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!

3D Blu-ray Spec Finalized, PS3 Supported

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-at-least-one-dimension-will-have-drm dept.

Media 157

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.'"

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

What? (5, Insightful)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484292)

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?

LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484322)

Another devastating blow to all RROD360 fanboi's.

Suck it, fags! XD

Re:LOL (1)

volcanopele (537152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484832)

Yes, because us Xbox 360 users are completely incapable of also owning a blu-ray player...yeah...

Re:What? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484324)

blu ray is tanking

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


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

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485790)

blu ray is tanking

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


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:What? (2, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487196)

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 clear. Mostly, there is no reason to upgrade unless your player stops working. And at that point, do you really want to hear that music, or just whine about not being able to? Format shifting is nearly automatic at this point, you can digitize tapes and records, and everything else is digital anyway. Just convert it or have someone convert it for you - don't re-purchase it.

Personally, I download most stuff in the new format because the record company sold me a license to listen, not a physical product, according to statements made under oath in p2p trials. I have that license to listen and already paid for the product, so I feel I can mount a decent defense if accused of downloading. Uploading is something I try to prevent of course because I don't have a license for that.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484470)

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

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

Re:What? (0)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484790)

It's not the same as the headache technology!

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484966)

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:What? (2, Insightful)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485096)

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? (3, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485954)

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

And the fact that it only used two colours, red and black.

Re:What? (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487238)

to be fair it used 4 color, red, dark red, darker red, and black.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486960)

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.. :)

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485346)

What do you mean headache? I've seen one of the first experimental 3D movies at a fair and noticed no problems (it was a polarisation based system). I've also played Half-Life with red-green glasses for hours and hours on end with no ill side effects except for the occasional heart attack when a headcrab jumped out of the screen.

Re:What? (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485372)

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?

3D subtitles! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484302)

I think I just pissed my pants!

Re:3D subtitles! (1)

naam00 (1145163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484528)

Actually, it's quite essential to place the subtitles in as frontmost a place as possible (compared to the overall image that is). You really don't want to be reading them when other parts of the image pop out more than they do. It's quite unnerving.

On the other hand, as far as 3D has any merits, it's (IMO) mostly when it's done behind the screenspace, not the popout bits, blegh.

Re:3D subtitles! (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485008)

As I have found as well. It appears that the screen becomes a mid-ground and that the background is pushed behind more. Pop-out bits are seldom used it seems.

Re:3D subtitles! (1)

pelrun (25021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485844)

It's a little more complex than that. It's important to keep the 3d field internally consistent - it's bad when 'forward' elements of the scene (i.e. placed 'in front' of the screen plane) have 'further back' elements forced in front of them. This includes the *edges of the screen* and subtitles that are fixed at the screen plane but still drawin in front of elements that should be in front of them. There are parallels to issues found in (mostly older) 3d games, when the draw order is wrong.

If the forward elements and the subtitles don't intersect, though, it can work to have the subtitles further back. I noticed this a couple of times when seeing Avatar tonight - the Na'vi subtitles weren't absolutely in front of everything, but the rest of the scene was carefully arranged so as not to conflict.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (3, Funny)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484344)

Seriously, HD porn video isn't exactly a huge draw, but imagine 3D.

Re:pr0n FTW? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485204)

Seriously, HD porn video isn't exactly a huge draw, but imagine 3D.

Ain't got nothing on full tactile sensurround, giving a new meaning to First Person Shooter games.
Movies will be killed by Feelies.

Re:pr0n FTW? (4, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485498)

Seriously, HD porn video isn't exactly a huge draw, but imagine 3D.

Ain't got nothing on full tactile sensurround

I think you mean sex.

Re:pr0n FTW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30486054)

But that's not compatible with my PS3.

Re:Why? (1)

glob (23034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484360)

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

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484492)

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:Why? (2, Insightful)

glob (23034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484584)

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 :)

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484716)

Polarized filters make the whole thing almost bearable. I was excited to see the recent flood of 3d- until I found out it all used filtered glasses. No thanks.

Re:I disagree (3, Funny)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485224)

As someone red-green colorblind, the polarized ones (a) allow me to see the images in 3D and (b) contribute significantly to looking like a dork when someone suddenly walks into the living room and catches you watching Captain EO.

Re:Why? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485570)

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 sportscasting might be effectively limited to sports like boxing, or pool where the camera is only 10 feet or so (perceived) from the action, with lots of closeups. 120hz, 1080p fencing would be pretty cool to watch.

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484362)

Coraline, Up. Possibly Avatar....

