Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

3D Blu-ray Next Year

PC Pro has news that NVIDIA has announced 3D Blu-ray movies will start showing up in the summer of next year, saying the Blu-ray association has approved the 3D Blu-ray specification. Word is HDMI 1.3 has enough throughput to handle the 60Mbit/second 3D will require, but that current Blu-ray players probably don't have the horsepower for the task, with the possible exception of the PS3. Viewing 3D movies will also require a screen with a 120 Hz refresh rate and the use of shutter glasses. HotHardware has more details and shots of some hardware. Thanks Slashdot.

View
27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

27. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 17, 2009, 11:19 pnag
 
Your google-fu is weak. I'm already past 30.

Oh, no! (Now, that's sarcasm, by the way...) But is my inference correct? You're not actually old at all, are you? Sheesh, and you talk about me missing something.

I'm bothering to post back here as I went to see Avatar last night; IMHO a simple story/plot visually stunningly well told. Would it have been the same experience without having a small chunk of plastic on my face for 2 hours 40 minutes? No.

As it was, the "ooohs" and "aaahs" from the crowd tell me a different story from what I've seen posted here.

People do like 3D.

Avatar's not the greatest flick by any means, but I'd make a point cinematically speaking that it's the most stunning looking film to date.

Would the effect be lessened without the polarised lenses? Absolutely. As it was, most everyone I asked afterwards felt like they'd flown on the wings of an alien creature, or visited a different planet. Would it work for every movie?

No.

Does that mean it's useless, inconvenient technology?
A huge mistake
?

Get a life, folks.

This comment was edited on Dec 17, 2009, 11:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 14, 2009, 16:15 Verno
 
People are cynical because this is exactly the kind of technology that is made for the sake of simple product differentiation and has little to do with consumer benefit or innovation. This will fail and it will hopefully be a massive financial hit to Nvidia and Sony who seem to be pushing far too hard on this technology right after many TV owners finally entered the HDTV era.

It's a huge mistake from just about every conceivable angle.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 11, 2009, 20:34 Mashiki Amiketo
 
Aaah, I see! This is actually a pissing contest! Because you've been here longer, you're cooler than I am. How foolish of me. I bow to your longevity, cause that means... well, nothing, doesn't it? I've been reading the site pretty much since its inception - does that make me better than you?

Ah-hah! You see this is the point where I'll add in facetious, and sarcasm that you missed but it should have been obvious from the start if you'd have spent more then 25mins reading any of my earlier comments.


Er, what? As someone who wore glasses for years, and couldn't wear contact lenses, I had to put up with, gee, let me think, telescopes, microscopes and binoculars that were all 'incompatible' with me being a glasses wearer. But you know what? I got on with it - I didn't moan about them being shit technology simply because it was a 'slight' inconvenience to use.
Yeah I've been wearing them for the near part of 25 years now. Now in all of those instances you should know that you'd have been using modified eyepieces that were suited for your eyesight. That's at best. Things like that are beyond a 'slight' inconvenience but hey whatever floats your boat. It's funny, because I remember them using polarized lenses at Disneyland in the '80's, and it was just beyond a slight inconvenience then too.

Or maybe you could quit being an arrogant, cynical gobshite? I know I could do with that too, from time to time
Oh, and if my spies are correct (googling your username ), you're not old and cranky - you're under 30 for Chrissakes! Just wait for that hump
Why would I do that? See this is the part where I refer you back to my first original sentence. And you realize that I wasn't being arrogant, cynical yes, but not arrogant.

Your google-fu is weak. I'm already past 30.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 11, 2009, 07:01 pnag
 
Hi. You're new here huh? Oh yes, you are I see. Only two years. Allow me to introduce myself, I'm old and cranky. Not quite as old and cranky as some other posters like Ant, or the man who broke the forums. But still old.

Aaah, I see! This is actually a pissing contest! Because you've been here longer, you're cooler than I am. How foolish of me. I bow to your longevity, cause that means... well, nothing, doesn't it? I've been reading the site pretty much since its inception - does that make me better than you?

No we understand exactly what type it is. It's not polarized glasses, they're polarized shutter lenses. They've been around for years. The stuff that's been used in the theatres come in two flavors. Red/Green and Polarized.

Fair enough...

So, you take it, plug it in. And you're still wearing something on your face. Now for those of us in humanity who wear glasses(yay?) and don't wear contacts(yay) for various reasons. This stuff is still terrible.

Er, what? As someone who wore glasses for years, and couldn't wear contact lenses, I had to put up with, gee, let me think, telescopes, microscopes and binoculars that were all 'incompatible' with me being a glasses wearer. But you know what? I got on with it - I didn't moan about them being shit technology simply because it was a 'slight' inconvenience to use. (I've had LASIK since, incidentally.)

Now sometime eventually it'll get to the point where no glasses are needed. The TFT stuff was a good step forward, but way too expensive.

Sure, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle! What I mean is, could you not just enjoy the spectacular 3D views for now, with this technology? (Again, in decent films such as Up etc. - I am aware it can be just a gimmick too...)

Maybe I should just use the /. idea. RTFA, because most of us did and you didn't.

Or maybe you could quit being an arrogant, cynical gobshite? I know I could do with that too, from time to time

Oh, and if my spies are correct (googling your username ), you're not old and cranky - you're under 30 for Chrissakes! Just wait for that hump

This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2009, 07:13.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 10, 2009, 22:58 Mashiki Amiketo
 
This is nothing short of stunning, and on Bluesnews of all places...

Almost all of these comments show a COMPLETE lack of understanding regarding how this kind of 3d tech works!

WHY NOT??? Jesus, why are people so cynical?

Hi. You're new here huh? Oh yes, you are I see. Only two years. Allow me to introduce myself, I'm old and cranky. Not quite as old and cranky as some other posters like Ant, or the man who broke the forums. But still old.

No we understand exactly what type it is. It's not polarized glasses, they're polarized shutter lenses. They've been around for years. The stuff that's been used in the theatres come in two flavors. Red/Green and Polarized.

So, you take it, plug it in. And you're still wearing something on your face. Now for those of us in humanity who wear glasses(yay?) and don't wear contacts(yay) for various reasons. This stuff is still terrible. Now sometime eventually it'll get to the point where no glasses are needed. The TFT stuff was a good step forward, but way too expensive.

Maybe I should just use the /. idea. RTFA, because most of us did and you didn't.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Game Reviews Dec 10, 2009, 05:46 J
 
The 3D ones go over the top of the regular ones.  
Avatar 45926
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Game Reviews Dec 10, 2009, 05:42 InBlack
 
Im eager to see Avatar in 3d, but I also wear glasses when in the cinema, so how am I supposed to wear those 3dshades together with my regular glasses?  
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Game Reviews Dec 10, 2009, 05:32 J
 
Why does the 3D phenomenon keep popping back up every five years? Are people all THAT eager to see shit in 3D?

I so thought of Idiocracy when I read that. I think it'll be the sequel to the movie of the year, 'Ass'
 
Avatar 45926
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Game Reviews Dec 10, 2009, 01:48 BobBob
 
I'd prefer to see something like this vs. "3D".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

Notice the video at 2:29. Amazing!

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 21:58 XM-S
 
WHY NOT??? Jesus, why are people so cynical?


You're new here, huh.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 21:53 Ruffiana
 
Almost all of these comments show a COMPLETE lack of understanding regarding how this kind of 3d tech works!

It won't use clunky shutter glasses. It doesn't use those poxy red/green film glasses (anaglyph, as that kind of 3d is known) - it's the kind of 3d that Pixar's Up! used to amazing effect. (Yes, there are glasses, but they're like shades, so it's not all bad).

Uhhhh...Up used digital 3-D, which filters stereoscopic images via polarized light and polarized lenses in your magical glasses. I personally find it a better method than the old school red/green method, but polarized lenses tend to clamp the dynamic range, futz with contrast, and mess up the color saturation the film. Almost like watching a movie while wearing sunglasses. For me personally, it's not worth it. The technology is still too intrusive for the payoff of "seein stuff in magical 3D". I care more about the overall visuals and story.

And it's not as if the news items specifically says "shutter glasses" or anything.

Viewing 3D movies will also require a screen with a 120 Hz refresh rate and the use of shutter glasses.

Oh wait, it does.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 23:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 21:46 Wag
 
Shutter glasses! Yay! Now instead of 5min headaches I'll have 2hr ones...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 19:44 chaos4u
 
Booo on shutter glasses  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:59 PHJF
 
3D technology without eyeware is around. It was just too expensive or didn't catch on or something.


Ahh, here we are:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-978499.html

Sharp's 3D monitor can be thought of as a TFT sandwich. The monitor contains two TFT panels separated by a parallax barrier, which directs pixel images to two separate regions so that each eye receives a slightly different image.

And that article is seven years old.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:50 pnag
 
This is nothing short of stunning, and on Bluesnews of all places...

Almost all of these comments show a COMPLETE lack of understanding regarding how this kind of 3d tech works!

It won't use clunky shutter glasses. It doesn't use those poxy red/green film glasses (anaglyph, as that kind of 3d is known) - it's the kind of 3d that Pixar's Up! used to amazing effect. (Yes, there are glasses, but they're like shades, so it's not all bad).

Should every movie use it? No - it's not needed for every movie. But if your TV is capable of 120hz (and a lot are) and if the tech comes as standard in new (and cheaper all the time) Bluray players, ask yourself this -

WHY NOT??? Jesus, why are people so cynical?

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 18:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:43 DG
 
Are people all THAT eager to see shit in 3D?
Nope. They're that eager to sell shit in 3D. Maybe they think it'll be difficult to DivX, or whatever.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 18:43.
 
Avatar 14793
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:39 Mashiki Amiketo
 
I remember when they were pushing the shit out of this in the mid-late '90's and that was supposed to be the new crap in gaming. Meh. Sounds exactly the same, it'll go no where too. If people have to wear something it'll continue to go no where, when they no longer have to then you'll get somewhere.

As someone who wears glasses, this type of stuff is nothing but a pain.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:31 Cutter
 
They've been trying since the 50's and it's still a stupid idea. Call me when we get into actual hologrpahic projectors.
 
Avatar 25394
 
James Woods: Oh that's fun. That sounds like you had a fun time. Where would I fit in with the fun time, huh? Where does James Woods fit into the fun?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 18:04 Ruffiana
 
Until they can figure out a way to make images appear in 3D without requiring eyewear, it'll never catch on. It'll always be a gimmick  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: 3D Blu-ray Next Year Dec 9, 2009, 17:52 XM-S
 
Could someone in the know tell me how this tech differs from the 3D Blu-ray available now?

I have a PS3 and a 120hz tv, and things like Coraline still look pretty crappy in 3D.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo