And if so, what did you think? I wandered around yesterday, had tickets 
for the BBCi seminar, but didn't go because of the queue (I'd been to a 
different one immediately beforehand).

Thoughts appreciated, particularly on the BBC thing...

FWIW, It looked a little bleak to me. Low end production kit was well 
represented (which suited me), but fewer of the big players were there 
than I expected. Perhaps I'm just getting older.

Also, what is it about LED lighting that makes it so pricey? "Because 
they can" presumably? One is tempted to get a block of Perspex and play 
about.

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

In article ,
   SpamTrapSeeSig  wrote:
> Also, what is it about LED lighting that makes it so pricey? "Because 
> they can" presumably? One is tempted to get a block of Perspex and play 
> about.

Making LEDs that are anywhere close to a reasonably smooth continuous
spectrum light source suitable for 'filming' is tricky and expensive.

-- 
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"SpamTrapSeeSig"  wrote in message
news:JCQYGUQQDEpHFwPV@tigger.muircom.demon.co.uk...
> And if so, what did you think? I wandered around yesterday, had tickets
> for the BBCi seminar, but didn't go because of the queue (I'd been to a
> different one immediately beforehand).
>
> Thoughts appreciated, particularly on the BBC thing...
>
> FWIW, It looked a little bleak to me. Low end production kit was well
> represented (which suited me), but fewer of the big players were there
> than I expected. Perhaps I'm just getting older.

The most impressive thing was Quantel's demonstration of stereoscopic 3D.
They had some American basketball in 1080/60 HD. I've never seen 3D with
"video look" to the motion before, and I think this gave a much more
striking sense of 3D realism than the jerky 24 frame "film look" of IMAX 3D.

I liked the way Quantel referred to "designer glasses" as they handed them
out. Maybe at last people are getting the idea that the glasses are a
desirable accessory, like iPod headphones, and won't let the absolute
necessity of wearing glasses hold back 3D any longer. (Don't believe the
hype from Philips, I've seen their "3D without glasses" and unless you stand
in just the right spot the image breaks up.) There's money in 3D now because
Disney are making Digital Cinema movies in 3D, more people pay to watch the
3D release than the ordinary one, and they don't seem to mind wearing the
glasses. Quantel are capitalising on this market with their "Pablo" system
for grading 3D rushes.

I think we should launch 3D television now, because the technology is ready.
Digital cinema is practically the same technology as HDTV, and displays are
not limited to just projectors. The manufacture of domestic LCD and plasma
displays can easily be adapted for stereoscopic 3D, and any Freeview,
satellite or Blu ray disc data channel that works for HD will work for 3D
HD. Very little extra bitrate is needed because only the difference data
between the left and right eye view needs to be coded. (Vaguely the same
principle as "joint stereo" on DAB which needs much less than twice the
bitrate of mono.) If John Logie Baird was alive today I'm sure he would say
"skip the launch of HDTV and go straight to 3DTV". It's much more impressive
than flat HD.

In article <fo37of$luc$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen 
 writes

>The most impressive thing was Quantel's demonstration of stereoscopic 3D.
>They had some American basketball in 1080/60 HD. I've never seen 3D with
>"video look" to the motion before, and I think this gave a much more
>striking sense of 3D realism than the jerky 24 frame "film look" of IMAX 3D.
>
>I liked the way Quantel referred to "designer glasses" as they handed them
>out. Maybe at last people are getting the idea that the glasses are a
>desirable accessory, like iPod headphones, and won't let the absolute
>necessity of wearing glasses hold back 3D any longer. (Don't believe the
>hype from Philips, I've seen their "3D without glasses" and unless you stand
>in just the right spot the image breaks up.) There's money in 3D now because
>Disney are making Digital Cinema movies in 3D, more people pay to watch the
>3D release than the ordinary one, and they don't seem to mind wearing the
>glasses. Quantel are capitalising on this market with their "Pablo" system
>for grading 3D rushes.

You get to play "spot the idiot" here, as I missed the Quantel 
demonstration entirely! To be fair I was there for a specific purpose 
and originally had over half my time taken up with booked seminars, but 
I wish I'd seen it all the same.

Did they give any details of the technology, for example are their 
glasses switching in time with frames/fields, or is it a different 
approach?

>I think we should launch 3D television now, because the technology is ready.
>Digital cinema is practically the same technology as HDTV, and displays are
>not limited to just projectors. The manufacture of domestic LCD and plasma
>displays can easily be adapted for stereoscopic 3D, and any Freeview,
>satellite or Blu ray disc data channel that works for HD will work for 3D
>HD. Very little extra bitrate is needed because only the difference data
>between the left and right eye view needs to be coded. (Vaguely the same
>principle as "joint stereo" on DAB which needs much less than twice the
>bitrate of mono.) If John Logie Baird was alive today I'm sure he would say
>"skip the launch of HDTV and go straight to 3DTV". It's much more impressive
>than flat HD.

