Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media PlayStation (Games) Games

3D Blu-ray Spec Finalized, PS3 Supported 157

Posted by Soulskill
from the but-at-least-one-dimension-will-have-drm dept.
Lucas123 writes "The Blu-ray Disc Association announced today that it has finalized the specification for Blu-ray 3-D discs. The market for 3-D, which includes 3-D enabled televisions, is expected to be $15.8 billion by 2015. Blu-ray 3-D will create a full 1080p resolution image for both eyes using MPEG4-MVC format. Even though two hi-def images are produced, the overhead is typically only 50% compared to equivalent 2D content. The spec also allows PS3 game consoles to play Blu-ray 3-D content. 'The specification also incorporates enhanced graphic features for 3D. These features provide a new experience for users, enabling navigation using 3D graphic menus and displaying 3D subtitles positioned in 3D video.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D Blu-ray Spec Finalized, PS3 Supported

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deathtopaulw (1032050) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:09AM (#30484292) Homepage
    Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      blu ray is tanking

      something like 2000 dvds sell for every 1 discounted blu-ray sale

      LOOK ITS COOL BUY BLU-RAY

      look at sales figures for blu-ray for the whole year in sales not shiped then look at dvd

      • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suso (153703) * on Friday December 18, 2009 @08:50AM (#30485790) Homepage Journal

        blu ray is tanking

        something like 2000 dvds sell for every 1 discounted blu-ray sale

        LOOK ITS COOL BUY BLU-RAY

        look at sales figures for blu-ray for the whole year in sales not shiped then look at dvd

        Give it time. You're probably some kid who hasn't been around for long enough to remember, but nearly every format has this problem. Blu ray has only been around since 2006 and the format war only ended last year. It took audio CDs nearly a decade to really take off, all the while many people still bought cassettes and even LPs. DVDs probably took about 5 years to really take off, people were still buying VHS tapes just a year or two ago. It takes time because people wait to see if a format is going to survive before they invest in a player and a library. The PS3 probably has helped blu ray emmensely because it has double functionality as both a blu ray player and a game console. I thought about buying one even though I doubt I'll play many games.

        I just got my first blu ray player yesterday and I generally keep up with things. I think it won't be until 2011 that you start to see sales of blu ray dominate. And even then since many players will up-convert DVDs, a lot of less popular titles will keep DVD sales up.

        On the other hand, the mean time in-between formats (MTIF) is getting shorter and that probably means that people are wising up to having to invest in a new library of titles every 5-10 years. I know I'm getting tired of it already.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

          I'm getting tired of the "buy a new library" argument already. Do you really purchase every VHS movie on DVD and then Blu-Ray? Do you purchase every LP on cassette tape, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio?

          There might be a few I'm willing to upgrade, assuming the new version is remastered. The amount of work Warner put in remastering its old Technicolor library made it almost a requirement that you get the latest Special Collector's Edition of Wizard of Oz, because it has never, even in first-run theaters, been that cle

          • by steveha (103154)

            Do you really purchase every VHS movie on DVD and then Blu-Ray? Do you purchase every LP on cassette tape, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio?

            We really did re-purchase every VHS on DVD. We haven't been in a big hurry to re-buy as Blu-Ray... but I'll get my favorites, once I have a giant flat panel TV (which will be soon). For movies that are mostly about the dialog, or for old TV content that is innately standard-def, there is no reason to upgrade from the DVD. But I see the difference with high-def and I like it. (If

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tyr_7BE (461429)

          Also, this is the first year that blu ray players have started to drop in price to the point where most people can afford them. A *lot* of people I know have commented on how players are cheap enough to consider now. This holiday season we're going to see a lot of households get the ability to play blu ray discs

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Yeah, it took audio CDs a while to take off, but 1. they cost more and 2. the average consumer didn't really grok the difference. Furthermore, the media distribution capabilities of the internet weren't available to foster the acceptance of a digital format.

          Regardless, though, Blu-Ray is a losing horse. Streaming technology (Netflix, for example) already works as a don't-have-to-leave-your-house solution to the rental market, and for those who want to buy and keep a copy the download solution works just a

          • by suso (153703) *

            Yes, you are probably right about the streaming tech being the future. I made sure that the blu ray player I bought would do netflix and youtube. And I upgraded my netflix account to bluray. So in the end, I will be buying very few bluray discs and dvd discs.

