Blu-ray 3D Discussion Thread

[kurtlingle]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

I was also told that the batteries only last 100 hours of viewing. Not good at all.

Why do we need different glasses than the theater?
The theater ones seem cheaper - will they ever make it into the home?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Why do we need different glasses than the theater?
The theater ones seem cheaper - will they ever make it into the home?

Maybe for a projector setup; but the physics of that system don't work with a flatscreen.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Maybe for a projector setup; but the physics of that system don't work with a flatscreen.

quick FYI for anyone with questions about 3D technology: do some searching over at AVS forum as there's a lot of detail there in discussion threads that doesn't seem to be as talked about over here.

The quick recap is that there are two basic flavors of how to do stereoscopic 3D in high quality with today's technology:

1: Passive: polarized light (or other similar filter type). This is what you see in the theater typically. The projector projects the left and right images though two different polarized filters (that shouldn't interact or "overlap" light with each other) and so then you can use cheap polarized glasses to filter the left/right eye for your vision. This is used with theaters basically because it's cheaper... it's a more costly projector, but since the glasses are cheaper it saves a lot of money for a theater.

2. Active: LCD shutter glasses. Rather than use polarized light to try to separate the left/right pictures, instead the projector or display *alternates* back/forth very quickly left/right/left/right etc. The way you get the 3D image to your eyes is by wearing LCD shutter glasses that sync up with the display's left/right cadence so each eye sees only its one picture.

With those two basic flavors of 3D delivery in mind...

either one can be used with any basic type of display. You can make a projector use active shutter glasses and you can make a diret-view panel TV that's polarized.

However, it's expensive to make a panel TV that's polarized because it adds substantially to the design complexity of the set. Active/sequential left/right is easy, because basically any TV that can already flash 240 Hz or higher could produce a great 3D picture by just doing left/right every other image so you'd get 120Hz per eye. Then all you'd need is active shuttder glasses to sync up and you're done.

So the reason you see so much active shutter glasses with panel displays is because it's much cheaper (virtually no more expensive to build) than conventional 2D displays... all of the extra cost is really in the active glasses themselves.

The reverse is true for polarized light.

Both types of 3D deliver have pros and cons with image quality. It's believed with current technology that active shutter glasses, with a high enough refresh rate, would provide the brightest images with the least amount of color shift and the least amount of cross-talk between the two eyes. However, polarized light that uses circular filters can also be of very high quality... that's what you're seeing with Real3D with AVATAR.

[drichter33]

jut having a hard time seeing it translate onto a screen and project into a living room

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by drichter33

jut having a hard time seeing it translate onto a screen and project into a living room

Have you ever seen a front-projection home-theater? It's the best image possible, and smokes the impact of a flat-screen. The catch? you need a darkened room, which means it's ideal for a basement type HT or dedicated HT room, but not ideal for a living room with ambient light.

In any case, FP for the home has been around for years already. Nothing new there, except for those who may not have had the chance to experience the thrill of a 100" image that looks *better* than the theater.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Who is even proposing that everything be in 3D?

All that has happened is that 3D is being incorporated as a new option for content providers if and when the artist feels it's of value.

2D content will always exist along side 3D program material.

Where's the problem?

In fact, most 3D enthusiasts loathe the notion of taking original 2D material and processing it for *fake* 3D.

don't get me wrong, I am not for changing 2D content into 3D. Until it proves itself, for me it like colorizing B&W content or making something filmed in Academy ratio (or 2.4) fit in a 16:9 screen by truncating the image. But I think, like colour, and like WS, as time passes more and more content will be filmed that way until it is all that way except when used for effect.

Content is a very competitive field and you can't leave a competitor have an advantage. At this point there is little (no) content (so no real disadvantage) and it is expensive to create (need 3D camera, 3d editors....) but as time passes these won't be factors in choosing to stick with 2D.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Have you ever seen a front-projection home-theater? It's the best image possible, and smokes the impact of a flat-screen. The catch? you need a darkened room, which means it's ideal for a basement type HT or dedicated HT room, but not ideal for a living room with ambient light.

In any case, FP for the home has been around for years already. Nothing new there, except for those who may not have had the chance to experience the thrill of a 100" image that looks *better* than the theater.

I'm guessing you didn't get the chance to see the 2160p 152" Kuro-Viera at CES this year?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I'm guessing you didn't get the chance to see the 2160p 152" Kuro-Viera at CES this year?