I saw a few at the Imax in Bristol before it closed (polarized 
channels), and they were very good indeed, but IIRC the best stuff was 
artificial rendered scenes, rather than real-world capture (thus I wish 
I'd seen the Quantel stuff). It would be nice to see some experiments 
though.

Did they talk about the transmission chain at all? The big issue 
presumably would be 'mono' compatibility, although on that one there's a 
crude answer forming in my head as I type. Presumably, if we've come to 
tolerate the 'film effect' look, that would suffice...

Wish I'd kept my eyes open a bit more now!

Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK                                      www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                     www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TD'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

> Did they talk about the transmission chain at all? The big issue
> presumably would be 'mono' compatibility, although on that one there's a 
> crude answer forming in my head as I type. Presumably, if we've come to 
> tolerate the 'film effect' look, that would suffice...
>
> Wish I'd kept my eyes open a bit more now!
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>

If the BBC "launched" 3D HD TV, the first two things they would do is design 
3D DOG shit and 3D pop-up in-programme spam shit.

"Light of Aria"  wrote in message
news:fo6mh7$122$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> > Did they talk about the transmission chain at all? The big issue
> > presumably would be 'mono' compatibility, although on that one there's a
> > crude answer forming in my head as I type. Presumably, if we've come to
> > tolerate the 'film effect' look, that would suffice...
> >
> > Wish I'd kept my eyes open a bit more now!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Simonm.
>
> If the BBC "launched" 3D HD TV, the first two things they would do is
> design 3D DOG shit and 3D pop-up in-programme spam shit.

Yes, I guess the 3D dog should stand out in front of the screen just to make
it more intrusive. They could play around with the test card too. The girl
could sit behind the round window, pick up the chalk and point it at you, or
she could push the doll through the window.

Some other things they could do in 3D would be shopping channels. It's all
live, with a minimum number of cameras, so switching to 3D production on QVC
for example could be quite economical. Another thing that would benefit a
lot from 3D and could be converted quite cheaply would be Sky's live glamour
channels (in the 900s on the EPG). The models would literally jump out of
the screen at you.

In article <fo7ga1$26q$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen 
 writes
>"Light of Aria"  wrote in message
>news:fo6mh7$122$1@energise.enta.net...
>> If the BBC "launched" 3D HD TV, the first two things they would do is
>> design 3D DOG and 3D pop-up in-programme spam .
>Yes, I guess the 3D dog should stand out in front of the screen just to make
>it more intrusive. They could play around with the test card too. The girl
>could sit behind the round window, pick up the chalk and point it at you, or
>she could push the doll through the window.
>Some other things they could do in 3D would be shopping channels. It's all
>live, with a minimum number of cameras, so switching to 3D production on QVC
>for example could be quite economical. Another thing that would benefit a
>lot from 3D and could be converted quite cheaply would be Sky's live glamour
>channels (in the 900s on the EPG). The models would literally jump out of
>the screen at you.

I don't like much of the rubbish any more than anyone else, but that 
doesn't mean it's all you can use 3DTV for.

Nat.Hist. springs to mind as an obvious beneficiary of such a system. 
I'd expect a programme would have 3D sequences in it, rather than the 
whole thing being 3D, because of the difficulty of originating the 
material, but they might add a lot to the viewing experience.

Why not, anyway? After all the original purpose of motion picture 
technology has been to attempt to record real life, and 3D is a good 
next step. To me it makes more sense than, say, widescreen, but like 
many of the available 'innovations' it's not appropriate for everything
(can't see the point of Newsnight in 5.1 surround, for example).

It's very sad that the British broadcasting tradition of technical 
innovation, built up over six decades in television, is now being 
quickly replaced by manufacturer-driven market pressures. The latter 
always used to be there to some extent, but the tail is now truly 
wagging the dog, and the viewers are being fleeced.

[aside to Bill] I haven't resolved my own DVB-T reception issues, but I 
don't think I'll be using a local installer. There was some new 
aluminium basket work put up across the road in the last few days, such 
that we now have both H and V Yagis pointing at all points of the 
compass within 100yard radius (and several pointing at back and front 
gardens below). It's dark outside now, but I'll try to take some snaps 
soon for your horror pages.


Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK                                      www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                     www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TD'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

>[aside to Bill] I haven't resolved my own DVB-T reception issues, but I 
>don't think I'll be using a local installer. There was some new 
>aluminium basket work put up across the road in the last few days, such 
>that we now have both H and V Yagis pointing at all points of the 
>compass within 100yard radius (and several pointing at back and front 
>gardens below). It's dark outside now, but I'll try to take some snaps 
>soon for your horror pages.

PS: I'm now of the firm opinion you have an evil twin, operating from a 
secret base somewhere in Bristol...


Regards,

Simonm.

-- 
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU                   http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/
GT250A'76  R80/RT'86  110CSW TDi'88  www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/