Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the reformat-your-viewing-cave dept.

Media 178

Barence writes "Nvidia has announced that 3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010. A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association — to which Nvidia is a contributor — had settled on the 'proper parameters [for] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010.' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology, using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second — twice that of a standard movie — although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth' to ensure smooth playback. New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format, which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies.' Update: HotHardware has some additional details, including images of demo hardware.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

f1srt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379980)

got it

Warning: You're being "marketed" (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380798)

This is stereo vision, not 3D. Two images taken from a single, locked human-like perspective (meaning they're about an eye-width apart.) This is precisely the same technique the toy View-Master [wikipedia.org] has been using since 1939, only with a stream of frame-pairs instead of a single pair.

Actual 3D [gizmodo.com] allows you to see from multiple perspectives, defined by your angle of view. If you move your head, the scene changes. In a fully implemented display, if you went behind the display, you'd see the rear of the scene. That's 3D.

If you allow the manufacturers to pervert stereo views into "3D", what will you call actual 3D when it becomes available?

Re:Warning: You're being "marketed" (1)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380938)

The image appears to vary in position in the Z axis therefore 3D. If another technology comes along, you may need to qualify the 3Dishness (fixed point 3D vs limited angle 3D vs full sphere 3D for example) or come up with a new term.

RBP (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381006)

If another technology comes along

RBP (read before posting)

The technology is already here. Follow the second link in the GP. Therefore, original point stands.

Re:RBP (1)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381216)

I meant for common use. I am aware there have been many experimental and development and special use displays over the years.

3D: 3 Dimensions. X,Y,Z. Stereoscopic counts in my book.

Re:RBP (1)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381230)

As do SIRDS in fact.

Re:RBP (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381396)

Holovizio is 3D with different perspective based on viewpoint, but you CANNOT walk behind the monitor and see the backside of the image. So since even that is limited field of view, nothing really meets your definition of 3D except sci-fi in the movies.

Stereo is 3D, just single viewpoint.

Re:Warning: You're being "marketed" (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381004)

While that's a sweet little demo and I can think of plenty of applications for it, videos are not one of them. I don't know about you but I don't tend to move around the room while watching movies. There's also the little issue of filming. Stereo vision is all that's necessary.

Oh but to answer your question, well, somewhere along the way marketers changed 1080p from being HD to Full HD so....Full 3D.

Re:Warning: You're being "marketed" (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381106)

I don't know about you but I don't tend to move around the room while watching movies.

I'm assuming you're not paralyzed, so, do you ever turn your head? Lean? Would it not be more immersive if the scene changed appropriately?

And seriously, science show is on, they're showing something cool, you're not going to look around the scene being displayed if you can? View a galaxy from the side? How about sports? Look down a cheerleader's blouse? See the play from the angle you prefer? Never? In answer to your implied question (you didn't know about me), yeah, I'd move. I'd probably move a lot. Which I don't think is a bad thing at all. If you wouldn't move... well, I'd say that's your problem, not the technology.

Re:Warning: You're being "marketed" (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381110)

If you allow the manufacturers to pervert stereo views into "3D", what will you call actual 3D when it becomes available?

High-definition 3D, duh.

Definition (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381202)

Definition is presently understood to be resolution along an axis. If you hijack it to mean the presence of an axis, what happens when the resolution along that axis changes?

Re:Definition (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381294)

Definition is presently understood to be resolution along an axis. If you hijack it to mean the presence of an axis, what happens when the resolution along that axis changes?

We'll call that "super 3D" or "full 3D", then. Or come up with some supposedly catchy name for it, like "Green-D" or something...

If you wish to explain the precise meaning of "definition" to any marketing department in the world, then best of luck to you, but I'm very skeptical regarding your success.

Re:Definition (1)

atrocious cowpat (850512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381312)

Definition is presently understood to be resolution along an axis. If you hijack it to mean the presence of an axis, what happens when the resolution along that axis changes?

Super-High-Definition.

You shouldn't consider a career in marketing, really.