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

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484580)

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 displays, maybe holography-based.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484764)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485578)

I'm pretty sure that Coraline was released for magenta/green glasses. I also tried it with red/blue ones and it doesn't work with those because it wasn't encoded for those. (Apparently magenta/green allows for more (still partial) color perception for humans, which is why they used it.)

The new systems either use micro ridges to separate adjacent columns, polarized glasses, or shutter glasses. AFAIK they haven't fixed the "head straight up" thing, though.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30486812)

Well, I saw Coraline in 3D, with the red/blue glasses; I won't repeat the experience.

1985 called and wants its glasses back! Also, home computers will never catch on because of their 64 Kbyte memory limit, and it takes a long time to load a game from cassette tape :-)

What sort of screwed up cinema uses red/cyan anaglyph these days? The current system (circular polarised glasses) is cheap and better than 1980s style red/cyan or 1950s style (vertical/horizontal polarised), and maybe even 1840s style side-by-side images (depends on the frame rate).

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484374)

There has been a surge of new tech resistance on ./ lately. Why not just rename it.

Slashdot! News for old guys. Stuff that never change.

Judging by your low id you would fit right in.

Re:Why? (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484742)

yes, failed technologies of the 1950s, and 1980s, with no improvements to the process, those are only for people who are ready for change.

Polarized lenses, that would at least be novel.
head/eye tracking and automatic image correction for a single user, that would be fun to talk about.

"Oh look, they're trying something nobody wanted thirty years ago" is not new technology.

Re:Why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486120)

So, then where can I buy this 30 year old technology built into a take home player? It's asinine to suggest that it's 30 year old technology when pretty much the only thing that hasn't yet changed about it is the tendency to use the red/blue filters. There's been a huge amount of change in how the technology is recorded. The fact that anybody is even trying to do football in 3d technology is a good example of that change.

In the long run it's going to be going 3d for most things, the idea that because there's been so little film made which utilizes the effect as anything other than a gimmick is not a fair way of assessing the technology. The new technology here is building it into a player that most people have and presumably also being able to cram a regular copy of the moving onto the same disc.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

arazor (55656) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484398)

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:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484848)

Maybe I'm not the average slashdotter, but I've got like 4 videos in HD-DVD and three xbox360 HD-DVD drives, bought cheap once HD-DVD was on the way out.

All I can say is: There was a few moments of 'wow' with some movies, like Clerks 2, but overall I could downscale my videos to 480x320@20-30 fps and for 9/10 movies I can't say I found the loss in background detail all that compelling. The problem isn't the format. The problem is simply how much detail is actually *NECESSARY* to forwarding the plot of the movie. Very few modern movies put enough thought and detail into the background in their flicks to make it worthwhile to watch them at 1080p and go 'Hey, did you notice so and so going on over in the upper right hand corner?'

Until somebody produces a murder mystery or something similiar leveraging the full resolution of HD to actually engage the audience in some tangible way, I just don't see the average viewer caring enough to waste the money on an HD set, an HD player, and HD audio gear. And honestly at that point I just watch the stuff on my computer anyhow. Added benefit? I can pause and imdb stuff as it goes, so all those nagging questions I have about so-and-so actor or director, or scene can be answered as they happen, not simply half remembered at the end of the movie.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485016)

Actually, the difference between HD and SD is mostly visible in the faces of people. In HD, you just see...more. Once you got used to HD, watching an old SD movie is similar to watching badly encoded divx - of course it's possible, but there's just something missing, and it's annoying.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484410)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484478)

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 too.

Personally I think 3D has years to hit the mainstream and has many hurdles to overcome, but Blu Ray is here and affordable right now.

Re:Why? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484482)

I'm willing to pay for it. I saw Avatar last night in 3d and it was amazing. Totally worth the extra money.

Re:Why? (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484798)

I will - because I can

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

santiagodraco (1254708) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484878)

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

Re:Why? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484906)

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 cinemas now, then frankly I'd even prefer 3D over HD if I had to choose between the two because it's a much bigger, much better change.

Re:Why? (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485398)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485092)

Oh, enough with this "expensive blu-ray format" crap! You're living in the past. When was the last time you compared the price difference between Blu-ray and DVD? Check out Amazon. Most Blu-ray discs are only 10-15% more than their DVD counterparts. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay that amount in premium for better picture and sound quality.

Perhaps content providers want it (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485358)

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.


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 is, I'm at the good enough stage. The next format will probably be downloadable, the era of physical formats are dying slowly, and while that won't stop releases on current formats, it will really hamper new ones from emerging.

Re:Why? (1)

pelrun (25021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485852)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486892)

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 without the people.

