[Phil Hinton]

On Wednesday the 17th of December I attended SKY TV’s London production facilities to get a special treat. I wasn’t made aware of exactly what I was going to see until about 10 minutes before my demo. I had attended thinking we were going to cover some of the existing technology and maybe do a podcast or video. So when I heard that I was about to see some 3D TV I was extremely interested in seeing what it would be like and completely sceptical that it would be any good.

As we all know, 3D technology has been around in the cinema world for a long time now, with the usual gimmick of the hand flying out of the screen or the giant shark appearing to hang in front of you. But the effects of the technology in the past have also been seen as pretty fake in realism terms. However I was happy to hear that the R&D team, along with the production staff at Sky certainly don’t want that old 60/70’s idea of items flying out of the screen at us, so maybe this will look ok?

First of all and something that made the use of the technology very appealing is that any SKY HD box can pick up, store and playback the 3D content. This content is broadcast using two HD bandwidth channels from the main transmission centre at Sky’s HQ and they are actively researching this technology and refining how it might work.

Indeed let’s get this extremely clear, SKY are NOT releasing any 3D channels yet, they are looking at the technology, testing how it might work within the broadcast environment and ultimately how it might look to end users. This is certainly the first time Sky have ever opened up their R&D division to the press and demonstrated anything at such an early stage.

So how does it work?

The advance in camera technology as well as the breakthroughs in post production and transmission will allow a 3D signal to be broadcast and played back on a 3D spec TV. These TVs are currently available in Japan but we expect to see many more announced for the US and UK markets at this years CES. This was one reason why Sky opened its doors, so when we see this new tech at CES, we can rest assured that Sky are actually working on bring it to market, and it won’t cost as much as many may think.

The TV used for the demo had a polarising panel fitted to its screen technology and to see 3D pictures you wear a set of glasses which also have a polarising layer to help the eyes pick up each image for the correct playback. These glasses can be designed in any way you like as long as they have the correct polarising lens, which are clear in colour.

The images are received by a normal SKY HD box and fed to the TV by normal means, but the image it displays is a mixture of two separate images which create a 3D image when used with the glasses.

The most difficult process with this technology is actually at the production level and not at the consumer. Indeed all a consumer will need to enjoy this potential content is a SKY HD box, a 3D TV and a set of glasses.

However the production of the programmes will create a few more challenges for the crews producing the content. But SKY has already fully tested their proposed shooting rigs at some big sporting events as well as with in house productions such as Gladiators.

The cameras used are High Definition cameras, but special rigs need to hold these in specifically aligned positions. This ensures that the images are captured as two separate pictures simultaneously. One method uses two cameras which sit directly next to each other with the lenses 6cm apart, roughly the same distance of human eyes. The two separate feeds (or recordings) need to be exactly time stamped from a single synchronised clock to ensure that both images are indeed displayed simultaneously during playback.

The next step requires the two images to be edited so that the colours match exactly, and any small discrepancies of image position and scale are corrected. Depth can also be manually manipulated to enhance or control the 3D image. These techniques help to avoid any rapid movements between differing depths and focus points, which can cause a feeling of sickness or eye strain with some viewers.

Once the captured images have been through the post production cycle, they need to be delivered into the home and onto the TV. This requires significant bandwidth – essentially the equivalent of two HD feeds.

This is where SKY is in a position to make this technology work. The current generation of SKY HD boxes already have the necessary processing power to be able to both receive the 3D encoded material, and store or deliver them to a 3D ready TV. SKY customers would therefore only need to purchase a new TV set to take advantage of the technology when and if it is finally released as a format.

Sky are set to continue their development and to liase with the industry and consumers to understand if there is a market demand for such programming. They will also continue to develop how they capture and transmit the signals.

How does it look?

So after a look at the transmission suite where the programs are broadcast from and the small area dedicated to the test transmissions, we headed for the viewing room to see exactly what it looks like.

Inside the viewing room were two Japanese 3D capable TVs with polarisation layers and we were given a set of clear polarised glasses to view with. The content was stored on a normal SKY HD box in the planner section which had been captured from the test broadcasts. There was no other technology involved in making this demonstration work, no hidden PC racks or curtains hiding a full 19” rack of processing units, it was all from just a normal SKY HD box.

The material used was a montage of Rugby, football, boxing and scenes from Gladiators. Each clip had been captured using the 3D camera Rigs, with the sports footage caught live. There was also a demonstration of a SKY advert which had been transferred from 2D to 3D.

