Are you excited for Blu-ray 3D in 2010?

[bluflu]

I am.

[smiley]

I am very interested but don't plan to buy anything for a couple years. I will wait that long for pricing to become practical.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by JamesN

The "3D ready" TVs currently sold by Mitsubishi and Samsung won't fully comply with the upcoming Blu-ray 3D specifications which call for full 1080p resolution for each eye. The current generation of "3D ready" TVs, although they claim a 120Hz refresh rate, only effectively deliver half of that resolution in 3D mode. They present each frame in a "checkerboard" pattern, drawing each left/right image on every other pixel on each refresh cycle like so:

LxLxLx...
LxLxLx...
LxLxLx...

and then:

xRxRxR...
xRxRxR...
xRxRxR...

You wear LCD "shutterglasses" which synchronize to the TVs refresh rate and alternately "black out" the left lens when the right image is displayed and the right lens when the left image is displayed.

But at any given moment in time, you are only seeing half of the total number of pixels in each eye.

That being said, there may be future 3D Blu-ray players that will support these existing checkerboard displays, but they would effectively need to "downsample" the full resolution present on 3D discs.

Well that sucks. Im 22 and have yet to buy my own place. I plan on getting my own TV after graduation. I am definutly waiting to make sure my television is full 3D 1080p compatible.

I wonder if both on current Blu-Ray players and current 3D ready TVs its possible to downconvert the 1080p 3D to 720p 3D for old players and displays

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Well that sucks. Im 22 and have yet to buy my own place. I plan on getting my own TV after graduation. I am definutly waiting to make sure my television is full 3D 1080p compatible.

I wonder if both on current Blu-Ray players and current 3D ready TVs its possible to downconvert the 1080p 3D to 720p 3D for old players and displays

I expect 3D ready TVs are 1080P only. So there shouldn't be a reason to down covert. If they are 720p, yes they would convert, otherwise cannot display the image.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by syncguy

I expect 3D ready TVs are 1080P only. So there shouldn't be a reason to down covert. If they are 720p, yes they would convert, otherwise cannot display the image.

Again...the current generation of "3D ready" TVs being sold by Mitsubishi and Samsung advertise that they are 120Hz, but this is misleading. Yes they refresh their display 120 times per second. BUT on each refresh, only half of the pixels are displayed. In 3D mode, these TVs have to be fed a "checkerboard" input in which each pixel is alternately sourced from the right and left sources that comprise the 3D image. Like so:

LRLRLRLR...
RLRLRLRL...
LRLRLRLR...

The internal 3D engine decomposes the checkerboard, displaying each frame twice: first to display all of the pixels from the right side of the image, and then to display all of the pixels from the left side. So even though the display is refreshing at 120Hz, only half of the pixels of each frame are being displayed at any given moment in time. And even though the refresh is technically 120Hz, it actually takes 2 refresh cycles to display all of the pixels for a given pair of 3D frames.

The upcoming Blu-ray specs for 3D are expected to call for two separate 1080p streams. Presumably, the two streams would need to be fed to a display in frame sequential fashion -- that is one frame from the right stream followed by the corresponding frame from the left stream and so on.

Future 3D displays will support frame sequential feeds, but the current generation of "3D ready" TVs do not. They can only handle their proprietary "checkerboard" input. In order for the current 3D TVs to work with frame sequential input, each pair of full 1080p left/right frames would need to be interlaced into the checkerboard pattern described above before being fed to the display. So half of the pixels in each frame would need to be thrown away. That is what I meant by "downconverting".

I'm not saying that current "3D ready" TVs won't work at all with upcoming Blu-ray 3D content. I'm just saying some pre-processing will be necessary.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

...I wonder if both on current Blu-Ray players and current 3D ready TVs its possible to downconvert the 1080p 3D to 720p 3D for old players and displays

The current generation of "3D ready" TVs have to be driven by PCs with 3D friendly video cards. nVidia, for example, makes cards and drivers that support 3D displays. It's mostly for gamers, but there are some software applications that support 3D video, such as Stereoscopic Player. This application supports a variety of 3D input and output formats (including checkerboard pattern) and can convert on the fly.

Presumably, something like this could be used to bridge the gap between existing and upcoming 3D technologies.

[Anthony P]

yes I am, I am excited about everything that could make my movie watching experience better.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

No, I'm not throwing down thousands of dollars more for yet another new TV.

Originally Posted by JimShaw

If I have to purchase another TV, absolutely not!

Originally Posted by SSLAYERR

New TV needed?
The it's no for me, spent far to much already!

Originally Posted by progers13

Like most posters have already stated, not if it means buying another TV

That wasn't the question... OP did not ask if you were excited enough to dump your TV for a new one.

I'm not getting a new set anytime soon, and I'm still excited about new things like OLED, Triluminous backlit LED, etc.; I can't afford a new computer, and I still get excited about new processors and video engines; ditto for digital cameras/recorders, audio gear, cars, and on and on. This is supposed to be a forum of enthusiasts, what the hell is the deal? ... no need to be a grouchy stick-in-the-mud just because you're not in the position to buy a new TV.