More details including a notebook version... (2, Informative)

MojoKid (1002251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379992)

Also, some nice high res images of the Acer panel here: http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/ [hothardware.com]

DLP? (2, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380084)

I'm not really interested in having a fancy pants 3D diplay on my computer or laptop. All I want it is on the wall and it seems to me the simplest way to get it there is DLP projection since you can decouple how the pixels are created from the display surface. i.e. just use a regular DLP at twice the frame rate. Have the rotating color wheel or a secondary wheel do the polarization flipping. That way there's no crazy polarizer the size of the display surface or a linticlar lens system to mess with. cheap and effective. The trick will be doubling (or quadrupleing) the DLP frame rate which is an easily forseable and incremental technology advance. Worst case is to use two DLP chips and a ploarizing beam splitter which could be done right now.

What's lacking for the consumer is a dvd format that stores the alternating frame info and standard that transmits via RGB or what ever to the projector with the proper left-right sync.

Why is this taking so long? and when will I be able to buy one.

Re:DLP? (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380222)

I forgot to mention: also no stupid shutter glasses.

And as for blue ray and 2x blue ray.
first 3d info should not take double the bandwidth. There's only a little added information (depth usually) since the RGB and intensity (nearly all the bits) are the same for most objects in the scene. (things like velvet and pearlescence being exceptions that don't look right anyhow in Binocular vision 3D and can only be differentiated for foreground pixels anyhow.

Second for most 3D I would guess that HD resolution is pretty meaningless. Once you go to stereo systems all sorts of visual effects make things much less clear. When I want to watch a 3D movie I'm going for 3D not maximum resolution. DVD quality is going to be fine.

If you want to argue that point let me point out that for good resolution in 3D for any moving object you can't tolerate 120 HZ. Even 240 Hz that Disney films use is not good enough. So the displays just are not up to the task of undistorted motion in 3D at this time. you would be much better off foresaking all those extra HD pixels and going to lower resolution at higher frame rates.

Now for non-stereo vision. Yes I agree HD is the bomb.

So just give me a cheap 3D DLP movie projector running off a plain 120 HZ RGB cable using a conventional DVD disk or Blue Ray disk. Skip the speed doubling and do it now!!! This is not hard.

Re:DLP? (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380728)

'No stupid shutter glasses'?? Yeah, instead you have stupid sun glasses that dim the image by half. DUHHHH!!! Also, the Nvidia 3d-system enables ANY EXISITING PC GAME to be playable in 3d !!! Beat that stupid polarized crap.

Re:DLP? (1)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381098)

Shutter glasses dim the image by half as well (on average). They allow light through every other frame and block it for the other, that results in half the light getting through (and personally, although it might just be the old equipment I was using, seemed to be less than half, when compared to polarized glasses)

I much prefer polarized glasses over shutter glasses, no power supply required, no syncing with the machine required and small thin glasses instead of silly glasses that look like safety goggles. You do have a point however that shutter glasses can work with existing display tech whereas polarized requires new hardware. However, if you plan on having multiple viewers, its probably cheaper to buy a new alternately polarized display and a bunch of cheap glasses, than to buy a bunch of expensive shutter glasses.

Re:DLP? (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381478)

Thats why it requires twice the frame rate: two images, one for each eye in the same original frame rate. This means twice the overall frame rate. At double the frame rate, you do not get a dimming of the image.

Re:DLP? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380988)

And as for blue ray and 2x blue ray.
first 3d info should not take double the bandwidth. There's only a little added information (depth usually) since the RGB and intensity (nearly all the bits) are the same for most objects in the scene. (things like velvet and pearlescence being exceptions that don't look right anyhow in Binocular vision 3D and can only be differentiated for foreground pixels anyhow.

Only for planar surfaces. Depth is not enough. One eye will see things the other eye doesn't see all over the image.

New players AGAIN? (5, Interesting)

Kardos (1348077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379996)

>>> “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

Re:New players AGAIN? (4, Insightful)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380072)

HA my procrastination pays off AGAIN!