            • by winwar (114053)

              "Yes, you are probably right about the streaming tech being the future."

              Not likely. On demand (a high quality form of streaming) already exists. Yet we still have discs.

              Why? Streaming is low(er) quality. Streaming requires bandwidth. A disc is permanent. A disc is instant once it is in our possession. In an age of bandwidth caps and limited or non-existant high speed internet, streaming HD movies may be expensive if not impossible for many. I have "high speed" internet yet can't stream movies effecti

          • by Quikah (14419)

            I've even heard of DVD players available in Japan (of course, not here in the US) with a USB jack supporting similar functionality. And, there's one on my FiOS box that I suspect will someday do the same thing...

            Are you sure they are DVD players? BD-Live capable Blu-ray players can do that, available worldwide.

            • by Selivanow (82869)

              Yes, DVD players....even in the US! Philips makes several and they are decent for the price. Quite convenient as well.

        • I just got my first blu ray player yesterday and I generally keep up with things. I think it won't be until 2011 that you start to see sales of blu ray dominate. And even then since many players will up-convert DVDs, a lot of less popular titles will keep DVD sales up.

          A guy mentioned to me the other day that he could be buying BluRay's but mostly he's buying DVD's because they work in the DVD player in the car.

          When we switched from VHS to DVD the only worry was the one box on top of the living room TV. Now

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)

      Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?

      I was saying the same thing about new coke and boy bands.

    • by IrquiM (471313)

      It's not the same as the headache technology!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Toonol (1057698)
      Real life is 3d. There is no question at all that display technology will eventually go that way, as it slowly approaches maximum realism. Now, the technology might not be there yet, hence your headaches; but the idea isn't useless. It's kind of ridiculous to think it is.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by anss123 (985305)
        Remember the Nintendo Virtual Boy? It got one display for each eye and still gave you headaches. I suspect that the problem has to do with head movements: Just like how we unconsciously move our heads to determine the direction of sound we may be moving our head to determine distance of objects.

        Anyone getting tired from reading 3D comics?
        • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheKidWho (705796) on Friday December 18, 2009 @08:34AM (#30485688)

          No, the problem with the virtual boy was an insanely low refresh rate.

          Look at the Nvidia 3D vision setup for what a modern system should be like.

        • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cowtamer (311087) on Friday December 18, 2009 @10:37AM (#30486960) Journal

          Well, you are partially right. We get our 3D information of the world not only from stereo disparity (each eye seeing something different) but also from parallax (stuff changing location as you move your head), accommodation (different objects being at different focal differences) and convergence (both your eyes changing direction to look at the same object).

          The fact that parallax is important is why all high-end 3D visualization systems include head tracking (thus showing a much more realistic 3D picture). This will eventually (i.e., sooner than later) find its way into games, and can be done with current 3DTV technology.

          There are several reasons for your headache:

          1) The "3D" you see is at a different distance than your TV, hence your eye trying to focus on something that is not there. This can be remedied by better 3D content (i.e., once people get past the 'poke you in the eye' effect of 3D)

          2) Low refresh rate or Bad Technology. I believe bad 3D is WAY worse than no 3D at all and turns people off forever. If you've ever seen an active 3D display running lower than 120 Hz or anaglyph 3D (colored glasses), or, God forbid, Pulfrich glasses (one dark and one light), you will remember the headache.

          The other thing I mentioned (accommodation, convergence) will take a while to get into consumer (or even research) devices.

          If you've seen the DLP projection 3DTV devices out there, you might be impressed with what can be done nowadays. I'm glad the format is out there.

          That being said, 3D is not for everyone, and probably not for every type of content. I'm sure you'll be able to hit a button and turn it off if you don't like it.. :)

          • The 'poke you in the eye' effect needs to be there I think. If you make the 3D the same as "the real world" it will just be "normal" - you might not even notice it.

            Biggest problem though is the need for 120Hz. 3D has to get really popular for them to go down in price, I'm getting a headache just thinking about buying one of those :-)

            But I'm too glad the tech is out there, even if I've never seen it.
            • by cowtamer (311087)

              I think 120 Hz displays will become more affordable than you think. There are also other decent 3D technologies that do fine at 60 Hz. My favorite is passive-polarized LCD monitors with passive polarized (i.e., cheap) glasses.

              Arisawa (P240W) and Zalman (Trimon) both make very decent models (I like the Arisawa better). The problem I've noticed with these is that there is a "sweet spot" for viewing -- this will probably disappear with better manufacturing.

              The other problem is that a good 3D effect requires

              • by mattack2 (1165421)

                But existing 120 Hz displays won't support 3D, right? Won't you need a new generation with the support in them (for separate eye display for example)?

                • by cowtamer (311087)

                  It depends. Existing native 120 Hz displays (such as your 10 yr old CRT monitor) will do a beautiful job supporting 3D with LCD shutter glasses. So do native 120 Hz DLP and CRT projectors. The eye separation is easily done with existing LCD shutter glasses with these (Google eDimensional, NuVision, CrystalEyes, etc.). It is possible that you will need additional hardware to make these work with whatever a 3D BlueRay player looks like.

                  The "grey area" includes displays that claim to be 120 Hz but do not t

    • by h4rm0ny (722443)

      Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?

      Here's a note, old timer. If you don't like it out here, stay on your lawn. Don't you get this? We can have 3D movies in our living room! At what point did you switch from thinking new technology was cool to complaining about it?

    • Have you been to a RealD movie? Do you wear corrective glasses?
      In my experience wearing the glasses is the most uncomfortable part of it. Having to put the polarized glasses over my own presses against my nose and gives me a headache, like with a new pair of glasses.

    • Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?

      Its continuing because:
      1) It doesn't cause headaches for lots of people (it does for some others -- as does "shakycam" style filming with regular 2D movies, like District 9, Blair Witch, or Cloverfield.)
      2) People actually enjoy it, so its not "useless" in an entertainment product,
      3) Given that 3D visualization has been important for d

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Actually, 3D is just about the only thing that can get me into a theater these days.

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Misanthrope (49269) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:11AM (#30484310)

    You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?

    • pr0n FTW? (Score:4, Funny)

      by rsborg (111459) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:18AM (#30484344) Homepage
      Seriously, HD porn video isn't exactly a huge draw, but imagine 3D.
    • by glob (23034)

      i'm willing to bet there's a massive market in 3d sports broadcasting.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by masshuu (1260516)
        My parents went to the Dallas stadium last weekend, and i guess they were showing the display in 3D and gave everyone glasses, my parents comment was that there probably not gonna try that again. I took the glasses(basic Red/Blue filter) and tried to watch some 3D stuff on my computer, just having the glasses on was a pain, i hardly made it 10 seconds into watching some stuff online before i stopped.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by glob (23034)

          yeah, filtered glasses won't catch on at home. polarised filters are better than colour filters, but still, meh.

          in a home setting i expect to see an uptake of lcd blackout glasses; expensive but home cinema fans are already used to buying expensive toys :)

      • by Hadlock (143607)

        I don't think you can resolve 3D space particularly well beyond 20 feet or so (you can, but it's much less effective, and your eyes would need to be much further apart to do so). I imagine it would be pretty disorienting to go from a closeup of a football game where the linebackers hiking to the QB, and then suddenly a wide angle shot (Which is basically 2D), and then zoom in on the 3D shot of the wide receiver catching the football in 3D, then to a 2D shot of the crowd going wild and so on. 3D sportscastin

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Chyeld (713439)

      Coraline, Up. Possibly Avatar....

      Not a market huge enough to warrant a new TV, but there is a market.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ChatHuant (801522)

        Coraline, Up

        Well, I saw Coraline in 3D, with the red/blue glasses; I won't repeat the experience. The 3D effect came and went, glasses got annoying after a time, I had to keep my head straight up or the two images got out of sync (so no stretching on the sofa), the colors were all washed up and changed weirdly (maybe my eyes aren't trained to correct for brightness with colored glasses?). But even if the quality were better, I don't think this kind of gimmick adds much to the movie. I'll wait for real 3D di

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Namarrgon (105036)

          I don't think you can really judge modern RealD or Dolby3D by watching something with 1950s-standard red/blue anaglyph. They're very very different.

          3D viewing does have its weak points, and not everyone is going to go for it, but it has come a long way in the last few years. Go see Avatar, then see what you think.

        • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

          I have the DVD version of Coraline, assuming you meant that not the theater. Playing 720x480 DVD source on a full 1080 TV with the proper color temperature setting was an extremely pleasant experience. My gf hates 3D, but loved the way they did this one. They chose a color palette which matched their glasses, so you could actually see red objects being red, instead of seeing them as half-present ghosting.