Sigh... bring me 152" 4K... anyway you can!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Why do we need different glasses than the theater?
The theater ones seem cheaper - will they ever make it into the home?

it depends on the display, not where it is. Some home set-ups might use polarized instead of shutter (which appears to be a front runner) and some theatres use shutter glasses.

The different techs can be used on different displays, for example I think it was LG that showed a shutter system for a projector this year and JVC showed polarized for a flat panel last year.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

it depends on the display, not where it is. Some home set-ups might use polarized instead of shutter (which appears to be a front runner) and some theatres use shutter glasses.

The different techs can be used on different displays, for example I think it was LG that showed a shutter system for a projector this year and JVC showed polarized for a flat panel last year.

Actually, the LG projector is passive polarized. But you're right about the JVC flat panel also being polarized.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I'm guessing you didn't get the chance to see the 2160p 152" Kuro-Viera at CES this year?

Care to estimate the price tag on that one?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Actually, the LG projector is passive polarized. But you're right about the JVC flat panel also being polarized.

where you at the show? if so then that is good news, but some of the articles at the time said it was shutter glasses.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

where you at the show? if so then that is good news, but some of the articles at the time said it was shutter glasses.

wasn't at the show, but there were multiple reports stating that the LG demo used a silver screen, which is only applicable to polarized projection (in addition to some trustworthy reports about polarized glasses). I think most of the reports stating LCD glasses were folks who didn't realize that there are more than one type of 3D eyewear.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

wasn't at the show, but there were multiple reports stating that the LG demo used a silver screen, which is only applicable to polarized projection (in addition to some trustworthy reports about polarized glasses). I think most of the reports stating LCD glasses were folks who didn't realize that there are more than one type of 3D eyewear.

could be, bad journalism never surprises me. As for silver screen, it can be used with normal projection and I would guess a benefit even with a shutter system (where 1/2 the lumens are lost because your eye is blocked 1/2 the time)

[kurtlingle]

David,

Thanks again for your detailed explanation.
I love details since they help me understand this stuff.

So the downside of all this is the glasses. I think someone said $100 for a set of glasses? Yikes! So that's $500 of glasses for my family? I hope they get it down to $20 for the glasses by the time I jump in (in a few years).

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

quick FYI for anyone with questions about 3D technology: do some searching over at AVS forum as there's a lot of detail there in discussion threads that doesn't seem to be as talked about over here.

The quick recap is that there are two basic flavors of how to do stereoscopic 3D in high quality with today's technology:

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Care to estimate the price tag on that one?

Haha, I'd estimate around $139,000 to begin with, maybe $70k within 4 years?

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

could be, bad journalism never surprises me. As for silver screen, it can be used with normal projection and I would guess a benefit even with a shutter system (where 1/2 the lumens are lost because your eye is blocked 1/2 the time)

Silver is bright, but it hot-spots and is not an ideal screen material where merely more gain is desired (shutter), other screen materials would be brighter but much better suited to high-end video.

Silver screens are special in that they keep polarized light directional, so they are a key solution for polarized-light projection, which outweights the downsides of other issues like hot-spotting for those applications.

[blu2]

Nice article here with HDMI 1.4 technology details:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

[dboyle]

Hi Guys,

Interesting thread - have read through it and now know a bit more about 3D and what to expect...As I have a PS3 I am curious to see what's coming!

Got a question though...Just wanted to know if anyone've heard about any movies coming in 3D this year? Someone wrote that they had seen demo-material in 3D but I am talking more about 3D on BD...

/Dan

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by dboyle

Hi Guys,

Interesting thread - have read through it and now know a bit more about 3D and what to expect...As I have a PS3 I am curious to see what's coming!

Got a question though...Just wanted to know if anyone've heard about any movies coming in 3D this year? Someone wrote that they had seen demo-material in 3D but I am talking more about 3D on BD...

/Dan

So far Disney has announced a live action and Sony has Cloudy with Meatballs. Naturally AVATAR is the one we're all hoping for, but FOX is being coy about that 3D release on blu... probably because they are trying to maximize the film's performance in theaters, then 2D blu sales.

There are a LOT of candidates for blu-ray 3D... all of the PIXAR cartoons can be re-rendered in 3D (the first two Toy Story films already have been and the 3rd will be 3D from the start). Expect more and more 3D titles to appear on blu-ray Disc in 2010 than the couple that have been confirmed at this time.