Re:New players AGAIN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380238)

And if you keep procrastinating some more it will pay off even more in the future :P

Re:New players AGAIN? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380104)

Interesting. If I could see out of both eyes, I'd consider buying one (then again, I haven't bought the current run of crap... err... blu-ray stuff, so I won't have wasted money on it). Unlike vanilla crap-ra- I mean blu-ray, this actually seems like it could be worth the upgrade. At least, if you have two eyes...

Re:New players AGAIN? (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380132)

The PS9, featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month. Think I'll wait for that.

Re:New players AGAIN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380134)

Your also going to need a new panel if you only have a 60HZ TV.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380380)

Your also going to need a new panel if you only have a 60HZ TV.

You're also going to need a new panel if you have a 120 Hz tv. Or a 240 Hz tv. Or a 600 Hz with subfield processing tv.

Existing tvs are dumb shits, mangle video signals for no fucking reason, and they were not built with this specific format and method of 3D in mind - they won't work.

Of course, a firmware upgrade could fix it. Too bad meaningful firmware upgrades are the snipe hunt of the consumer electronic world.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380144)

>>> “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

Bah, we live in a throw-away society anyway, sadly enough. Chances are that POS hardware you paid top dollar for 3 years ago will die sometime soon anyway, nothing in electronics is built to last anymore.

The more the consumer products have the look and feel of a computer, the better the chances are you'll be replacing/upgrading them like they were computers.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380212)

You must pick some really shitty hardware.
My limited anecdotal evidence, agrees with Google's massive statistical evidence; Computer hardware, even consumer grade, is very reliable.

...appliances on the other hand deserve their bad reputation.

Re:New players AGAIN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380334)

Honestly the only major failing point I have in consumer devices is batteries and caps, and assuming you keep an eye on both, and replace them before they completely fail, you'll have very few ancillary problems in other components in your hardware, assuming you don't allow them to overheat/have a short to power failure in silicon somewhere.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380392)

You obviously live in a parallel universe since we all have the opposite reality.

Appliance do not have a bad reputation. Now if you buy a cheap audiovox or other cheap brandname appliance then your experiences may vary. However, that being said you buy a real brand and they last almost forever.

Computers on the other hand... they are known to break within a few years easy. If you use them, that is.
If you simply own them and check your email once every day or so, it'll last a while.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380730)

Depends on the computer, really. Self-assembled stuff can last for a very long time. I have a backup PC that has been around for about 10 years, and still works flawlessly. My main PC is about two years old, no problems. PC's I've assembled for relatives all work, and these machines have been around for 3-5 years.

On the other hand, laptops DO break easily. But again, the electronics last - it is the battery and the mechanical component, most notably the hinge, that break down quickly.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380884)

Appliance do not have a bad reputation. Now if you buy a cheap audiovox or other cheap brandname appliance then your experiences may vary. However, that being said you buy a real brand and they last almost forever.

Crap, I have a 1998 Mitsubishi DVD player from the early days of DVD that's still in use today. It works just as well now as it did new. The only thing it lacks comparatively is progressive scan output.

Re:New players AGAIN? (2)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380176)

Players are the least of their worries, HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380554)

C'mon, did you really think the evolution of A/V media and equipment had finally come to a permanent conclusion with whatever you got at BestBuy last Black Friday? If the technology is any good, cost and adoption are just matters of time; right at first it will cost a fair bit extra, eventually it will be standard on low-end hardware. Just like color, just like stereo, just like digital tuners...

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380832)

Erm... Avatar & Tron Legacy in 3d anyone ?

Nope, bought a PS3... others may work (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381034)

Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

Why? There's plenty of demand for cheap used Blu-Ray players.

But I question the need to sell - many people use PS3's for blu-ray and they should be able to support this with a firmware update - the PS3 came out of the gate supporting HDMI 1.3.

Players that do not support HDMI 1.3 would be the ones that might have to be let go of, but newer players that do might also be able simply to be updated to add support.