The main montage of 3D captured images from a Liverpool game was very good indeed. There is certainly none of the fake stunts of objects flying towards you. Instead the effect is like the TV screen extending backwards, giving you a feeling of looking into a viewing box. This is a stunning effect which creates some breathtaking images, but which can also still look a little fake. The shots that really work well involved scenes where sharp edges where not quite as clinically sharp as with scenes such as crowds. In the crowds it was almost like several layers of super sharp images had been laid over the top of each other, with edges looking false and overly sharp.

When I raised this point, the reply which was extremely valid, pointed out that the tech is still very new and the traditional 2D camera operators and producers are still trying to figure out exactly what the limitations are. Indeed they have had to re-evaluate exactly how they shoot their footage, like live sporting events where in 2D they chase the ball, whereas with 3D it’s about lingering on the action more. Indeed some of the Liverpool footage where the illusion of depth worked looked stunning! There was one example with a side view from touchline to touchline, where the ball is crossed from the far wing, to Gerrard in the box. The flight of the ball and the sense of depth was like sitting in row G. Gerrard then heads the ball into the goal and the crowd erupts and again the sense of depth as he runs away from us towards the fans on the far side is really good.

However other footage looked a little strange, such as Ricky Hatton being interviewed where cameramen are standing in the foreground of the shot, just out of the focal plane and they look like they are CGI effects due to over sharpness. However I am sure that the production guys at SKY will get to grips with these small issues I found, as they experiment and perfect their 3D capture techniques.

Overall, this wasn’t a product launch, but more a look at what SKY can do with the 3D technology now and how they might be able to introduce such a service should the 3D market develop over the coming months and years. I was suitably impressed with what was shown and the fact that SKY could quite easily deliver these services in the future.

It will now give us more to think about at CES next month where we should see even more 3D technology being unwrapped.

[mabo]

It certainly sounds like an interesting development and it's nice to hear that such a company is looking into its uses. I just wonder if the potential pitfalls will outweigh the benefits and thus make it unsuitable for the majority of footage/programmes.

[Jonstone]

Given the need for a new television to make use of these broadcasts and the fact that a lot of people have only just upgraded to hd ready tv's and the current economic climate I can't see there being a huge market for this in the near future.

There is however one other possible plus for this technology that I can see.

Given that the viewer is basically watching two hd channels at the same time, one in each eye, would it not be possible to have two sets of glasses, one with one type of polorising lense and the other with the opposite polorising lens so that two people could watch different 2d channels in the same room on the same tv at the same time.Attatch headphones to the glasses for individual sound. I would possibly be more interested in that possibility than 3d tbh

[ykhan16]

Hurray @ additional £10 month subscription! =D

Sounds good tho- hope it all comes to fruitition.

[damianpadden]

main reason is bacuse when avatar hits the cinema in 3D everyone is going to go mental and want 3D in their homes. I give it 5 years before we say good bye to our tvs we have all just bought.

[maltezer]

I think that they'd be better directing their efforts to get the HD working correctly before starting on something else.

[eric pisch]

gimmick for kids and to impress your mates once, will go the way of video phones and the mini cd

who wants to wear a pair of special glasses just to watch tv, muppets. extra great for people who have to wear glasses anyway you know have 2 sets on, just a rubbish idea.

its bad enough trying to wade through the handfuls of remotes on an av system gives you let alone trying to find everyone there special specs

and all the 3d systems i have tried make me sick after about 15 mins

[joshua_bond]

All we need is Mitshibushi to release those laser tvs (which incidently are 3d capable) in the uk...at sensible prices!!!

[blicky_1]

I wonder who will make the 'Sky 3hD' box, lets hope it's not Thomson

[golden phoenix]

i seen this reported on sky news, and to be honest i couldnt tell the difference..they had a split screen presentation that looked exactly the same...it never said which was 3d and which was ordinary sky though..

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by brownieeyes

i seen this reported on sky news, and to be honest i couldnt tell the difference..they had a split screen presentation that looked exactly the same...it never said which was 3d and which was ordinary sky though..

Well you wouldn't see any difference if you don't have a 3d tv, not sure why they do these pointless side by sides

[jcls]

Where are the early adopters

How can you not want 3D telly

Enjoyed the Beeb's trials of Enders etc, never mind the silly glasses.
20 years ago though ! that's scary.

[dunks517]

Do you think we'll have 51. audio via HDMI or even a new EPG before then? Just think another Tenner a month for the '3D Sub'!

[Welsh Whirlwind]

Originally Posted by dunks517

Do you think we'll have 51. audio via HDMI or even a new EPG before then?