3-D looks like it will be a lot of fun. Pair it up with a D-box chair, and I'd be one seriously happy home-theater geek!

[X400]

nope not interested

[Dsella]

Depends on the price of a TV. I'm 16 and don't have a job so depending on the price, and how much left over I have after Christmas and my bday in Feb I might get one.

[onemorechance]

not really

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by JamesN

...
The upcoming Blu-ray specs for 3D are expected to call for two separate 1080p streams. Presumably, the two streams would need to be fed to a display in frame sequential fashion -- that is one frame from the right stream followed by the corresponding frame from the left stream and so on.

Future 3D displays will support frame sequential feeds, but the current generation of "3D ready" TVs do not. They can only handle their proprietary "checkerboard" input. In order for the current 3D TVs to work with frame sequential input, each pair of full 1080p left/right frames would need to be interlaced into the checkerboard pattern described above before being fed to the display. So half of the pixels in each frame would need to be thrown away. That is what I meant by "downconverting".

I'm not saying that current "3D ready" TVs won't work at all with upcoming Blu-ray 3D content. I'm just saying some pre-processing will be necessary.

Thanks. Probably an external box would be needed to convert standard 3D signal to interface with current 3D sets with a proprietary interface. Since two 1080p streams are needed for 3D to get full advantage of 1080p HD, it is unlikely current TV sets would give you the full benefit of 3D-fullHD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Thanks. Probably an external box would be needed to convert standard 3D signal to interface with current 3D sets with a proprietary interface. Since two 1080p streams are needed for 3D to get full advantage of 1080p HD, it is unlikely current TV sets would give you the full benefit of 3D-fullHD.

two streams are not necessarily needed, it all depends what is used. For example (to keep things simple) two 1080p30 streams and one 1080p60 stream would be identical information wise and easy for "synch" goggles if they are "shuffled" together. I used that example because 1080p60 shows up on page 103 of 1.3a specs http://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMISpecification13a.pdf

the two streams are for decoding purposes on the player, how it comes out of it would depend on the player. My guess, if it can be done (and if it can't then how would it be done externally) it will be done internally (i.e. Samsung will make a 3D player compatible with Samsung 3DTVs)

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

two streams are not necessarily needed, it all depends what is used. For example (to keep things simple) two 1080p30 streams and one 1080p60 stream would be identical information wise and easy for "synch" goggles if they are "shuffled" together. I used that example because 1080p60 shows up on page 103 of 1.3a specs http://www.hdmi.org/download/HDMISpecification13a.pdf

the two streams are for decoding purposes on the player, how it comes out of it would depend on the player. My guess, if it can be done (and if it can't then how would it be done externally) it will be done internally (i.e. Samsung will make a 3D player compatible with Samsung 3DTVs)

Yes, you are right, it can be a single stream but need to carry the same information that 2 streams would carry. The interface between the 3D player and a 3D TV set definitely needs standardisation for universal compatibility. Otherwise, the end consumer will get into trouble with incompatibility issues.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by syncguy

The interface between the 3D player and a 3D TV set definitely needs standardisation for universal compatibility. Otherwise, the end consumer will get into trouble with incompatibility issues.

I don't disagree (with the potential trouble), but in this case standerdization (with a big S) is evil. If someone is OK with Anaglyph, why shouldn't he be able to use any TV with red/blue glasses if he finds it acceptable? An LCD/LCoS projector can easily be built (and dual projectors easily enough set-up) to use polarization. 120hz+TVs can easily be set up for use with shutter glasses. There are too many options and most work well on one type of display but not on an other so forcing one type of standardized output is not a good idea.

My plan (hope) is still that a player with dual HDMI will come out that sends left over one cable and right over the other one so that I can buy a second projector (or two new ones, depending how fast that happens) flip the polarizers in one of them (to have reverse polarization) and use it with polarized glasses with each prjector getting the appropriate feed. My guess most people don't want such a set-up (many are happy with frat screens and dual flat screens won’t work). On the other hand a single 1080p60 can't be done with the set up above (but could work with existing flat-screens).

[enigmascv]

Nope....
Since I'm blind in one eye, I don't get the effect anyway

[immortalchaos]

Those glasses seem to give me Migranes fairly easy. So I could care less. It's ok every once in a while but not all the time. I mean it was cool to see My Bloody Valentine 3D but to me with a 60 inch SXRD it is almost pointless. Not the same effect as in the theatre. And why can't they use the Light and Dark lenses instead of the Red and Blue or Red and Green ones you get with DVD's and Blu Ray?

[vadatgri]

it is not my taste!

[Blu Titan]

3D is a gimmick that works ok for some movies. 3D made a splash at the theaters this year because it was something "new"...Not too excited about 3D.

[Semp1]

I absolutely think 3-D tv's are silly. I for one think it's stupid to watch tv with glasses on, and the mass market will not adopt or accept the idea. To watch a movie with polarized glasses for 2 hours is exciting for the first 10 minutes and eventually gives me a head ache. It is very unappealing to me and instead of thinking of the next gimmick companies can make money on they should be looking to improve existing technologies not confuse people more.