Slashdot Log In
NFL's First Broadcast In 3-D, Still Has Work To Do
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Dec 05, 2008 05:40 PM
from the more-cheerleaders-for-sure dept.
from the more-cheerleaders-for-sure dept.
darkwing_bmf writes "The NFL broadcast a live game to theaters in 3-D for the first time on Thursday night. The technology demonstration was mostly successful but they still have some issues to work out. 'Some scenes clearly captured the benefits of 3-D broadcasts, however, such as an interception by Chargers linebacker Stephen Cooper as players crisscrossed the field, and a long touchdown catch by San Diego's Vincent Jackson with the arc of the ball caught on camera all the way. Viewers were encouraged to text in their reaction to the viewing. One of the first comments, according to the commentators: "More cheerleaders."'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Polarization (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sure, I can explain polarization this way:
See the post by fynqyrz http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1052969&cid=26008363 [slashdot.org]
entitled Sure! up above. It's the first post can not miss it.
That is polarization and fynqyrz is the material doing the polarizing.
Science is fun.
Re:Polarization (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, to answer the the OPs question here's a simplified example (real physicists, don't hate on me, I'm not going to get into the gory details here).
First, lets think of a wave in the water. It's traveling in one direction (towards the shore) and vibrating in another (up and down from the plane of the water). Light is the same. It travels in one direction (from the theatre screen to your eye), but it can vibrate in two directions: up and down, or left and right (and technically any combination of that like diagonal and such). This is called the polarization: vertical or horizontal.
So what these 3D theaters do is have a special theater screen that preserves polarization (most just randomize it) and they have one image for one eye sent out in vertical polarization and the other sent out in horizontal polarization. Then by using special glasses they can show only one polarization to each eye.
Think of polarized glasses as having little bars in them, if they're aligned up and down only vertical light can squeeze through the bars, the horizontal gets stuck. Likewise the bars can go horizontally and the vertical light gets stuck.
Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.
This is also why polarized sun glasses are great for boating and driving. Since most of the time you're looking out at a big horizontal reflector (the water or your car hood or the road), most of the light that's reflected (glare) is horizontally polarized (I won't go into the details why), so the polarized sunglasses are set up to filter out horizontally polarized light which removes glare and you only get the vertical light which is just about everything else.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.
THIS is *exactly* the sort of specific answer I was looking for. Thanks so much... it's not quite spelled out that plainly on Wikipedia.
Now, another question that wasn't quite answered below yet: I've long understood that polarization is changing the orientation of the propagating wave, but exactly how does this work for light? As far as I'm aware, light doesn't take a zig-zaggy, wavy motion through space, so how is it analogous to sending waves down a jump rope or similar? (I have a feeling the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation [wikipedia.org]
Going back to the wave on a string example. If two people hold the string and one shakes it. The string itself will oscillate but the energy associated with that motion travels straight to the other person. It'
Re:Polarization (Score:5, Informative)
If you pass the rope through a slot in a wall the slot will only allow waves which align with the slot. That is how polaroid sun glasses work. They literally have slots in them aligned a certain way.
You can use polarisation to split two signals from a single stream of photons. Horizontal in the left eye, vertical in the right eye for example.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And the key to fully understanding this is to understand that two of these waves at right angles to each other don't interfere with each other in any significant way (unlike two ropes would).
To understand this concept, place a red ball in the center of the rope and fasten it in place. View the rope from the end. You can watch the ball move up and down. This shows how the wave as perceived from a single point in space can be seen as effectively a change in position vertically rather than as something movi
Re: (Score:2)
"unlike two ropes would"
False.
If the detector at the other end of the rope has a very high impedance (doesn't allow the end to move for a changing force) then it will detect the vertical and horizontal wave components with fidelity as forces. The two components can then be decoded.
If the detector is in a moving portion of the rope, it will have to have a very low impedance (allowing full motion without applying any force to the rope itself). It can detect the motion as displacement and decode it into vert
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how the glasses distinguish between the two?
You know how a drill bit or a corkscrew spirals from front to back? That spiral can twist clockwise as you go from front to back, or it can twist counterclockwise.
