3D Cable and Broadcast Television Discussion - Page 2 - Blu-ray Forum

Interdimensional · 02-13-2017, 10:29 PM

This is something that has been on my mind recently, so I've decided to start a thread. There was an earlier wave of 'death of 3D' hysterics that played out in the media a few years back when ESPN and BBC, and later Sky dropping their 3D broadcasts.

Personally speaking, I never watched a single digital 3D broadcast.

So I certainly didn't see it as the 'final nail in the coffin'. I continue to watch 3D Blu-rays, and have watched 3D streaming content, 3D videogames, the occasional 3D youtube video, as well as photos and videos from my 3D camera.

I have a memory of flicking through channels at the home of an acquaintance, and they had a Sky TV subscription, and what I recall is that flicking passed the Sky 3D channel, the screen was split with the left/right images presented side by side. I don't necessarily trust this recollection, so I was wondering for those who were more familiar with 3D broadcasting, is that how it was implemented?

petergee · 02-13-2017, 10:55 PM

Hi - I seem to recall a similar situation as the one you describe - I'd therefore be 99% sure that it used SBS for its stereo source.

Interdimensional · 02-13-2017, 11:07 PM

Thanks for your response. Did you ever watch the broadcasts; did you have a 3DTV at that point? Would this have been Sky 3D, or a different channel? I wonder were all digital 3D broadcasts presented SBS.

Perhaps like me, it was just something you came across in passing.

petergee · 02-13-2017, 11:22 PM

No I didn't have one personally but a friend's parents did (mind you that was a few years ago now). We watched an Attenborough film on it if I remember correctly. Unfortunately I wasn't as much of a 3-D fan as I am now so can't comment on the image quality.

Yes, it was Sky 3D running on a 3DTV (make/model ?) in the UK.

Interdimensional · 02-13-2017, 11:48 PM

I have most of the Attenborough 3D films; I think they're pretty good for the most part.

I suppose you probably can't say for sure at this stage, but was it the case that the tv automatically detects the side by side image and switches to 3D mode? Or would the viewer have had to turn it on.

As I recall, on a non-3D set, it just displayed a side-by-side image.

Maybe it's ironic, but I've watched 3D broadcasts using older inherently flawed systems like anaglyph and Pulfrich ... but never digital.

8traxrule · 02-14-2017, 06:45 AM

My TV has a setting that will automatically switch it into 3D if it detects a side-by-side picture, but that was proven faulty on the first day I got it when it switched to that during a 2D movie that had a split-screen sequence.

I have thousands of reasons for not having cable or satellite; as much as I love 3D that wasn't enough to make me get either one of those. I heard the ESPN 3D channel was pretty half-assed (and I don't even like sports in the first place), they mainly showed the same football game over and over along with a limited selection of other stuff; it wasn't like it was live games 24 hours a day in 3D. If that had done that and it failed, then that might have been kind of sad but from what I've heard it was, no big loss.

Interdimensional · 02-15-2017, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

My TV has a setting that will automatically switch it into 3D if it detects a side-by-side picture, but that was proven faulty on the first day I got it when it switched to that during a 2D movie that had a split-screen sequence.

I have thousands of reasons for not having cable or satellite; as much as I love 3D that wasn't enough to make me get either one of those. I heard the ESPN 3D channel was pretty half-assed (and I don't even like sports in the first place), they mainly showed the same football game over and over along with a limited selection of other stuff; it wasn't like it was live games 24 hours a day in 3D. If that had done that and it failed, then that might have been kind of sad but from what I've heard it was, no big loss.

My LG does that sometimes, but not always. There are some side by side youtube videos that it will automatically recognise as 3D, and others where I have to go into a menu and a sub menu to tell it to switch.

I haven't seen anything like the issue you describe with a split-screen 2d movie! Definitely a setting you'd want the ability to turn off.

If 3D broadcasts were largely side-by-side, I'd see that as a pretty insurmountable flaw. Viewers with 2d tvs would be very unlikely to watch side-by-side.

