Sony single lens 240 fps camera is great for 3D (& 2D) sports
[Via AV Watch thanks Derek for English PR]
[Via AV Watch thanks Derek for English PR]
Relevant Posts
- Panasonic's 50-inch 1080p 3D plasma spotted, watched at CEATEC (52 days ago - 7 Comments)
- Panasonic's 1080p twin-lens P2 camcorder seen behind three-dee glass at CEATEC (52 days ago - 6 Comments)
- TDK's heavily stacked 320GB disc shows its nearly-clear face at CEATEC (51 days ago - 4 Comments)
- Sony TRIMASTER quad-HD LCD multiplies the resolution, and the price, of any home HDTV (52 days ago - 5 Comments)
- TDK stacks 10 layers on a single 320GB disc (56 days ago - 9 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
daaper @ Oct 1st 2009 9:16AM
I've never been able to get an answer on this: if I have a 120Hz TV, will I be able to watch 3d content with some sort of add-on device, or would I have to buy a new tv?
wack @ Oct 1st 2009 9:55AM
Sorry, unless your TV is 3D capable, then the only thing a 120Hz refresh rate will get you is a smooth picture. 3D TVs are manufactured specially. unless you go for the red and blue 3D, your out of luck
titolajko @ Oct 1st 2009 10:38AM
The tv you have is 120 hz, but it uses intepolation method to produce 120 frames by inserting another frame in between the existing frames 60. The insterted frames are not exactly the same frames as the original ones, but it anticipates where the action on the next frame should be and inserts it. This is why it is not true 120 frames. Real 120hz has no improvised frames to insert but it really has 120 frames. So 3d would not work on a simulated 120 hz, cause they are not exactly alike. On a true 120hz tv, it is split into 60 frames per eye, so 120/2=60 frames per eye. It is evolutionary, but it is still backwards because when you split it into 60 frames per eye, the 120hz motion dejudder and smooth motion is gone. So, youll have the same issue with blurry action as on 60hz tv. This is why we need true 240hz 3d tv, 120 per eye. All the issues will be gone and you'll get an immersive experience. It's coming, patience my young Paduan. Another thing that is making me mad is the people that complain about 3d glasses. Let me tell you something. Do we see our world and in 3d through a window or are we totally immersed. So imagine a 60inch screen that is in 3d but no glasses. How immersive is that, you still see all your crap on the table, your cheap lamp, socks on the floor, and all the stuff in your room where it takes you out of experience. The 3d is there, but you are not in it. Now that same screen with glasses, This is in you face experience that is all around you, and you are in it. The only thing that separates you is the distance between you eyes and your glasses. To me it is like watching beautiful fish and coral through glass bottom boat or actually putting on a mask and diving with the fish. Hope this helps.
daaper @ Oct 1st 2009 10:51AM
Hmm...titolajko, I get what you're saying, but I have a few issues that I don't quite get. You say my tv interpolates frames, which I get, but is that just because the information from the content isn't there? How is displaying 120 frames of provided content different from displaying 120 frames of half-provided/half-created content? If anything, it seems like showing a real frame would be less work for the tv as there would be no processing involved.
The second issue I have is that it would need to be 240Hz in order to have a smooth picture at 120 per eye. I don't even use the 120Hz feature on anything but video games because it makes the picture look fake. Seems like 60 per eye would be plenty for viewing a movie since that's the rate I watch it at now.
daaper @ Oct 1st 2009 10:10AM
Thanks for the answer! Someone once mentioned that TVs with 120Hz capability would have the refresh rate capable to show two pictures on a "shutter-glasses" 3d system. I could never find any more info to confirm or deny that.
Well then...thanks, but no thanks to 3d. I just bought a new tv!
titolajko @ Oct 1st 2009 11:36AM
Let me try again. The interpolated frame is not exactly the same as the original frame. It is different in a sense that pixels are shifted lets say to the right by two or three pixels. It is like the first cartoons where each page of paper was a little different and showed part of the motion (lets say a hand moving). If you flip the pages really fast you'll get motion. This works the same way. It is mathematically aproximating motion. In a true 120hz monitor or TV. The frames are exactly alike, so if they were pages for example with images on them and you flip them fast, it would be exactly the same page, no motion. The fact that you dont like what 120hz does to you picture is personal preference. It would do miracles in 3d, believe me. Personally love it and it creates true depth to my picture. Hope this helps.
daaper @ Oct 1st 2009 1:32PM
Yeah, I understood the interpolation part. So, without knowing what TV I have, how do you know mine isn't true 120Hz? Are there no true 120Hz TVs on the market? It seems like we're mixing up frames per second and refresh rate in our discussion. I didn't think there was any interpolation going on with 120Hz. That seems more like the work of a dejudder or smoothing processor. I guess I'm still not getting the difference between 120Hz and true 120Hz. Why couldn't the TV showing one regular frame and one interpolated frame just as easily show two of the same frame like the true 120Hz TV?