Hear. Hear.

Sort out the basics first Sky, jeez...

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by dunks517

Do you think we'll have 51. audio via HDMI or even a new EPG before then? Just think another Tenner a month for the '3D Sub'!

an eternal optimist

[joshua_bond]

Well sky has to do something to squeeze out another 10er. It is not surprising that they have chosen to release 3d info now....the hd phenomenon hasn't been a real success compared to sky+ adopters. They have to find way of keeping the punter interested. The HD hasn't really been a sucesss tv manufacturers as well because content hasn't supported the hardware. Up steps HD. If you read the article 3d is going to piggy back on hd format.....so wait for it the logo sky 3D in a couple years time say 2010 (HAL)

[golden phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

Well you wouldn't see any difference if you don't have a 3d tv, not sure why they do these pointless side by sides

i must admit, i dont know anything about this 3d lark as it doesnt interest me, but they say you would be able to get the effect using existing equipment and never mentioned a need for a new type of 3d tv..everything through the existing box..

[Phill1978]

Originally Posted by brownieeyes

i must admit, i dont know anything about this 3d lark as it doesnt interest me, but they say you would be able to get the effect using existing equipment and never mentioned a need for a new type of 3d tv..everything through the existing box..

honestly are you that daft

if it was easy to show a side by side.... then wouldnt they just make the 3d side full screen and heypresto we all have 3d tv without new hardware, glasses, material

[Pecker]

A few points are raised by this demo.

First of all, what right has any broadcaster to get hold of a 2-D film and make a 3-D version of it. Even if the director 'agrees', the film was made in 2-D, and clearly not intended to be seen in 3-D any more than it was intended to be seen cropped. Definitely not 'as the director intended', and I'll view with suspicion any director who appears happy to switch an old film to 3-D in retrospect.

Secondly, I wonder how the glasses will sit with people in the long term. Will a family of 4 really want to sit down for the night in front of the telly with these whopping glasses on? Alternately, would they want to take the glasses on and off regularly (Eastenders in 2-D, footie in 3-D, news in 2-D, late night film in 3-D). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than having them on all night.

Thirdly, what about those who wear glasses already? I know these 3-D specs can fit on top, but how comfortable is that over a prolonged period?

Fourthly, as Phil points out the poorer 3-D effects can cause headaches, etc. Improvements have limited these, but I bet there are still going to be people susceptible, much like motion smearing, 50hz flicker and RBE.

Fifthly, original 3-D did not fail because of any of these, or even because of the dodgy effects, but because the image looks gimmicky. A very good 3-D image (and there are some stunning ones if you want to try out IMAX), looks sort of 3-D, but a completely different type of 3-D to real life. It looks different to 2-D, but not more lifelike, which is after all supposed to be the point. Indeed, whilst modern 3-D is miles sharper than old 1950s 3-D, it relies on effectively the same 'trick' to fool your eyes. It doesn't look more like real life 3-D, just different. So, will this 'gimmick' wear off?

Sixthly, if most cheap directors use old crappy, pointy 3-D techniques (and I think we can all see that happening), will 3-D in general become tainted?

Seventhly, it looks like some shots just won't work, or will look unusual - the camermen are having to learn how to avoid these. Will this further limiting of shots available to camermen significantly reducethe quality of the broadcast?

Eightly, given that Sky want to use this for live footie (among other things), it's inevitable that some dodgy shots will slip through every few minutes. Will this merely underline 3-D's gimmicky reputation?

That's a lot of points to be addressed.

Steve W

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Even if the director 'agrees', the film was made in 2-D, and clearly not intended to be seen in 3-D any more than it was intended to be seen cropped. Definitely not 'as the director intended', and I'll view with suspicion any director who appears happy to switch an old film to 3-D in retrospect.

But that might not be in the context of this discussion in that Sky made a demonstration in light of the advances in 3D technology.

An analogy: Putting aside artistic considerations, would a film had been made in black and white if colour film had been perfect from the beginning? It is known that colour took time to perfect, and get the reproduction of hues and tints right

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

A few points are raised by this demo.

First of all, what right has any broadcaster to get hold of a 2-D film and make a 3-D version of it. Even if the director 'agrees', the film was made in 2-D, and clearly not intended to be seen in 3-D any more than it was intended to be seen cropped. Definitely not 'as the director intended', and I'll view with suspicion any director who appears happy to switch an old film to 3-D in retrospect.

If someone owns the rights, then they have the right. I don't necessarily like the idea but then again saying that it can only be correct when it's the original artistic intention of the director hasn't always been the best route either - i'm looking at you Mr Lucas.