Imagine the front surface of one lens - a sheet one molecule thick - is a vertically polarized filter. The light then passes deeper into the lens, and again you have a one-molecule-thick sheet of polarizing material, except this layer is tilted 5 degrees to the left (or tilted 5 degrees to the r
Re: (Score:2)
The electric field and magnetic field that make up what we call "light" have both a magnitude and direction. This is independent (somewhat) of the direction of travel.
If you imagine a dipole flying through space, in the area around it for instance, the magnetic field at each point has a magnitude and direction, and the whole thing has a direction of travel. This not light, but I hope you can visualize that the direction of an electric property is *not* the same as the direction of travel EM radiation.
Now,
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization [wikipedia.org]
Light travels as waves (and particles -- but let's ignore that for now). Imagine waves on an ocean coming into the shore. A polarizer is like a bunch of thin wooden boards stacked on top of each other, but with space inbetween each layer. If you place this polarizer so that the boards are standing on end, then the waves will pass through the slats between the boards and come out of the other side mostly intact. However, if you lay the polarizer down so that the board
Next: cameras in helmets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all we need are cameras in the players' helmets and then we can all feel like we're really part of the game. Which might not be such a good thing when you see a 300-lb lineman with a full head of steam barreling towards "you". Might make for sloppy beer management...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Next: cameras in helmets! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, the XFL, the bastard love child of the NFL and WWE... It was mildly entertaining for about two weeks -- which come to think about it, is about how long the XFL actually lasted.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The XFL gave us the "over the field" camera on cables. Which, combined with HD, represents a huge leap in field coverage.
Re:Next: cameras in other places . . . (Score:2)
For better coverage of the snap, how about live footage from the center's cup-cam?
But seriously, too many cameras on the field, would mean that too many folks would see too much nastiness.
It might lead to too many post-games disputes . . . or worse, to, um, serious altercations between supposing fans after a very nasty hit.
Re:Next: cameras in helmets! (Score:4, Informative)
No transmitters. Only receivers.
Parent
But everything goes better with 3-D! (Score:3, Funny)
VARIETY, Lack Of - Steven Soderbergh's new musical version of Cleopatra - in 3-D! [today.com] - proves an incredible box-office same-old same-old. Starring Catherine Zeta-Jones as the fishnet-clad vaudeville jazz empress and Hugh Jackman as the mutant self-healing Roman general - in 3-D! - the film carries the Ocean's Eleven franchise somewhere beyond its ultimate extent.
"I've always wanted to do a musical," Soderbergh said. "All the ones that were coming along just weren't for me. This one, however, involved dumptrucks full of money backed up to my house."
Soderbergh pooh-poohed suggestions that the film would be some sort of low-rent exploitation quickie that would insult the intelligence of any creature smarter than a flatworm. "I can assure you this will be the most artistically satisfying creation in my entire career as a director," he said, lighting a cigar off a hundred-dollar bill before laying back on a great big bed made of money.
"DUMPTRUCKS!" Soderbergh emphasised. "FULL OF MONEY! BACKED UP TO MY HOUSE!"
Understatement (Score:2)
"still has work to do"
They have a LONG way to go... first step is finding better teams than the Chargers and the Raiders.
Oh yeah, and I second the motion for more cheerleaders... in motion!
Ill advised dissolve? (Score:2)
I can't see 3D anyway (Score:3, Informative)
My eyes look in slightly different directions, so I've never had depth perception. Can't catch a ball, can't do melee combat effectively. I'm told I have a disadvantage only from about six feet away on in, but that's probably far enough out that a 3D TV would be useless at best, and probably an annoyance from seeing double.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news, people with one deaf ear can't hear in stereo anyway.
-
Re:Sure! (Score:5, Funny)
The third consists of those who want to watch beautiful cheerleaders perform routines that emphasize their feminine, athletic and desirable traits, while wearing the skimpiest possible outfits
Hey, come on, quit trolling! They could be a LOT skimpier!
Parent
Re:Sure! (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon...screw doing it for football and cheerleaders....lets get into 3-D pr0n!!