Just to be clear, I'm really not trying to be an ass...just trying to understand all this.
daaper @ Oct 1st 2009 1:37PM
Is it that they don't have a true 120Hz input, not that they couldn't display it? That would make sense...
Wes @ Oct 1st 2009 9:05PM
Yes, most tv's only support 60fps incoming and odn't support 120hz incoming. Read up on HDMI 1.3a specificatoins and HDMI 1.4 specifications for more detials. There have been a few articles recently about both on engadgethd that you can search for google for or the search box at the top of this page.
The HDMI specification allows for enough data for certain resolutions, certain number of collors(in the millions/billions) and at certain hz to carried/transmitted. In order for a cable/tv to be HDMI 1.3a compatibile, it has to be capable of pushing a minimum of that much data through it. If the cable can't reliably carry that much bandwidth, you might see white dots(sparkles) in black scenes and other issues showing up that would make your viewing experience unpleasant.
When you go from 1920x1080x60fps to 1920x1080x120fps you are doubling the amount of data your sending through your cord and on the receiving side, your tv internal components have to be capable of processing double the amount of information to display true 120hz.
With simulated 120hz, 60hz is being processed and sent through many patented chips that magically applies several mathematical algorithms each to make sharpness enhancements, edge enchantments, color/contrast enchancements and a ton of other features including making another 60 more hz out of thing air. Its easier to process 60 hz and run that data through a chip than process double the amount of data and run that data through the same chip twice as fast.
Two issues occur, A. The chip is not fast enough so you have to overclock the chip, overlocking the chip results in more heat, more heat results in shorter lifespan or death of the component.
Its kind of like video cards for the PC. If your video card is capable of sending to your tv Crysis on enthusiats settings at 30hz at 1920x1080, that's great. Although your processor might be capable of producing 60hz, it doesn't matter much if the video card can't produce more than 30hz. Similarly, doubling the video card's speed takes about 1 to 2 years of design work and can't be done overnight.
Chips/inputs/workarounds for true 120hz and true 240hz will come over time and make 3D/2D look very immersive/smooth but doubling the rate something performs at takes time. It's not like the next car you buy will go twice as fast as your current car or if you bought a stereo today, next month's stereos will go twice as loud or have the speakers/receivers operating at double the hz. That would probably be at least 2-4 years of increments in time.
Eric @ Oct 1st 2009 10:42AM
So there was a complaint about the BCS championship game that didn't have to do with the fact that the BCS is bunk and should be disbanded? Cool.
taker @ Oct 1st 2009 6:55PM
3D only gives you the wow factor when it is comming at you or going away from you ..watching sports going back and forth across your tv screen in 3D is worthless
Wes @ Oct 1st 2009 9:13PM
So Taker? That's not so bad in my opinion. In a basketball game, there are I believe about 100 points in a lot of games or more? That's 30-50 baskets? That's still a wow moments if you place the 3d-camera behind the two nets respectively and have 2d cameras for the side-to-side movement and mix 2d with 3d. I'd say its worth the money if your a pretty avid basketball player.
titolajko @ Oct 1st 2009 11:44AM
No offense taker, but this may be the most ridiculous statement ever. When you are watching 3D sports, there is not only one guy with a camera in the stands that records everything. If this is the case, than that is some really cheap local station that can't afford two cameras. There are about 20-30 cameras and each one will give you a different perspective and some even put you in the action. Anyway, wait untill you see the game in 3D then give us your impression.
taker @ Oct 1st 2009 4:42PM
No offense taken... My statement stands true it the action comming at you or going away from you that is the WOW factor of 3D ..I seen it in NBA and NFL in 3D ...
Wes @ Oct 1st 2009 9:12PM
So? That's not so bad in my opinion. In a basketball game, there are I believe about 100 points in a lot of games or more? That's 30-50 baskets? That's still a wow moments if you place the 3d-camera behind the two nets respectively and have 2d cameras for the side-to-side movement and mix 2d with 3d. I'd say its worth the money if your a pretty avid basketball player.