Secondly, I wonder how the glasses will sit with people in the long term. Will a family of 4 really want to sit down for the night in front of the telly with these whopping glasses on? Alternately, would they want to take the glasses on and off regularly (Eastenders in 2-D, footie in 3-D, news in 2-D, late night film in 3-D). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than having them on all night.

"Whopping glasses" - it's not a VR headset is it? Taking the glasses on and off is surely no more of an inconvenience than changing channel during the adverts?

Thirdly, what about those who wear glasses already? I know these 3-D specs can fit on top, but how comfortable is that over a prolonged period?

If it proves too uncomfortable i'm sure some bright spark will develop lenses that will clip onto glasses like the darkened lenses old people tend to wear.

Fourthly, as Phil points out the poorer 3-D effects can cause headaches, etc. Improvements have limited these, but I bet there are still going to be people susceptible, much like motion smearing, 50hz flicker and RBE.

Much like the flashing strobe effects that can aggravate epileptics, i'd assume they'll have a warning or if too many suffer it wouldn't be launched in the first place.

Fifthly, original 3-D did not fail because of any of these, or even because of the dodgy effects, but because the image looks gimmicky. A very good 3-D image (and there are some stunning ones if you want to try out IMAX), looks sort of 3-D, but a completely different type of 3-D to real life. It looks different to 2-D, but not more lifelike, which is after all supposed to be the point. Indeed, whilst modern 3-D is miles sharper than old 1950s 3-D, it relies on effectively the same 'trick' to fool your eyes. It doesn't look more like real life 3-D, just different. So, will this 'gimmick' wear off?

Like moving pictures, i guess it all depends on how well implemented it is and if they can produce programs/films that are heghtened by its use that aren't simply gimmicks. For some, BD is a gimmick that doesn't heighten their enjoyment of a film - we each have different criteria for what we consider a gimmick.

Sixthly, if most cheap directors use old crappy, pointy 3-D techniques (and I think we can all see that happening), will 3-D in general become tainted?

It all depends on what type of directors are interested in the technology and how open minded they are to exploring new areas.

Seventhly, it looks like some shots just won't work, or will look unusual - the camermen are having to learn how to avoid these. Will this further limiting of shots available to camermen significantly reducethe quality of the broadcast?

I can't see any shots being any less effective than traditional film as the term depends on what you wish the effect to be. In the same way as a sweeping pan of a grand vista doesn't make directors avoid a standard head shot, i can't see those who direct 3d avoiding shots to the limitation of the end product just because it isn't the most captivating.

Eightly, given that Sky want to use this for live footie (among other things), it's inevitable that some dodgy shots will slip through every few minutes. Will this merely underline 3-D's gimmicky reputation?

Arguably no more than the same inconsistencies we've simply become accustomed to with 2d imagery.

That's a lot of points to be addressed.

That's a lot of points addressed.

Steve W

Mab O (sorry, couldn't resist Steve as i've quoted and answered everything else )

[Pecker]

Mabo, good replies!

I disagree with most, though.

I'm not saying some/many/all the problems may be overcome, but there are so many that it's a brave man whole blithely wave his hand dismissively at them, and say "Oh, I'm sure they'll sort them all out".

Many (though not all) of the issues apply equally to old red/green 3-D, and haven't been sorted out in over 50 years.

Steve W

[Bald Monkey]

I went to watch "My bloody Valentine 3-D" the other night. This uses what I presume is a very similar polarisation technique?

We were given the plastic glasses with grey lenses.. (well this film was actually £2 more than their standard films so we paid for them! well and truely!)

Anyhow after watching Journey to centre of Earth, in 3D at home recently on BR I was looking for imporvements.

I also noticed that the image seemed to go backwards into the screen rather than just out of it. As with the old 3D films there were a couple of moments when the object shot out of the screen, in an almost comedy style, although personally in this film I think it was used just right. ie. very infrequently and at times where it did actually fit.. Some of the images like the Pick Axe actually appeared to be hovering above the people at the front witht he blood dripping over them!

This has all been done before, however it was the extra 'inwards' effeccts that I think added a lot more realism. In the past 3D films to me always seemed to somehow be constructed from several flat plains of image, arranged with some behind others, almost like a room of carboard cutouts, with each cutout at a different 'depth' .

This newer tech however seemed to me to be able to show far more natural 3D, with items such as a train, angled down the 'depth' of the shot. With the front sticking out and the rear gradually going back into the screen.. This kind of angled depth seemed to me far better than the static layers of image..

