3D for TV broadcast
 

Hi,
I am new to 3D and would like to thank everyone in this forum for sharing their experience.

I am very much interested in 3D for tv broadcast. What method is delivering the best results? I have the recommendation to go with the Color Code 3D, which has been used at the Super Bowl.
Still I am wondering, if a 45 minute documentary shot on 3D could work for the audience or would produce headaches.
Is there any other method do get the best quality possible for a FullHD documentary (nature)? Anaglyph (red/cyan) seems not to deliver very good color.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts,
Jürgen

Personally I'm not too impressed with much fo the color code or anaglyph examples I've seen thust far for TV's I think (to me) the best cost effective solution is the polarization method. The thing that will give the audience more headaches though is poorly done 3d regardless of delivery method, if you're causing divergence people will have a headache and it will be difficult to watch!

Hi Nick,
thanks a lot for your reply. As far as I understand, the polarization method is only for screening, to for television broadcast which could could watch with your normal tv at home. But of course I could be wrong.
I just looked at some of the examples Alister has made (the anaglyph examples). I connected my computer for that to my FullHD tv set. When there is a steady shot, the 3D effect is good, but as soon as the camera moves, it becomes difficult (for me) to focus on the image and the 3D effect. Of course, via Internet the resolution is not so good.
But it keeps me wondering, if 3D is any good for tv documentary at all (if you set the quality limit very high - let's reach for a maximum - BBC's "Planet Earth" for example).

I would appreciate any thoughts, if this could be reached with today's technique for tv broadcast. Because, to convince a public tv station in Europe, to go for a 3D documentary (series), the quality should be very good - and the infrastructure (3D glasses made available to the audience) should not cost too much.

In regard of the problem of divergence, this should be solved with a professional rig and a experienced cameraman, I hope so.

Thanks a lot.
Jürgen

Hi Juergen - The most immediately available technology for Home 3D is shutter glasses based techology. Many DLP's and some of the new Samsung LCD's support 3D in this fashion, and it is gaining popularity and support in the gaming industry.

Barring a specific technological breakthrough, I'd imagine that the route to consumers is likely to be something along these lines:

PC Users supported by nVidia and other graphics manufacturers with major marketing dollars get into stereoscopic viewing for Computer games.

Once this market is relatively mature (I'd say three years away at this point) stereoscopic solutions begin being released to console (xBox 360 and Playstation 3 gamers), once market penetration of suitable high refresh rate LCD's/Plasmas are no longer a problem and issues with current generation LCD shutterglasses are more ironed out.

This proliferation of 3D in the console gamer market creates an easy opening for Home 3D in about 5-7 years, once Cinema 3D has been established and the Studios are not really making any major headway in cinemas by producing 3D movies and their growing back catalogue absolutely needs to be re-released in a 'new home format' that supports stereoscopic (i.e they get two bites of the Home market apple, and the cinema visit, 3D at the cinema, 2D when released initially at home, 3D when released AGAIN at home to the growingly 3D capable market.)

In about 10-12 years, once the home market has stabilized a bit more in terms of standards and premium content stations are looking for something other than HD to differentiate themselves for competitors, they will begin to seriously instigate the needed investment for home 3D broadcast using Shutter Glasses or Polarised related stereoscopic technology.

The question for documentaries shooting in Stereoscopic 3D should be a combination of who is your audience (Is it a cinema release, is it a television release, is it a tech savvy younger audience, is it maybe even a PC release etc.) and subject matter (is it an advantage to be shooting this stuff in 3D especially in relation to your audience. I.e is it a documentary on something grand and physical like major architecture that could be better realized in stereoscopic, or is it a documentary on fighter planes or race cars and you can get a stereoscopic rig in the cockpit/drivers seat to give the view a potentially motion sickness causing first person joy ride type experience)

Anaglyph or Colour Code 3D will not catch on in a home audience - Stereoscopic Shutter Glasses MIGHT through the gamers. Specifically polarised screens seem to have been proven to expensive/ineffective for mass home deployment barring some technological breakthrough I am not yet aware of.