8traxrule · 02-15-2017, 12:31 PM

Yes, I turned the auto-detect off right away; it only goes into 3D mode when getting an actual 3D signal from a Blu-Ray and after a firmware update it started going into 3D mode on YouTube videos flagged for it.

the13thman · 02-15-2017, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

Maybe it's ironic, but I've watched 3D broadcasts using older inherently flawed systems like anaglyph and Pulfrich ... but never digital.

Same here. By the time I got a 3D TV there were no more 3D broadcasts but in any case I would never have subscribed to Sky as I HATE watching sport and they've had far too much of my money over the years.

I would have liked to have seen what the BBC did but those muppets still can't broadcast local programmes in HD ten years after the analogue signal was switched off...

Interdimensional · 02-16-2017, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the13thman

Same here. By the time I got a 3D TV there were no more 3D broadcasts but in any case I would never have subscribed to Sky as I HATE watching sport and they've had far too much of my money over the years.

I would have liked to have seen what the BBC did but those muppets still can't broadcast local programmes in HD ten years after the analogue signal was switched off...

Sky were still broadcasting when I got a 3dtv, but I have never felt compelled to subscribe to their services. I remember BBC were among the first to drop the service they'd been trialing, and the examples they gave to justify that decision were perplexing to say the least.

Quote:

But although about 1.5million homes have 3D televisions, only around half of those able to watch Olympics coverage in 3D did so.

Only around 5 per cent of potential viewers watched Mr Stink and the Queen’s Speech in 3D.

Head of BBC 3D Kim Shillinglaw told RadioTimes.com: ‘I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK.

... I'm actually impressed with those numbers. None of it is stuff I would watch.

The good thing that came out of it is that between BBC and Sky both produced some decent programming that made it to blu-ray.

silentbob · 02-16-2017, 12:54 AM

Never saw a broadcast of a 3D event. Although when I worked at my local theatre, we had to setup our satellite system to our digital movie projector to setup the finals to the Men's Wimbledon event. Only got like 12 people and was said to be so-so from what I got from coworkers checking in in the broadcast

tripletopper · 04-07-2019, 08:59 PM

Even since I bought a 3D TV in 2012, I was awaiting a 3D broadcast.

I have neer seen a 3D broadcast. I heard the controversy of the Super Bowl 3D abortion was the 3D format they chose.

I heard they WOULD HAVE chosen was a side-by-side half presentation, which was te only one available at the time.. At the time 30% of households had 3D TV. The choice the network had was disappoint 30% of the nation by yanking 3D, or ANGER 70% of the nation if that were the case by greenlighting 3D.

I’ve never seen a 3D broadcast, so I don’t know how one would pull it off. I heard there was another method which is more bandwidth hungry AND requires rabbit ears, meaning cable and satellite owners without an antennta would be unable to get 3D, is simultaneous streams using HDTV multi-casting.

Neither seem like good options.

Then I noticed something. Most TV shows are filmed in 30 fps, even today. to maintain a realistic motion blur similar to reality. Movies are 24, but that complicates 60 Hz TVs the most basic kind, Becuase you can’t "dial a hertz" like you can on computer monitors.

Since most shows are braoadcast in 30fps, and every TV can do 60 fps, why don’t we have a "hidden frame mode" where to a 2D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 1 eye presentation, but to a 3D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 2 Eye presentation.

Most TV based DVRs can record 60 FPS Therefore it can record 30 FPS x 2 eye. it’s compatible with ATSC 1 standards. It requires just as much bandwidth as a 60 Hz x 1 eye broadcast. it could be broadcast to 3D home in 3D, and just as importantly, not use extra bandwidth, AND not ruin its viewing on 2D TV.

I think that would be a good broadcast standard to broadcast in.

Now I got a couple questions> If watch a 24 fps movie on a movie channel, does it require a 120 Hz TV because 120/24 = 5, but 60/24=2.5 i.e not an integer? If you do wathcb it with a 60Hz tv, what happens? Is there any presentation differences that will be noticiably weird or would it be able to d"dial a hertz" back to 24.

If it can’t, then to watch a 24 Hz x 2 Eye movie with an alternate frame method, you need a 240 Hz TV. I believe every 3D TV has 240 Hz.

if you can’t natively do 24 Hz x 1 eye, does it convert it to 30 Hz mode, and if so what weird things happen when you convert form 24 Hz to 30 Hz?