However, I don't really see the 3D stuff being more than a gimmick for a few years yet, at least. You might as well also complain about having to sell your old display as well, after all that will need upgrading too.

Re:New players AGAIN? (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381128)

My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier. All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.

Make a wild guess.

Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380012)

Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (2, Insightful)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380064)

Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

I would settle for a plot that was at least somewhat plausible. Movies now seem to be just a mixture of scatological jokes and special effects that mask the fact that nothing is actually happening.

I don't see the port of 3D when there is nothing to watch.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (5, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380116)

That's because you see bad movies. There are many good ones released each year. Hope that helps.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380182)

I would settle for a plot that was at least somewhat plausible. Movies now seem to be just a mixture of scatological jokes and special effects that mask the fact that nothing is actually happening.

Think what you want, but I personally can't wait to witness the destructive forces of ShitStorm3D!!!

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380100)

Age has nothing to do with it. You're just too discerning.

No need for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380106)

There is an nice history of having no need for this nor wanting it.

Stop working on 2D 3D displays and do more work on holograms (although I doubt I'd want to watch a 2hr movie as a hologram.

Re:No need for this (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380188)

I'd watch a 2hr porn hologram.

Re:No need for this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380368)

You think that's impressive, you should check out a real woman someday!

Re:No need for this (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380520)

I would look at a still frame shot of porn as a hologram, add depth and remove time is a fair trade off.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380138)

Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?

You can use the old school red/blue polarized trick to get 3d stereo with your current hardware (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Discover_Main.html). You're SOL on the no glasses thing though.

Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

I think the 3d will initially be a cheap gimmick, but eventually turn into a normal tasteful part of movie watching.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380184)

No, you aren't. "Old" people had plot-free 3D monster flicks with the terrible paper red-blue glasses back in the 1950s.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380340)

Their tech reminds me of an OLD pair of LCD glasses I had back in 98 or 99. The new ones are only different in that instead of being locked to 24fps per eye, these smoothly deliver 60fps to each eye. They work great with 3-D video games. Really, they're quite awesome and you owe it to yourself to try it if you see it in stores. Just don't buy it... it's not so enjoyable or comfortable for extended periods of time.

Anyway, while it works great with games, not so much with the Blu Ray demos I've seen in stores. Most people can't even tell it's working. I only can because I know what I'm looking for, but most movie footage doesn't really lend itself to using the effect.

In either case, it's just a demo until they can figure a really good convincing way to do it that doesn't require a dorky pair of glasses tethered to the system in some fashion, and won't give you a headache after a short period of use.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (3, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380442)

How do you feel about stereo sound? Stereo vision is just the same issue, except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears.

There's a few gems... (1)

gmarsh (839707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380514)

I can personally recommend the following:

- Any of the IMAX 3D science/nature films. It's 3D because it was filmed in 3D, not because the director wants you ducking shit.
- "Up", the recent kids movie. I saw this one in 3D a while ago, and I must say, it was tastefully done.

But yes, most directors use 3D as an effect instead of a canvas, and the results are horribly annoying.

It's like CGI; there's a few directors who know how to use it well and tastefully (Terminator 2's T1000 being the ultimate example of good CGI), and then there's MICHAELBAYSPLOSIONS!!!111...

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380830)

Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

1) No
2) No
3) Yes they are annoying
4) I'll get off your lawn soon enough

There is never a NEED for anything like this. Television wasn't necessary since the Radio could deliver the news. But now it's considered pretty staple.

These kind of advancements in the entertainment business help drive new technologies. If 3D becomes popular enough, it'll get developed properly (compare the first Black and white televisions versus todays HDTVs). Once it's done up right, it'll be a completely new immersive experience, watching nearly everything in 3D. The applications in my mind are nearly limitless, everything from programming to gaming to general work productivity.

And as many many people have said before: The only thing really required for this to really take off is the porn industry.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381014)

Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?

No.

You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.

However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to. They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.

Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (2, Insightful)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381282)

Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"

Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous. Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology? One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused.

fuck blueray (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380044)

http://fuckbluray.com/ [fuckbluray.com]

Re:fuck blueray (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381086)

fuckbluray.com

In todays world, where things change by the day, a "techy" opinion web page that says "Last updated November 16, 2006" is completely pointless.

and all of the movies are X Rated (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380052)

And Pornsumers rejoice

Good luck (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380082)

If they thought 1080p was a tough sell, wait until they see the underwhelming reaction from the public when this crap rolls out.

Re:Good luck (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380098)

Your mom was a tough sell too but she seems to be making good money in those Tijuana donkey shows now.

Like that's going to work this time... (2, Insightful)

mrboyd (1211932) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380090)

From TFA

3D Blu-ray movies will need screens with refresh rates of 120Hz, double the current standard of 60Hz, and 2x speed Blu-ray drives. As with all of Nvidia's 3D products, shutter glasses will be required to view films. The new specification raises concerns about the capability of current hardware to play forthcoming 3D releases, with Berraondo confirming that “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it. All 20 of them.

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380180)

All 20 of them got a lot of equipment to get rid of 3:2 Pulldown. So no, they won't buy that Dual-3:2-Pulldown-120-fps crap and wait for the proper 144p equipment.

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380498)

All 20 of them got a lot of equipment to get rid of 3:2 Pulldown. So no, they won't buy that Dual-3:2-Pulldown-120-fps crap and wait for the proper 144p equipment.

We'd need the LCM of 48 and 60 to get shit to work right. 240 Hz it is!

Of course 99.9999% of content is either 24 or 30 fps (or your PAL equivalent).

Why can't I drive my display at 24/30 Hz for 2D and 48/60 Hz for 3D?

If your display tech can't physically be driven at multiple timings, then it's shit. You hear me, manufacturers? SHIT.

My kingdom for an HD 50" CRT.

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380720)

??

a lot of lcd tvs can do multiple timings from 24hz for bluray to 120hz for who knows what

unless i didnt understand your question

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380930)

I wonder how much they'll be gouging for these movies. I notice the price of normal Blu-ray disks still hasn't come down.

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380934)

Actually you can get 60" Mitsubishi DLP @1080P that will do the current version of Nvidia's 3D Vision they have out for gaming for $1100. The Nvidia 3D Vision package with the glasses and wifi base is like $200, so for $1400 you can have a nice TV with the 3D gaming package......I don't see how that is at all considered all that expensive. I would happily drop $1400 on the DLP and the 3D Vision package to plug up my PC into that 60" and get some mad Call Of Duty Modern Warfare II in HD + Stereoscopic 3D action.....what game lover wouldn't?

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (1)

atmurray (983797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381366)

My Sony Bravia X-Series I bought a few years ago is 100Hz/120Hz (depending on source) and the latest does 200Hz/240Hz depending on source. Admittedly it doesn't accept sources over 60Hz and uses frame interpolation (they call it "Motionflow") to increase the frame rate from the source, but the most expensive part is ensuring the panel can do the refresh rate. Other manufacturers have equivalent frame interpolation technology too.

Re:Like that's going to work this time... (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381440)

well if they sell them at $5 million each that's $100 million! Might work...

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380136)

Didn't we establish back in the '70s that nobody is that interested in 3d movies?

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380204)

Actually, I am quite interested in 3D porn. Seriously. I don't understand why this didn't take off yet.

Re:What's the point? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380390)

Because 2D porn is equally "effective"?

Re:What's the point? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380408)

Probably for this vary reason... you have to buy buy buy.

What's the diff? (1)

stupkid (16083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380142)

What's the difference between this "3D" and the "3D" included on existing titles like the Coraline Bluray disc? Is this just a proprietary technology requiring special hardware with the same relative outcome?

Re:What's the diff? (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380186)

The other kind doesn't make nVIDIA money by being able to sell their expensive glasses?

