Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by inazsully, Dec 30, 2009.
I'm perfectly happy with HD. Heck half of Dish's customers still have SD.
3D transmissions take anywhere from 50 to 70% more bandwidth than conventional HD not to mention some drop the vertical resolution by 50%. We will have to see how the public responds, but I suspect for the time being this will remain the province of a couple of specialty channels and pay per view where they can add or remove offerings to adjust to the bandwidth needed.
I wonder what producing 3D content will cost.
Will a 2D TV even be able to display 3D? Or do they have some magic trick such as when they tinkered with the old B&W to add color to it so it would stay compatible.
Also 3D in the home seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. If it were True 3D where I could walk around the image and change my point of view, then I'd be interested.
Remember CATV and what it was originally aimed at solving? Or
When HBO was the Movie channel for several hours a day and signed off at night? Or
When Even stations in NYC,NY signed off at night. Or MTV actually playing music?
Not sure how DirecTv's will work, but the standard adopted by Blu-Ray allows you to display as 2d. The additional 3d info is suppose to only add 50%, rather than 100%, to the video stream.
Dish at this point hasn't said anything about supporting 3d. Although I am sure they are looking at what it would take to support it if 3d really takes off.
I would guess that any display could show 3D content but you would need an outboard box to drive the glasses (or maybe a USB hub?).
Sounds a little gimmicky (like the old color filters for B/W TVs) and working out the timing would be interesting.
Sad but true. That's OK. I remember growing up with black and white TV. I thought that was just fine at the time.
The CEA said today the total 3D sets shipped this year will only be 1.3 million down from 4 million. It's fizzling already
Really a change in the definition. Which is somewhat better for the consumer who might buy a TV that really isn't built to support 3D and think he was ready to go.
ENgadget this morning is following the progress of DirecTV's new H24 HD DVR. They are talking over my head so maybe someone else can check it out and elaborate on what it's all about. It sounds like it is way more than just a HD DVR though. It better have at least 3 tuners and a 1TB hard drive.
It's not a DVR...It's a regular HD receiver that's much faster & has built in DECA for MRV over coax. Check here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=173316
The HR24 will come out shortly after probably.
Today's TVs don't have a high enough screen refresh rate to support 3D. The 3D TVs have a refresh rate of 120 Hz, so that each eye gets a 60 Hz refresh to eliminate flicker. A standard TV has a refresh rate of 60 Hz.
I looked a little further into this and found that both 120fps and 48fps are possible with the Blu-ray 3D standard. I think the chances are excellent that satellite and cable will use the 48fps rate.
This being the case, it would appear that most regular TVs aren't going to be able to pull it off. As such, 3D is going to have a extremely tough time making it into our living rooms.
Plasmas should have no problem, hence Panasonic's leading role in 3D displays. Vizio's newest offerings in August will have a 480hz refresh rate and all the Sony and Samsung displays will be rated at least 240hz.
DirecTv has released it's new Hr24 HD DVR and it basically adds quite a bit of operating speed over the current offerings. They have also included a 500GB hard drive. That's about it. Considering the new drive replaces a 4 year old design I'd say "D" isn't exactly leaping into the future with this machine. Still only two tuners which to me makes the original 722 the cream of the crop.
The display technology can't overcome the inability of the TV's internal circuitry to process an input stream with an oddball frame rate.
If you'll recall, many sets can't handle 24fps so you can't expect them to deal with 48fps or 240fps. This certainly includes Panasonic plasmas.
What good does 480hz or even 240hz refresh rate do if the source is 60hz or 48hz or even 120hz.
It's all BS to sell something bigger and better, even if it is unnecessary.
As has been seen with current sets, a refresh rate greater than the frame rate allows the display to synthesize frames in between source frames, providing smoother motion than would otherwise be seen.
Depending on your point of view this can be seen as a positive or as an artificial artifact.
Personally I fall into the latter camp as the technique makes film look like HD video.
Can't argue against your point but the 3D Pannys have been very well received so far in limited reviews. The next 12 months will be very interesting in the TV market. Next year at this time I wonder what kind of content will we see?
As are the 3D Samsungs. It comes down to what you have to compare to in the marketplace.
I'm guessing that there will be a handful of animated films and a couple of thrill ride type programs. There have been promises of sports programs, but I don't see the attraction. Like IMAX, it is just too expensive and complicated to shoot for something where the focus is on a single ball/puck/place-change.