How will that compound on a 24 hz x 2 eye presentation?

If I’m correct the event that started the interdimensional war was 3D broadcasts being (perceived or really) 2D incompatible. After all most 3d solutions are 2D incompatible, like Red and Cyan, or are 2D compatible but are not realistic situations like Pulfrick 3d (only a certain angle works) and Chromadepth 3D. (only a certain coloring scheme made for the system works, and nothing in nature is colored in a Chromadepth friendly way.)

I wouldn’t be shocked if side-by-side half was the proposed 3D system for broadcast TV. It’s a perfectly cromulent system... just not 2D friendly.

P.S. Why doesn’t the shades symbol in the icon list have red and cyan lenses. It’s could just be regular sunglasses currently, but everyone knows the red-and-cyan glasses are a "distinct symbol" of 3D fan, and is a much clearer indicator, even if the tech is no longer used much.

doctor_who · 04-07-2019, 11:03 PM

There will never be a broadcast 3D channel as you state.

There is no consumer interest.

Stop wasting your brain power.

Perhaps when holograms can display 3D glasses free in 20 years.

Joe D. · 04-07-2019, 11:32 PM

Broadcast companies did not want to absorb the costs associated with producing 3D content for so short a demand. 3D was not looked at in the long term possibilities. Even in Europe, the 3D broadcasting I think is nil.

Also there are cost issues for the cable providers with upgrading their equipment.

It was not like high definition which demanded investment since it was a technology we were headed toward. 3D was simply not given a chance since few were willing to invest long term on what would be risky and be a fiscally losing proposition for many years. HBO still broadcasts in 3D. So I agree that it could not have been continued in a limited capacity. Make it available to those who had a 3D feature but give them time.

Ah, not in the business world. Satisfying a small but dedicated nitch following that could yield a small profit margin if marketed right, might very well have been looked at as a waste of time and resources.

Retired Flyer · 04-08-2019, 12:39 PM

Until recently, when Directv had a 3d channel next to their 4K channel, the cost of watching a 3D moviie was close to the cost of buying a Blu Ray of it.

BLMN · 04-08-2019, 02:14 PM

I don't remember a super bowl in 3D unless it was exclusive to a cable provider the only thing football that I can remember in 3D was Fios showing a few pre-season games in 2011. I had Directv when 3D was booming back then and I remember a Sony 3D channel with only docu series and ESPN 3D. The FIFA World Cup in 2010 was in 3D and to be honest it wasn't bad at all also ESPN 3D had some NBA and college basketball games as well.

tripletopper · 04-08-2019, 04:03 PM

I never experienced a 3D broadcast. I may be misinformed, but 1) I heard the moment 3D failed was the aborted 3D Super Bowl on broadcast TV, and 2) I heard the reason why that failed was because of 2D incompatibility due to the side-by-side-half format chosen.

Would a 30 Hz x 2 eye broadcast that’s read as a 30 Hz x 1 eye on older non-3D screens be the solution?

The reason why you don’t rememeber a 3D super bowl was because it was aborted, (at least the 3D portion)

No where do I read that 3D incompatibility was the problem with the 3D Super Bowl. For example a lot of TV has Dolby 5.1, butt he reason no one complains is because it doesn’t make watching on a stereo TV with built in speakers impossible to hear. You lose height and depth sound information, but it’s far from unwatchable. Side-by-sidehalf would make 2D watching impossible.

I don’t know any other technique to have 3D broadcast TV. Side-By-Side-Half was developed as an ATSC 1-compatible 3D standard. No one wants to seem to talk about that. If 3D were more 2D friendly, then there wouldn’t be 3D HATRED. If 3D was hidden, unnoticed by 2D viewers, we’d have no complaints.

I never heard complaints from mono users about stereo, or hearing customers complaining about closed captions, or black and white customers in the 60s complaining about color. That’s the model that 3D should be follow.

8traxrule · 04-10-2019, 09:03 PM

TV has already become an unwatchable mess anyways. The upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard does include 3D though.

tripletopper · 08-02-2019, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

TV has already become an unwatchable mess anyways. The upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard does include 3D though.

Is it what I suggested?