IYSWIM Hard to describe

Also moving objects seemed to be able to go forwards and backwards in a single shot, very smoothly.. And the colour was better. IMHO JTTCOTEarth, had very strange colours... everything was very dull and brown? I thought it was a deficency in the tech and something to do with the 3D, rather than just the film it's self, but I don't know? Valentine appeared to have far more 'normal' natural' colours with nothing different colourwise than a 2D movie.

The glasses were comfortable and I soon forgot I was wearing them, however I did notice reflections on the rear of the glasses that seemed to be partly created by them angling outwards from the nose rather than inwards to fit the shape of my face. I had to ask the girlfriend to put her jumper on as I could see her white top in the reflection and this was distracting. Oh and when we left we all felt it took longer to adjust to normal light and viewing. As we walked out of the cinema, similarly to when you normally go from a dark cineam to a bright foyer, however we all felt it was harder to focus again, to adjust to the change somehow. We all felt a little more unsure of our step and focus.. Again hard to describe but we all (6 of us) all felt it was more extreme than when normally leaving a cinema??

Also I noticed a kind of shimmering or similar on some fine objects, I don't know what it was so can't expand, but some of the smaller areas or object on the screen sometimes appeared to me to be almost glittery.. or shimmery??? No one else I asked noticed however ??

As good as it was and as interesting as I think 3D will become, the content is still critical and I still thought the film was lacking.. This 'interest' in 3D will only last so long, they need to get decent content out there.

I imagine that football etc as it's always been a big sales driver for Sky will be one of the first to get this treatment and I think it will/does add to the realism. But I think this tech has to be cheap for the end user and simple enough for the production not to be 'comprimised' and also to encourage it's use on mainstream films far more than the almost just extended 3D samplers we get at present.

The film at the cinema was of course projected, but was there any discussion of how broadcast 3D could work with Home Projectors? Would they simple project, what looked at the cinema without your glasses, to be two out of alignment images or would some kind of dual projection equipment be needed?


EDIT: Oh I forgot to mention the naked woman and the runchy home video scenes... I may not be one of those queing up for it, but I can definately see a market for 3D pornographic films now.. and we all know how much influence that market can bring.

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Mabo, good replies!

I disagree with most, though.

Life would be boring if we all agreed.

I'm not saying some/many/all the problems may be overcome, but there are so many that it's a brave man whole blithely wave his hand dismissively at them, and say "Oh, I'm sure they'll sort them all out".

...or a man who doesn't believe they are valid criticisms.

Many (though not all) of the issues apply equally to old red/green 3-D, and haven't been sorted out in over 50 years.

...and also haven't had a significant amount of investment in R&D.

[Pecker]

BM, cheers for the in-depth commentary - that's the sort of thing we need.

But more than that, what we need is for one good film - any film - to be made in 3-D without any objects flying at the camera unnaturally; just 2 hours of film in 3-D.

You know what I'm guessing will happen? Once you get rid of the gimmicky shots, etc, people will ask what the fuss is about.

I remember watching Space Station 3-D at IMAX - very good. At the start there was a shot from the astronauts’ POV, pulling himself along the exterior of the craft. He got to the end and stuck his head over the top - and there a multi-thousand mile drop to planet earth. Stunning, to the extent that I almost puked.

Then there was some footage of a launch, with the thrust coming from the bottom of the shuttle. It expanded, and all of a sudden pieces of rubble started flying about past the camera - lots of people ducked.

After a few similar shots the film settled down to less gimmicky shots, and the advantage was that it was fine and...well, un-gimmicky. But at the same time it just lost 99% of the effect of 3-D. I didn't find myself worrying when I got home that my TV was 2-D.

That's the problem. When 3-D gains most it looks gimmicky. Lose the gimmicks and it's just a case of why bother. It's bit like saying put 5 sugars in my tea, but don't stir it because I don't like it sweet.

Obviously the footie will be different. I can see Jeff Stelling's hair creeping from under his cuffs in 3-D right now...

Originally Posted by mabo

...or a man who doesn't believe they are valid criticisms.

Virtually every one of those criticisms of 3-D has been made time and time again over the years. As BM's post above, and Phil's OP suggest, many of them still need to be ironed out.

Steve W

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Virtually every one of those criticisms of 3-D has been made time and time again over the years. As BM's post above, and Phil's OP suggest, many of them still need to be ironed out.

Steve W

True, but just because they've been made before about previous attempts at 3d doesn't necessarily make them valid today. Ironing out flaws is always needed with any technology.