          I wish 3D movies came with an 'optimize your TV' setting like the THX demo DVDs have - adjust the tem

          • by Chyeld (713439)

            I am not speaking from authority but simply 'lay knowledge' but if you use the THX optimizer using the correct color filters, then you should (in theory) be doing exactly what you were wishing. It shouldn't matter your own color sensitivity as the issue is how well the colors onscreen match the color filters of the glasses. If not the THX optimizer, there are at least a few 'stand alone' testing systems that should ensure the colors match as close as possible.

      • Eventually, I will be able watch that 3d episode of Chuck

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by arazor (55656)

      As someone planning to purchase a panasonic v10 series plasma TV I might spend extra for 3d stuff. I am not the average /.er though. Average /.er seems to hate anything HD.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sznupi (719324)

      That actually might be an effort to give something which is decisively different from "good enough" DVD.

      And hoping people will like it, of course.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      You can mod me down, but who actually likes 3d video enough to spend extra money on the already expensive blu-ray format?

      Blu Ray players can be had for $100-200. They're also backwards meaning you can play DVDs or Blu Rays on them. Blu Ray discs are settling into the DVD discount model and its easy to find recognizable titles from $8 up. That's hardly expensive. When 3D players turn up, they'll probably occupy a higher price slot (as happens with all early adopter stuff) and then they'll come down in time

      • by socsoc (1116769)
        But they've been saying for awhile that PS3 will be 3d capable so it isn't gonna be solely the early adopter market.
        • by DrXym (126579)
          People still need to buy a 3D capable TV and I expect for a good while yet they will command a premium for a relatively useless feature. Furthermore, even if the PS3 does support 3D, it will probably do so in non-optimal way. After all, the PS3 doesn't strictly support HDMI 1.4 and is probably bandwidth & chipset constrained. I expect if Sony do offer output might have to output 2D + z buffer or some crappy side by side output, neither of which is optimal. The PS3 might also be able to output anaglyph f
    • by IrquiM (471313)

      I will - because I can

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      Go see Avatar in 3D and come back and say that 3D isn't worthwhile.

    • by Xest (935314)

      I like it in cinema, when I've watched 3D movies at the cinema it's been the biggest improvement to film since colour, a far better improvement than digital, high def, surround sound and such.

      But here's the problem, is TV based 3D as good as cinema 3D? afaik it's a completely different technology and up until now, TV 3D has been frankly, complete and utter crap.

      If it's just the tired old crappy TV 3D, then, well, it's a complete waste of time as you say. If however it's as good as the 3D they're pushing in

      • by anss123 (985305)
        Perhaps 3D will save the cinema? I got this impression that cinema is dying and 3D might just be enough to make me go on big action filled releases.
        • by Xest (935314)

          Yep, that was what I was thinking too and this is exactly what the movie industry should be doing rather than suing file sharers- coming up with innovative new technologies that give people a reason to go to the cinema.

          The only problem is right now, 3D films are far more expensive, which is a shame and is the only thing that puts me off. I don't mind paying a little more for 3D to help the costs of the equipment, but I aint paying double the price of a normal film!

    • Download speeds don't increase all that fast. Neither are hard drives, at least compared to the earlier part of the decade.

      Maybe, they think, if they can jack up the size enough - perhaps with HVD next - that they can outrun the downloaders just though the sheer size of the data? Maybe that's why the music industry tried to push DVD-As and SACDs in 1999/2000 as well.

      Idk.

      If blu-ray was backwards compatible like HD-DVD was (you could play one side in a DVD player), I would be encourage to get it. But as it

    • by pelrun (25021)

      It's actually probably the *only* thing that would make me want to spend money on the format. I'd be just as happy with frame-sequential 3d dvds, though.

    • by tthomas48 (180798)

      But there are already how many PS3 owners who now have a 3D Blu-Ray player? This is the easiest introduction of a new format ever. It's like the PS2 and DVDs. That was a massive trojan horse to getting people onto the DVD format.

      I'm excited that I'll be getting 3D. My wife and I are thinking about upgrading our TV in the next two years to take advantage.

      So I guess some of us are excited, yes. My wife hates people in movie theater and BluRay really gives you something very close to the big screen experience

  • by Aliotroph (1297659) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:12AM (#30484312)

    I only have one good eye!