A 2D-friendly Alternate frames with left or right frame lock out (either dependent on director's choice or a selectable user's choice, or both options) on both older and non-3D TVs.

Even today a lot of shows broadcast in 30 fps, despite the TV minimum being 60 Hz.

And if you don't need special effects, 3D filming in the most basic sense just needs a binocular camera.

Interdimensional · 08-02-2019, 01:04 PM

The plan is for it to be 2d friendly, but not in the manner you suggest (which would probably work, but might be an issue for HFR 3D).

My understanding is there would be a broadcast 2d base view, and an additional view provided via broadband.

You'll find more detail than you can make sense of in these documents:

http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...nal-Report.pdf
http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...art-4-2014.pdf

It discusses using the second view for traditional stereo 3D views, as well as 2d + depth. There is also mention of multiple views + depth. A lot of possibilities to consider.

02-13-2017, 10:29 PM	#21
Interdimensional Blu-ray Guru Member since:Nov 2014	What was your experience of digital 3D broadcasting? This is something that has been on my mind recently, so I've decided to start a thread. There was an earlier wave of 'death of 3D' hysterics that played out in the media a few years back when ESPN and BBC, and later Sky dropping their 3D broadcasts. Personally speaking, I never watched a single digital 3D broadcast. So I certainly didn't see it as the 'final nail in the coffin'. I continue to watch 3D Blu-rays, and have watched 3D streaming content, 3D videogames, the occasional 3D youtube video, as well as photos and videos from my 3D camera. I have a memory of flicking through channels at the home of an acquaintance, and they had a Sky TV subscription, and what I recall is that flicking passed the Sky 3D channel, the screen was split with the left/right images presented side by side. I don't necessarily trust this recollection, so I was wondering for those who were more familiar with 3D broadcasting, is that how it was implemented?

04-07-2019, 08:59 PM	#32
tripletopper Active Member Member since:Mar 2017 Blu-ray reviews:1	3D Television broadcasting new format proposal Even since I bought a 3D TV in 2012, I was awaiting a 3D broadcast. I have neer seen a 3D broadcast. I heard the controversy of the Super Bowl 3D abortion was the 3D format they chose. I heard they WOULD HAVE chosen was a side-by-side half presentation, which was te only one available at the time.. At the time 30% of households had 3D TV. The choice the network had was disappoint 30% of the nation by yanking 3D, or ANGER 70% of the nation if that were the case by greenlighting 3D. I’ve never seen a 3D broadcast, so I don’t know how one would pull it off. I heard there was another method which is more bandwidth hungry AND requires rabbit ears, meaning cable and satellite owners without an antennta would be unable to get 3D, is simultaneous streams using HDTV multi-casting. Neither seem like good options. Then I noticed something. Most TV shows are filmed in 30 fps, even today. to maintain a realistic motion blur similar to reality. Movies are 24, but that complicates 60 Hz TVs the most basic kind, Becuase you can’t "dial a hertz" like you can on computer monitors. Since most shows are braoadcast in 30fps, and every TV can do 60 fps, why don’t we have a "hidden frame mode" where to a 2D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 1 eye presentation, but to a 3D TV it looks like a 30 Hz x 2 Eye presentation. Most TV based DVRs can record 60 FPS Therefore it can record 30 FPS x 2 eye. it’s compatible with ATSC 1 standards. It requires just as much bandwidth as a 60 Hz x 1 eye broadcast. it could be broadcast to 3D home in 3D, and just as importantly, not use extra bandwidth, AND not ruin its viewing on 2D TV. I think that would be a good broadcast standard to broadcast in. Now I got a couple questions> If watch a 24 fps movie on a movie channel, does it require a 120 Hz TV because 120/24 = 5, but 60/24=2.5 i.e not an integer? If you do wathcb it with a 60Hz tv, what happens? Is there any presentation differences that will be noticiably weird or would it be able to d"dial a hertz" back to 24. If it can’t, then to watch a 24 Hz x 2 Eye movie with an alternate frame method, you need a 240 Hz TV. I believe every 3D TV has 240 Hz. if you can’t natively do 24 Hz x 1 eye, does it convert it to 30 Hz mode, and if so what weird things happen when you convert form 24 Hz to 30 Hz? How will that compound on a 24 hz x 2 eye presentation? If I’m correct the event that started the interdimensional war was 3D broadcasts being (perceived or really) 2D incompatible. After all most 3d solutions are 2D incompatible, like Red and Cyan, or are 2D compatible but are not realistic situations like Pulfrick 3d (only a certain angle works) and Chromadepth 3D. (only a certain coloring scheme made for the system works, and nothing in nature is colored in a Chromadepth friendly way.) I wouldn’t be shocked if side-by-side half was the proposed 3D system for broadcast TV. It’s a perfectly cromulent system... just not 2D friendly. P.S. Why doesn’t the shades symbol in the icon list have red and cyan lenses. It’s could just be regular sunglasses currently, but everyone knows the red-and-cyan glasses are a "distinct symbol" of 3D fan, and is a much clearer indicator, even if the tech is no longer used much.

