3D TV - would Interlaced or Progressive be better

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <mp6dnTFv5LwmoJveRVn-jw@rogers.com> "tim@nocomment.com" <tim@nocomment.com> writes:
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/19/virtual.reality.reut...
>
>I'm sure everyone has heard of this relatively new technology that uses
>special glasses and broadcasts the left and right eye images in rapid
>succession.

Yes, we heard of it back in the 1960's. It wasn't used for broadcast TV,
but it was around.


>What would be better, interlaced or progressive scan and, with the
>advent of digital TV, wouldn't this 3D TV be easier to implement.

I cannot think of any reason this would be easier to implement with
digital. It clearly doesn't implement well with displays like LCD,
which are lit all the time, and don't change rapidly all that well.


>Couldn't this technology be built right into the ATSC tuner for not too
>much more money?

No, since it is also needed in the display, and the glasses, etc.


>Shouldn't this be the focus of at least one leading edge broadcaster?

Wouldn't standards be nice first?


Alan

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:mp6dnTFv5LwmoJveRVn-jw@rogers.com...
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/19/virtual.reality.reut...
>
> I'm sure everyone has heard of this relatively new technology that uses
> special glasses and broadcasts the left and right eye images in rapid
> succession.
> What would be better, interlaced or progressive scan and, with the advent
> of digital TV, wouldn't this 3D TV be easier to implement.
> Couldn't this technology be built right into the ATSC tuner for not too
> much more money?

I would imagine this might work substantially better with progressive scan,
as you'd still get 30 full frames per second per eye, but as already pointed
out, LCD TVs might not have sufficient response rates to prevent substantial
smearing and blurriness, which in 3D could look like double images I
suppose.

> Shouldn't this be the focus of at least one leading edge broadcaster?

Maybe, but I think it's a fairly low priority. Both movies and television
have made stabs at 3D over the years, but it's never caught on. Not to say
that it never will, but I'm not sure it's all that likely right now.

On the other hand, there is supposedly a new process that can 3D-ize
existing movies, much like colorizing, and if this is successful it could
increase the use of 3D substantially (ie, not requiring movies to have been
filmed originally with two cameras).