Re:What's the diff? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380466)

The difference is the method of delivery. The Coraline 3D Bluray comes with the colored glasses method of separating the overlapping images. The nVidia approach is to cover one eye, show the remaining eye an image, cover that eye and uncover the other and then show the newly exposed eye a slightly different angle of the same image.

The colored glasses method is good because it can work on any color display created since technicolor. The bad part is, the coloring of the movie is slightly off (very noticeable to me).

The shuttered glasses method is good because there is no color distortion. The bad part is you need a screen with a refresh of 60Hz (30Hz per eye, causes flicker) or 120Hz (60Hz per eye, little to no flicker) and the associated hardware to render or display the images. I'm not 100%, but the nVidia method requires 120Hz to work properly.

I've viewed both methods and must say the shutter glasses gave the best result of the 2, but I think the polarized method is the best after seeing all 3 methods.

Re:What's the diff? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380666)

How do these shutter glasses synchronize with the video playback? That is, I would assume for this to work right, the timing of the shutter 'blacking out' that eye has to be pretty much exactly at the time the screen starts drawing a new frame (and, conversely, un-blacking the other eye must happen right then, too) I assume in this day and age they use some sort of wireless or optical calibration system that doesn't require any wires from your 'glasses' to the DVD player?

Re:What's the diff? (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380828)

According to this [nvidia.com] , it's wireless with a 6' USB recharge cable.

W

Eh (3, Informative)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380224)

RTFA. First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d. Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it. (that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)

Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie. PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.

And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d. Obviously Avatar is the next one up. This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again. It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.

3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though. It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics. The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.

Re:Eh (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380534)

Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie. PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.

Yes and no.
Early models of the PS3 don't physically have the right version HDMI output. I think they're 1.3a or something.
While the PS3 also doesn't support many of the fancy dancy things that will never be used (like 4:4:4 or such), those can theoretically be patched in via firmware updates - and Sony has been really good on this front.

As far as I know getting the full uncompressed HD master lossless amazing super 7.1 ex II streams out of your launch PS3 system will never happen though.

Re:Eh (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381306)

According to wiki, 1.3a is fine. That's also what the article says. Evidently, anything above version 1.3 supports 1920x1080 at 120 hertz. But yeah, when you're talking about video streams with that much bandwidth, any bottleneck anywhere in an early PS3 and it's not going to work at all.

3D glasses the death of this (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380234)

Until you can manage 3D without the polarised glasses, I doubt it'll take off as anything more than a novelty. This is more of a barrier than even new hardware requirements. You average viewer wants to be able to relax in front of a movie. Those that don't wear glasses to begin with - ie the majority - can't do that while wearing these glasses. Until you can relax, fall asleep and cuddle or get romantic without having to worry about glasses poking you in the head or eye or getting in the way, it just isn't going to be mainstream.

Re:3D glasses the death of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380308)

Not only that, but what about the people who don't want to sit up straight when viewing movies...don't the glasses need to be on a horizontal plane for the 3d to work properly?

Re:3D glasses the death of this (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380394)

I thought these were shutter technology, not polarized.

Re:3D glasses the death of this (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380608)

These, yes.
But shutter glasses suck compared to polarized glasses.

Polarized is the best bet you've got outside of some sort of hologram or trickery setup.

Re:3D glasses the death of this (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381174)

I'm not sure I follow you're reasoning... unless it's that people with normal glasses can't enjoy movies. I'm sure they do, so its just a matter of getting used to it, which we seem to be capable of in a theater. Wait, you think people didn't go to the new 3d movies becuase of the glasses?

Color? Why? (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380296)

Show of hands please: how many here think "color" in movies is just a technological gimmick?

Dig back in time and you'll find pretty much the same complaints about the introduction of color into cinema. "Doesn't add to the plot." "Distracting when directors go 'look! color!'" "Waste of money upgrading perfectly good 5-inch black-and-white TVs." "Nobody really wants to see skin close-up in color." ...thing is, color is a part of our visual perception of the world, and we now demand it - in good quality - for our movies; ditto 3D.