  • Subtitles? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by srothroc (733160) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:19AM (#30484346) Homepage
    As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...

    Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?

    In my book, subtitles have several requirements. They need to: be easy-to-read, have proper spelling/grammar, and have good timing. The third dimension doesn't fit in there anywhere. Now, if they were talking about improving the subtitle specifications to allow a wider range of fonts and outlines (as some are hard to read in certain situations), I would be all for it. But 3D? No thanks.
    • Sounds like something they'd bulletpoint on the back of the box.

    • One thought for a potential use would be to make it easier to see who is saying what...for example:

      For argument's sake, let's say you're showing a scene of 4 people sitting each on one side of a table talking. With "conventional" subtitles, they are limited to being overlaid on the scene as a whole, making it difficult at times to figure out which character is saying what, especially if you can not see the lips of one or more characters to determine if they are talking.

      With a 3d subtitle system, you cou

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ranzear (1082021)
      What they're being specific about is where in the third dimension the subtitles are placed. If you have a space or city scene at mostly infinite focus, its a major strain to suddenly focus on screen-depth subtitles.

      This issue has been around a long time in first-person-shooter titles when using any of several 3d methods, including the shutter glasses once sold by E-Dimensional and now NVidia and even just red/blue anaglyph, when attempting to aim with a flat screen-depth reticle at an object at much furthe
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nacturation (646836) *

      Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?

      When everything else is in 3D, having subtitles in 2D puts them at the furthest effective focal distance. 3D subtitles doesn't necessarily mean that all subtitles are on an angle with depth and drop shadows... it could be used only as a means to control where they appear on the Z axis.

      A character in the foreground could have their subtitle float in the foreground for example. When you see "[music playing]" as a subtitle, it could be positioned at the same focal distance as that piano player in the back of

      • by naam00 (1145163)
        Just having them float on top of al the other content is essential enough -- I watched Up with (dutch) subtitles and I can tell you it's quite uncomfortable reading letters that are further way than the image they cover. Even for just that you'll simply need 3D info inside the subs.
      • by cyberworm (710231)
        I was thinking along the same lines, except putting them "closer" to the viewer so that they would appear to be floating in the glasses.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by idji (984038)
        I watched Avatar in 3D last night. The Na'vi subtitles where hovering "in front of the scene" - not " in the scene"
    • Check out the US DVD (not the bluray) of the russian film "Nochnoi Dozor" aka "Nightwatch." The animated subtitles really add to the experience.

      Not saying every film needs to do that. Just that artistry can be expressed in subs too.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      Subtitles and other graphics sit on a plane above the video content. When you watch a movie in 3D, you want to be able to adjust where that plane "floats" to make it easier to read the focus between the text and the scene.On a regular TV this isn't an issue because the picture and graphic are sitting on the same perpendicular plane to the viewer at a fixed distance.
    • by Hadlock (143607)

      Having subtitles appear in the foreground near where the actor is on screen, and then slowly "sinking" to the back of the depth of field before disappearing would be pretty damn cool. I'm sure if there was some sort of standardized system, the anime folk would have a hay-day with that technology (especially if you could separate the subtitles from the 2D animation).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      It’s not a question of “needing” them. :)

      It’s simple physics: With those glasses, everything has a depth position. Whether you want it or not. So even if you put the subtitles at position zero, it will still look like it’s hovering in space.

      Don’t worry, I found the subtitles to be even more readable than normal 2D ones and was positively surprised.

    • by DrYak (748999)

      As someone who is hearing-impaired and uses subtitles almost all the time...

      Sometime people use subtitles for a different purpose... Like not speaking the language the movie was shot in. People need also subtitles to provide them translations.

      Why do we need 3D subtitles? What good could possibly come of this?

      Very often, in such foreign movie, you'll find also text written on the scenery : marquees, panels, signs, etc.
      One possibility is to treat them the same way as dialog and write the translation in the same area where dialogs are translated too, with a description prefix "Signs : Do NOT feed the alligators".

      Another possibility is having the subt

    • by chord.wav (599850)

      A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

      Does that answer your question?

  • Not 3D (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreatDrok (684119) on Friday December 18, 2009 @03:32AM (#30484412) Journal

    This is not like a hologram, it is more like a viewmaster. Now I enjoyed Up in 3D but it didn't really feel like I was looking at the world. Everything was exaggerated. Put these discs on a small TV and it is going to be surround sound all over again and stereo before it. It will take a while before it settles down and films are made which don't try to be sensational with their use of depth, especially since you'll be peering through a tiny 50" or so screen at most. I'll stick with my HD 100" front projection system until this settles down anyway and if it doesn't catch on, so what?