That said, I haven't bought a single BluRay movie. We have Netflix. And probably 90% of what we watch is BluRay from them. I know 3 people who have BluRay players, all of them have Netflix. I think Netflix is actually killing their sales numbers.

You insensitive clods... (4, Funny)

Aliotroph (1297659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484312)

I only have one good eye!

Re:You insensitive clods... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484496)

You insensitive lump, both my eyes are not good!

Not at all insensitive then (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485152)

I only have one good eye!

So the 3-D movies will look true-to-life for you.

Sounds like a plus.

Re:You insensitive clods... (3, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486306)

Looked at the sun trough a telescope, have we? :D

Re:You insensitive clods... (1)

GNUThomson (806789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487270)

Me too, Aarrrr!

Subtitles? (5, Insightful)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484346)

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.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484358)

Sounds like something they'd bulletpoint on the back of the box.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

nate_in_ME (1281156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484388)

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 could place the subtitles properly in the environment to denote who is saying what. Picture a cross between the speech bubbles on a comic, and that new video game(for the life of me, I can't remember which game it is right now, and Google was no help) that projects messages regarding new missions, etc. directly into the environment - such as onto the side of a building.

Re:Subtitles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484392)

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

Why do we need 3D subtitles? ...

The answer is rather simple: if you have 3D picture, the subtitles must also be shown in 3D. What you really care about is the quality of this projection, a rather confusing matter: what is a good depth to display subtitles (assuming that they are projected at a standard depth)? And many more questions for which I don't think we have the answers yet.

Re:Subtitles? (3, Interesting)

Ranzear (1082021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484400)

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 further focus (real gun sights do not utilize binocular vision) and each eye views the reticle to be aimed at a different point.

It would actually take some artistic meddling and forethought for each scene of a movie as to where the subtitles should be placed. The same depth as whichever character is talking should suffice.

Re:Subtitles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484558)

The subtitles in Avatar are done quite nicely, they normally hover directly in front of the the actors, always at same depths. Thus, it's not straining the eyes much. Only a few times they were partly inside an actor, cutting part of their body away.
Also, there wee only a few "I stick my stick in your face" instance of 3D gimmickry. Most of it was rather subtle, like leafes in the wood, at the edge of the picture, or these small white flowthingies.

Re:Subtitles? (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484404)

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 the room. When the bird on a branch chirps right in your face, the subtitle is in your face too. Would be really cool for an action comic kind of "biff" "pow" subtitles without baking them into the video frame.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

naam00 (1145163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484556)

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.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

cyberworm (710231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485034)

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:Subtitles? (2, Informative)

idji (984038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485128)

I watched Avatar in 3D last night. The Na'vi subtitles where hovering "in front of the scene" - not " in the scene"

Re:Subtitles? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484854)

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.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485274)

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.

Re:Subtitles? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485624)

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:Subtitles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485804)

As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist, and subtitle encoder for 20+ years I feel highly qualified to comment on this. Recording an entire movie in 3-D while leaving subtitles to be presented in only 2 dimensions is not only highly racist, sexist, and discriminatory, but is offensive to anyone who watches movies on mute.

Re:Subtitles? (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486140)

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.

In-movie text translation (2, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486764)

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 subtitles positioned just over the where the original text is in the frame. Thus foreign viewer see the text in-place. I've seen this done very often in anime.
This trick works not so bad with 2D movie because everything is flat. In a 3D movie, if not corrected for depth, the translation won't seem written over the original, but would either seem floating mid-scene, or worse : would seem further than the text it's supposed to be written over.

Same argument also when the translation is written "next to" the original. For the trick to work in 3D you need to also place correctly the subtitles in depth.

Not 3D (2, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484412)

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?

Never did I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484582)

... that 50" diagonally would be described as "tiny".

Re:Not 3D (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486216)

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 should be used, and had a well-integrated point to it.

I hope others will follow that model. Then stereo video will become a success.
Otherwise, it won’t. (And everything in between.)

Do we really need another headache generator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484414)

The 3D of "Up" gave me a migraine. I can get those for free.

Re:Do we really need another headache generator? (2, Funny)

chromas (1085949) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484972)

Well, now you can pay for them. Pirate.

Great News! (1)

mindcorrosive (1524455) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484592)

About time - we'll now be able to get those kewl advertisements before each movie in 3D as well..

How about us handicapped people! (3, Insightful)

bonaldo2000 (1218462) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:How about us handicapped people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484872)

Train your lazy slacker eye you sensitive clod!

Re:How about us handicapped people! (1)

Grismar (840501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484954)

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/green tech either though? Granted, you're likely to be more bothered by the hue of your dominant eye, but you should be able to follow the image just fine. You don't actually need both left -and- right to make sense of it.