Heck...skip that...just get VR pr0n, on demand....
But, then again...if that happened...mankind would likely cease to exist. I mean, once ever guy could have realistic sex with any woman he wanted, that wouldn't talk back, fake a headache, be on the rag, or threaten to take half his belongings if he switches models...no man would ever go back to the "real" thing ever again.
ON the other hand...this would allow more time to watch football in between VR sex romps.
Parent
So what you're saying is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Three kinds of people watch football:
1) Dumb kids
2) Closet homosexuals
3) Leering perverts
I'm not dumb and I'm not a homosexual, so I'm a leering perv.
See how easy it was to summarize your wordy post?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, could be be more homophobic.
I mean projecting your far(and you secret desires) onto a football game is just amazing.
Some people just like the game.
Re:Sure! (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot two groups:
1. People who actually watch football and care about it.
2. People who watch football as a 2-3 hour escape. "Ooh, sorry, honey. The game is on. How about in a few hours?"
Personally, I don't watch or follow any pro sports. I think they're all a waste of time and money, and I simply don't get it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your reasons are sufficient but not necessary. Some people like watching anyone at all playing baseball. Some people like just sitting and staring at the stadium as it fills before the game. Some people like to watch the crowd during the game.
Sports are something to do.
So is /.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't care about sports, then they have no meaning for you.
If you do, then they do.
And vice versa.
Life's like that. Only for some things your caring is built-in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't like contact sport with other men (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Without endorsing or contradicting your remarks, I think you missed at least one entire group: Women who enjoy watching football
I used to enjoy watching myself until one season I bet on games every weekend. I was lucky and made a
I know this is /. and not Fark, but... (Score:4, Funny)
There are two types of people in the world, those who are comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it may be, and those who feel the need to denigrate others because they're afraid of their own feelings. Can you guess which group your post puts you in?
This.
Parent
Re:Sure! (Score:4, Informative)
He seemed comfortable with it.
There was no denigration.
Guess what that makes you.
Parent
Re:Sure! (Score:5, Funny)
How much do you love pussy, fyngyrz?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I want a huge dong to play with!
Perfect proof that I'm straight, ...right?
I rest my case. :P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing this AC feels your description of category 2 was insulting to him and his frat brothers.
(no offense, I just couldn't resist)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was a bad thing. :o)
Re:Sure! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, that doesn't follow. Being enthusiastically hetero is not at all the same as being homophobic
No, but describing that everything you don't like as a vivid representation of homoeroticism kind of is. Football isn't suppose to get a sexual rise out of men. It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy. It's attraction to a typical man's adrenal gland falls under the star of Ares rather than Venus. If your worldview is absorbed by the binary distribution of "Does it turn me on sexually or is it for teh gays?" then your condition is considered a disorder [wikipedia.org] and downright creepy by the opposite sex. It is admittedly healthier than an obsession with violence, and easier to cure as you probably just need to get laid or lay off the porn for a while. Go camping or something.
Parent
Re:Sure! (Score:4, Interesting)
This just in: Athletes should wear baggy pants otherwise insecure career nerds will feel threatened by alleged homo-eroticism.
You don't like football. Stop posting in a thread about football.
Parent
Re:Sure! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd hate to actually go to a theatre for once, and have it overrun by retards...
You have not been to the movies lately, have you?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
NHL is fully of whiny bullies. When they get rid of the 'punch the guy out' subtext and focus on the game part, then maybe the NHL will become as popular and successful and the NFL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HD and technology like this can only help hockey, next to impossible to see the game on standard definition - you can't see the puck!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait... I've been watching hockey all these years on my smallscreen set...
and now you tell me there's a PUCK?!
-
Re:No football!!! Bring on the Hockey! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn (Score:4, Informative)
If by 'neatly topples over' you mean 'experiences cranial acceleration sufficient to go from 5 m/s to -2 m/s in something under a 15cm distance', perhaps. Physics doesn't lie, and the pros are going a metric fuckload faster than high school football players do.
Elastic collision or not, his brain was playing ping-pong at 50+ Gs, and that ain't no good for nobody's neural tissue.
Parent