't solve the problem simply with the least impact on the consumer? This way you'd just buy a box that would read the synch signal and use it to switch active shutter glasses. I think I've seen something like this for the PS3, but I've not seen enough hard technical info to be sure.

[Richard]

You and I went over all that already...
viewtopic.php?p=39816&highlight=#39816

BTW, forgot to add that while DTV has no option but to take a hit in 3D performance that is not the case with satellite and cable services... especially satellite since they already use MPEG4 and support 1080p...