Perhaps some movies split up the content, showing some of it to only one of the eyes, in which case it would explain your trouble, but you can rest assured that either eye in modern 3D gets enough information to get all of the movie in 2D. By the way: even people who are blind to one eye would still need to wear the glasses, since not wearing them will allow both eyes to see the image for both, blended together.

Re:How about us handicapped people! (1)

bonaldo2000 (1218462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484994)

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. :-(

Re:How about us handicapped people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485860)

The shutter system will essentially provide one image per eye. If you lack depth perception in real life you're already "missing out". There is one display technology, however, that would enable you to experience 3D content by and that is a lenticular display. While rare, they do not require glasses, so you can view the 3D content by moving your head. 3D movies are generally not rendered in the 9 views required for lenticular technology and this new format will not support it.

Obligatory (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486538)

Fry: Wow the 3-D's great!
Leela: Mine's not working!

Re:How about us handicapped people! (1)

melstav (174456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486726)

There are three types of "3d glasses" out there... (four if you count the "VR Headset" which actually straps two displays to your head - one for each eye.)
In ascending order of "goodness" (or descending order of "suckitude") they are:

1) red/blue glasses. These work (more or less) with any format from projected images onto a screen to stuff that's printed on a page. But they mess up all of the colors. They're also really cheap to make.

2) polarized glasses. These really only work in situations where you have images projected onto a screen. You need two projectors with their lenses polarized in opposite directions. That way, when you put on the polarized glasses, each eye only sees the image meant for it. These are only slightly less cheap because of the need for polarized plastic film.

3) shutter glasses. These will work with any "motion picture" format -- projected, television, whatever. Here's how they work: Say you're used to watching cinema at 30 frames a second. Double the framerate to 60 frames/sec, *BUT* alternate between frames intended for the left eye and right eye. That way, both eyes still get 30 frames/second. The glasses have a "shutter" or an lcd element that opaques the lenses when told to. These glasses have to receive a synchronization signal from the display to make sure that you can see out of your left eye when the left eye image is displayed and out of the right eye when the right eye is displayed. If the glasses fall out of synch, your brain gets confused.

As you can imagine, shutter glasses are considerably more expensive than the other two types. They're also, by far, vastly superior, and certainly the method they're designing the 3D blu-ray spec for.

And no, I didn't RTFA.

Re:How about us handicapped people! (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487248)

You're going to want 120hz for shutterglasses. 30hz @ each eye can start to hurt after a bit. Even at 120hz there's still something slightly 'off' about the flicker, though it doesn't ACTUALLY, visibly flicker... if you know what I mean...?

Re:How about us handicapped people! (1)

J1Dopeman (1624857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486782)

It's called alternating strabismus, I have it as well. I can't do those magic eye pictures at all, but I remember being able to use the glasses. I haven't tried either since I was a kid though. I should give it another shot and see how it works, I hardly ever go to the movies though. I think it depends on how much your other eye drifts / is used. I had a huge drift so I got the surgery when I was younger and since then they stay almost parallel, just a little off, so I'm not seeing perfect stereoscopic but I do use both eyes at the same time, one is just dominant. If you close one eye does part of your vision cut out? I lose some peripheral vision. I think it helps if you relax your eyes and don't try to focus too hard.

3d via firmware upgrade--but still no bitstream? (2, Informative)

spike1856 (948488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30484910)

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.

Re:3d via firmware upgrade--but still no bitstream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30485672)

The data is exactly the same when it gets to your amp/receiver. It doesn't matter where the decoding takes place unless you have post processing going on for one of them and not the other. Sony didn't fsck up, the company that made the HDMI chip did. You must have a very sad life if not having an LED come up is a real concern.

Re:3d via firmware upgrade--but still no bitstream (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486968)

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.

More like stereoscopic, not 3D (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30484998)

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.

Re:More like stereoscopic, not 3D (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487286)

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.

3D PS3 Games (1)

EdgeyEdgey (1172665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485246)

Will this make it easy for developers to piggy back off the 3D glasses method and produce stereoscopic games?

XBOX 360? (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485298)

What about 3d downloads? Will you have to buy a pair of M$ 3d glasses that only work with the 360?

Imagine... (1)

rapturizer (733607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30485362)

3D porn on a large screen.

And again: Stereo, not 3D. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30486038)

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 then could e.g. center the frames not equally, but based on the position and orientation of the main character... :D)

MPEG4-MVC ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30486498)

Why can't you guys just call it H.264 like everyone else on the planet?

Remember, this is only simulated 3D (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30487142)

This is theater-style simulated 3D, not real, walk-around-the-display 3D like you see in science fiction.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?