04-07-2019, 11:32 PM	#34
Joe D. Blu-ray Knight Member since:Oct 2015 Location:Bronx, NY Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:2 Trading Score:1	Broadcast companies did not want to absorb the costs associated with producing 3D content for so short a demand. 3D was not looked at in the long term possibilities. Even in Europe, the 3D broadcasting I think is nil. Also there are cost issues for the cable providers with upgrading their equipment. It was not like high definition which demanded investment since it was a technology we were headed toward. 3D was simply not given a chance since few were willing to invest long term on what would be risky and be a fiscally losing proposition for many years. HBO still broadcasts in 3D. So I agree that it could not have been continued in a limited capacity. Make it available to those who had a 3D feature but give them time. Ah, not in the business world. Satisfying a small but dedicated nitch following that could yield a small profit margin if marketed right, might very well have been looked at as a waste of time and resources. Last edited by Joe D.; 04-07-2019 at 11:37 PM.

02-13-2017, 10:55 PM	#22
petergee Senior Member Member since:Jul 2007 Location:New Zealand 4K collection:1 Blu-ray collection:425	Hi - I seem to recall a similar situation as the one you describe - I'd therefore be 99% sure that it used SBS for its stereo source.

02-13-2017, 11:07 PM	#23
Interdimensional Blu-ray Guru Member since:Nov 2014	Thanks for your response. Did you ever watch the broadcasts; did you have a 3DTV at that point? Would this have been Sky 3D, or a different channel? I wonder were all digital 3D broadcasts presented SBS. Perhaps like me, it was just something you came across in passing.

02-13-2017, 11:22 PM	#24
petergee Senior Member Member since:Jul 2007 Location:New Zealand 4K collection:1 Blu-ray collection:425	No I didn't have one personally but a friend's parents did (mind you that was a few years ago now). We watched an Attenborough film on it if I remember correctly. Unfortunately I wasn't as much of a 3-D fan as I am now so can't comment on the image quality. Yes, it was Sky 3D running on a 3DTV (make/model ?) in the UK.

02-13-2017, 11:48 PM	#25
Interdimensional Blu-ray Guru Member since:Nov 2014	I have most of the Attenborough 3D films; I think they're pretty good for the most part. I suppose you probably can't say for sure at this stage, but was it the case that the tv automatically detects the side by side image and switches to 3D mode? Or would the viewer have had to turn it on. As I recall, on a non-3D set, it just displayed a side-by-side image. Maybe it's ironic, but I've watched 3D broadcasts using older inherently flawed systems like anaglyph and Pulfrich ... but never digital.

02-14-2017, 06:45 AM	#26
8traxrule Power Member Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray collection:1	My TV has a setting that will automatically switch it into 3D if it detects a side-by-side picture, but that was proven faulty on the first day I got it when it switched to that during a 2D movie that had a split-screen sequence. I have thousands of reasons for not having cable or satellite; as much as I love 3D that wasn't enough to make me get either one of those. I heard the ESPN 3D channel was pretty half-assed (and I don't even like sports in the first place), they mainly showed the same football game over and over along with a limited selection of other stuff; it wasn't like it was live games 24 hours a day in 3D. If that had done that and it failed, then that might have been kind of sad but from what I've heard it was, no big loss.