    • That’s the thing that struck me with Avatar. I did not find such “because we can” scenes. The only weird thing was, that sometimes things looked too big (or too small).

      But stereo video really did fit the movie well. The first scene, inside that ship, you could really see the depth and size of that room. Which, with the added “what is this‘bottom’ of which you speak” look really made you immerse into the scene. I think most of the movie, stereo video was used how it

  • About time - we'll now be able to get those kewl advertisements before each movie in 3D as well..
  • by bonaldo2000 (1218462) on Friday December 18, 2009 @04:43AM (#30484620)
    Would someone please think of us! I have what I think is called monovision - that is, I only focus with one eye at a time. I do see with the other eye too but it more, sort of, along for the ride. It's not a problem in real life - I have sub-par depth perception of course but I have learned to compensate for that. However, I am not able to use the good old red-green 3d glasses. Do anyone know if some of the new systems can be used by people with my condition?
    • by Grismar (840501)

      You've clearly no experience with the technology.

      Monovision does not prevent you from watching movies in 3D. Your brain will do what it is always doing: processing the input from both eyes, giving preference to either and you will see what "normal" people would see if they closed either eye. You'll see the movie from a single vantage point, whereas people with normal depth perception will use dual vantage points to infer depth.

      Frankly, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to watch a movie with the old red/g

      • Thank you for the reply. I know that I am able to watch the movies though! What I meant, naturally, was if I could use some of the new techniques and actually watch them in 3d like "normal" people. For example the active shutter glasses or something like that - it shuts down one eye at a time, as far as I know. Maybe I can use that, although I doubt it. My "nightmare" scenario is for all this fancy 3d to become sort of a standard over the comming years and me missing totally out on it. :-(
    • Fry: Wow the 3-D's great!
      Leela: Mine's not working!

    • by chord.wav (599850)

      How does it feel to suddenly be on the "crippled" side? Don't worry, the rest of us, naturally conceived, will join you in the next years.

    • by selven (1556643)

      Your depth perception in real life is probably due to context - you look at vertical angles, knowing that the ground is always 1.7m (or whatever) below your eyes, you look at objects like birds knowing what their dimensions are so you can tell how far away they are, etc (all subconsciously). If that is true, then you wouldn't benefit from 3D at all.

  • Really? They plan to upgrade all existing consoles to be 3d-capable via a firmware upgrade, but the only way to get a console capable of bitstreaming the new audio codecs is to buy the new PS3 Slim model. Awesome work there, Sony. Not that it's really a big deal to send LPCM instead of bitstream, but it would be nice to have the option at least.
    • by PitaBred (632671)
      No amount of software will fix a hardware limitation. You'll never get 1080p HD video over an S-VIDEO cable... the modulators attached to the actual jack just can't do it. Same with the Sony issue.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's stereoscopic video. Like watching moving View-Master. Not real 3D as I would like it to be. I think it would be pretty hard to create something where you actually could see things from different perspective if you altered your position, but ability to focus on different objects at different distances would be great. This '3-D' looks more like bunch of stuff cut from cardboard and hanged at different, yet too shallow depths.

    • by pwfffff (1517213)

      You should turn up the depth then. You can't really do this at the theaters, but on home systems cranking the depth should stop anything from appearing like a 'cutout'. It will cause a bit more eye strain, but you're going to have to adjust to the whole 3d thing anyways so you might as well get used to a greater depth setting. Theaters likely have it set low to avoid the extra strain, but it does cause that cardboard effect.

  • It’s stereo video. Just like stereo audio.
    3D would be, if you could look at any frame from any position, rotation and depth focus. And slice away parts at will. You know. Then again, that would be 4D, because that volume has a time-dimension too.

    So actually, normal movies already are 3D. Just not the dimensions you’d expect. ;)

    (Hey, what would happen, if you could make the time dimension the Z dimension, and then look at the volume from other directions, slicing it away differently? :D
    (If you th

    • So actually, normal movies already are 3D. Just not the dimensions youâ(TM)d expect. ;)

      gah! We've been keeping that a secret from the marketing departments. Now you've done it.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...