Re:Color? Why? (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380324)

I don't know about you but my perception of the world doesn't even involve everything being red and blue.

Re:Color? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380350)

Bollocks. People wanted color from the start, it was damn expensive to produce with the crap technology back then. 3D will take off, but only when you don't have do wear stupid glasses.

Re:Color? Why? (4, Insightful)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380456)

I don't need to wear special glasses to see color tv.

Re:Color? Why? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380654)

My proposed 3D system is simple.

1 TV at double the source framerate.
1 Player delivering the interleaved left/right content.
1 User, properly calibrated (via the included setup disc) to blink left and right alternately, in sync, at double the source framerate.

Cool! (1)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380502)

How does multiview work? Is each video channel its own stream? Or is one channel a master, and deltas stored off that? Do they share common base frames?

I don't enjoy 3d movies. I don't find wearing glasses that long to be comfortable, and I don't find any added benefit to the extra dimensionality of the product. I saw the 3d Toy Story double feature at the local theater, and while the 3d was near perfect, I never once felt it added anything to my enjoyment. I've also seen Coraline, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d, and I think I'm done. They're just not worth it.

3d video games, however, might be interesting, if they can lighten up the glasses and figure out a way to make them work with my own glasses.

They need clip-on versions (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380552)

For those of us who wear prescription lenses already, seems like they could make lightweight clip-ons, such as are used for sun-glasses frequently. Since you are already wearing glasses, which you are used to and are comfortable, it seems like if they were well-designed, the clip-ons would be almost un-noticeable. But, I am kind of with you - for the most part, added depth-perception doesn't add much to the movie experience.

Re:They need clip-on versions (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380936)

I think something like 2001 would be better fodder for 3D. Or something like the BBC's Planet Earth series.

$0.02USD,
-l

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30381464)

I think MVC is more efficient than that. Regular AVC, plus the Z-axis information and differences. Maybe they have the equivalent of B-frames for depth.

solved the easy part... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380572)

Figuring out the specs for en/decoding the data is no big deal. Display devices capable of producing the images without costing a small fortune and requiring the viewer to wear glasses... that's the challenge.

It will NEVER catch on. (2, Insightful)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380710)

Never. I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams. BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses. It's always been a gimmick and nothing more. 3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch. Majorly flawed.

Blu-Ray adoption as good as DVD adoption... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381176)

BR adoption is tepid at best

No, actually, Blu-Ray adoption is actually about on par with where DVD adoption was:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/tks-take/harris-interactive-survey-gets-slammed [homemediamagazine.com] .

You HD-DVD supporters just can't let it go, can you. Despite obvious evidence in stores and truly cheap Blu-Ray players now, you just can't fathom something succeeding that killed you beloved HD-DVD (even though they are just about the same in terms of content delivery!)

Rejoice that consumers are embracing HD video, instead of hoping Blu-Ray will die just to spite the victor.

Re:Blu-Ray adoption as good as DVD adoption... (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381474)

Wow, assume much? I own no HD-DVDs and saw it for a dead format from the beginning. Blu-Ray numbers are not accurate from any number of sources because of combo packs and PS3s among other factors. The adoption is not as meteoric as you seem to think, digital distribution will be the adopted standard before Blu-Ray will have anywhere near DVD penetration.

MVC-AVC? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380754)

MVC is a chain of adult video stores here in northern Virginia. It's great to see that Nvidia understands what audience will be first up to buy this technology.

There is no encoder for MVC profile of H.264 yet.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380794)

I don't believe there's a single encoder, software or otherwise, that can actually create an MVC h.264 compatible stream for these hypothetical 3-d blu-rays. Heck, the spec just got fixed 2 months ago!
And no sane person is going to write one because there's no hardware that can play it back and no content to store with it.
When blu-ray came around, pretty much all new movies (and many many old) would benefit from the HD resolution. How much media is out there that would benefit from 3-d display now? How about in 2 years?
Sorry, but this is too early for a disc standard.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?