The only other technological breakthrough that might occur is the development of cheaply produced Green Laser technology (being worked on now, but yet to be solved at a production level) that will allow RGB Laser projection from items as small as Cell Phones (or in fact Cellphones themselves). Then Projection may replace regular screens for entertainment purposes altogether and some series r&d into a silver screen type technology for home use (that allows the polarized light to stay polarized) will probably follow, because it would be the one remaining facet for home stereoscopic projection technology.

In terms of delivering a programme to a broadcaster for stereoscopic transmission it is most likely that you would have to deliver the programme as a pair of full frame video streams. It is likely that they will want this on HDCAM SR. Then the broadcaster can choose the appropriate transmission method or methods, be that Anaglyph, interlaced, side by side or whatever. If you have a pair of full frame left/right video streams you can very easily convert it to whatever you want or need.

Hi Craig,

thank you very much for your very helpful reply. It is a great outlook in regard of upcoming developements.
In regard of my idea of pitching a 3-D documentary project for television only, the Shutter Glass technique is way too expensive. The idea is, the tv station is providing the glasses to the audience, with Shutter Glasses, that's not possible. So as far as I can see, there is either the option to use anaglyphe glasses or Color Code 3D glasses.
The subject matter of the documentary (series) is more in the direction "grand and physical" (nature), so motion sickniss shouldn't be a problem.
But overall I am concerned about the 3-D quality you can achieve right now for tv broadcast release. Not so much filming in 3-D but having the audience at home watching it on their regular tv sets.

re:Alister
Thanks a lot for your advise in regard of delivering format. Haven't thought about that yet, but of course this would be something to discuss with the tv channel.
By the way, my idea is to work with two EX1 (or one EX1 & one EX3) mounted on a parallel rig. I have read, that you have this combination. Would you mind to post a picture of your setup? I would appreciate that.

Has anyone heard news about the RED Scarlett 3-D camera, or is it just a marketing gimmick?

Scarlet when released will be used in Stereo rigs (Just as Red One is already), and will be of a form factor that for landscape and medium distance shots a mirror rig will not be needed (for close up shots a mirror rig may still be needed to get accurate interocular distances, but they will be a lot easier to set up on a mirror rig than the existing RED ONE or some other cameras.)

Juergen - there is no point in creating a show when there is no way of distributing it. For home distribution you have the current option of Anaglyph, Colour Code. Experiment, and if you are satisfied with your results using these formats on current televisions then maybe you can convince a broadcaster to screen the Anaglyph/Colour Code show and find a partner to distribute the corresponding glasses as a promotional thing.

However, the future of Sterographic 3D is Polarized (theatrical audience, existing), Shutter Glass (Computer gaming audience- existing but small), and again maybe polarized, maybe shutterglass, maybe a mix (home use) but home use relies on massive adoption of technology and at the moment Polarized is NOT an option, outside those who are building there own projection home theatre stereo rigs with silver screens (VERY SMALL group) and shutter glass is an option with a small but growing user base (anyone with a late model DLP that does 100hz+ or new LCD designed for 120hz+ is likely to have in some way shape or form a stereo capable rig. If they have invested in the Shutterglasses for their computer, or soon Playstation/XBOX, then they will also be able to watch 3D 'television'/DVD's on this rig.)

As a content creator though - the choice of Anaglyph, Shutterglass or polarization is a choice that you don't have to worry about so much - if you have stereo content you should be able to deliver for all three. The question is will there be a market for your stereo documentary. I have listed what I believe to be the current and near future market conditions above. Having content ready for these markets will allow you to sell them later, but I would very much doubt any television based commissioning on a 3D model at this time.

I am also very interested in 3D but I must admit that I am an absolute newbie and I hope that I will learn a lot of interesting things about 3D in this special forum. To be honest I don't doubt this. Recently I visited some electronic stores in order to buy a FullHD tv set. I also did a internet research in order to compare different devices. Can anyone recommend a specific set? Would really appreciate some guidance. Thanks in advance