To 3D or not 3D? That is the question

[DaViD Boulet]

The only problem with the 3D is that you might need a specific TV, in that it has to have one specific function, 120 MHz so that it can display 60 fps per eye...
I do not think mine does that. Which means that I do not stand a chance of seeing 3D at home unless I get a new tv.. Am I wrong? Please tell me that I am.

Sorry... ever since these "sticky" threads stopped notification of new posts I don't get to this very often.

Back to 3-D on Blu-ray for a moment...

You would NOT need a new TV. Can I state that clearly enough?

You don't need "60 Hz for each eye" with 24p source material. Just 24p for each eye... which is easily delivered via 48Hz or 60Hz.

The Blu-ray player could control how the "3-D" content is deliverd/packaged per a user's display. For instance, a TV that can lock and display 1080p48 could be sent a 1080p48 signal that's a "blend" of left/right/left 1080p24 streams. LCD shutter glasses would be synched via the BD player with variable delay/scan-adjustments to account for buffering/scaling/rate-conversion in the display.

Same with TVs that can accept 1080p60. The two 1080p24 streams could be matrixed into a 1080p60 signal... cadence wouldn't be smooth but we already live with that with 24p converted to 60p already.

And high-end users could always use polarized light for dual-projection to achieve the ultimate quality with dual-projection.

In any case, a "new TV" is not required to get 3-D from properly functioning 3-D BD hardware/software... if such 3-D ability is written into the spec.

PLEASE insiders... push for this. 3-D playback could always be 100% optional so as to not increase the cost of standard BD players (since dual-1080p decoders would be required).