02-15-2017, 12:31 PM	#28
8traxrule Power Member Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray collection:1	Yes, I turned the auto-detect off right away; it only goes into 3D mode when getting an actual 3D signal from a Blu-Ray and after a firmware update it started going into 3D mode on YouTube videos flagged for it.

02-16-2017, 12:54 AM	#31
silentbob Special Member Member since:Mar 2013 Home Theater Gallery:5 4K collection:239 Blu-ray collection:619 Digital collection:1 Blu-ray reviews: 18	Never saw a broadcast of a 3D event. Although when I worked at my local theatre, we had to setup our satellite system to our digital movie projector to setup the finals to the Men's Wimbledon event. Only got like 12 people and was said to be so-so from what I got from coworkers checking in in the broadcast

04-07-2019, 11:03 PM	#33
doctor_who Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Jul 2014 Location:T.A.R.D.I.S. 4K collection:78 Blu-ray collection:251 Digital collection:2232 iTunes collection:1467 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:1110	There will never be a broadcast 3D channel as you state. There is no consumer interest. Stop wasting your brain power. Perhaps when holograms can display 3D glasses free in 20 years.

04-08-2019, 12:39 PM	#35
Retired Flyer Active Member Member since:Jul 2017	Until recently, when Directv had a 3d channel next to their 4K channel, the cost of watching a 3D moviie was close to the cost of buying a Blu Ray of it.

04-08-2019, 02:14 PM	#36
BLMN Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Feb 2011 Location:Southern NH 4K collection:253 Blu-ray collection:736 DVD collection:36 Digital collection:7 Trading Score:8	I don't remember a super bowl in 3D unless it was exclusive to a cable provider the only thing football that I can remember in 3D was Fios showing a few pre-season games in 2011. I had Directv when 3D was booming back then and I remember a Sony 3D channel with only docu series and ESPN 3D. The FIFA World Cup in 2010 was in 3D and to be honest it wasn't bad at all also ESPN 3D had some NBA and college basketball games as well.

04-08-2019, 04:03 PM	#37
tripletopper Active Member Member since:Mar 2017 Blu-ray reviews:1	I never experienced a 3D broadcast. I may be misinformed, but 1) I heard the moment 3D failed was the aborted 3D Super Bowl on broadcast TV, and 2) I heard the reason why that failed was because of 2D incompatibility due to the side-by-side-half format chosen. Would a 30 Hz x 2 eye broadcast that’s read as a 30 Hz x 1 eye on older non-3D screens be the solution? The reason why you don’t rememeber a 3D super bowl was because it was aborted, (at least the 3D portion) No where do I read that 3D incompatibility was the problem with the 3D Super Bowl. For example a lot of TV has Dolby 5.1, butt he reason no one complains is because it doesn’t make watching on a stereo TV with built in speakers impossible to hear. You lose height and depth sound information, but it’s far from unwatchable. Side-by-sidehalf would make 2D watching impossible. I don’t know any other technique to have 3D broadcast TV. Side-By-Side-Half was developed as an ATSC 1-compatible 3D standard. No one wants to seem to talk about that. If 3D were more 2D friendly, then there wouldn’t be 3D HATRED. If 3D was hidden, unnoticed by 2D viewers, we’d have no complaints. I never heard complaints from mono users about stereo, or hearing customers complaining about closed captions, or black and white customers in the 60s complaining about color. That’s the model that 3D should be follow.

04-10-2019, 09:03 PM	#38
8traxrule Power Member Member since:Jul 2009 Blu-ray collection:1	TV has already become an unwatchable mess anyways. The upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard does include 3D though.

08-02-2019, 01:04 PM	#40
Interdimensional Blu-ray Guru Member since:Nov 2014	The plan is for it to be 2d friendly, but not in the manner you suggest (which would probably work, but might be an issue for HFR 3D). My understanding is there would be a broadcast 2d base view, and an additional view provided via broadband. You'll find more detail than you can make sense of in these documents: http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...nal-Report.pdf http://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploa...art-4-2014.pdf It discusses using the second view for traditional stereo 3D views, as well as 2d + depth. There is also mention of multiple views + depth. A lot of possibilities to consider.

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals