Blu-ray 3-D players on the way

[wallendo]

From what I understand, the BDA will require that each 3-D BD will also need to have a 2-D version on the disc readable on current players. If this is the case, a lot of video compression would be required and few people would be happy with the results. Hopefull putting seperate 2-D and 3-D disks in the same box would meet that standard.

[Oddiophile]

Originally Posted by wallendo

From what I understand, the BDA will require that each 3-D BD will also need to have a 2-D version on the disc readable on current players. If this is the case, a lot of video compression would be required and few people would be happy with the results. Hopefull putting seperate 2-D and 3-D disks in the same box would meet that standard.

Or if the BDA would get off there butts and get the 100GB disks out of the lab and into production would could have both the 2D & 3D versions on one disk.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Oddiophile

Or if the BDA would get off there butts and get the 100GB disks out of the lab and into production would could have both the 2D & 3D versions on one disk.

This will be an expensive proposition during the initial phase in comparison to 2 disks.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Oddiophile

Or if the BDA would get off there butts and get the 100GB disks out of the lab and into production would could have both the 2D & 3D versions on one disk.

Not only would that be absurdly costly, but it's not necessary. Smart encoding structure would allow the second video stream to have high quality at low bitrates by "piggy-backing" the first stream.

Basically, the way stereoscopic 3D works is by showing one discrete picture to each eye separately, but the disparity between them is actually marginal. After all, your brain has to be able to take these two pictures and make one cohesive picture in your mind. The disparity between the two discrete frames would only become particularly great as an object comes very very close to the camera. This is common in gimmick 3D pictures, but don't expect to be seeing too much of it in serious works that use 3D passively, who see 3D as the next step for film, like sound or color has been in the past.

That said, the two separate pictures truly are showing exactly the same "thing". A "few" pixels would just be a "little" different, and these differences are all that would REALLY require notable bitrate applied to it.

I'm fairly confident that a 3 hour movie could be encoded in full stereoscopic 3D on a 50 GB BD and still look completely amazing. And really, I'm all for stereoscopic 3D encoded on disc, but I'm not willing to pay 50 bucks a pop or whatever they would charge to try to justify the manufacturing costs that some people feel is required.

[Jac0b]

Im kinda not ready for 3D, maybe next format

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wallendo

From what I understand, the BDA will require that each 3-D BD will also need to have a 2-D version on the disc readable on current players. If this is the case, a lot of video compression would be required and few people would be happy with the results. Hopefull putting seperate 2-D and 3-D disks in the same box would meet that standard.

there won't be needed two versions. 3D= watching two views (left and right), 2D= watching one view. You don't need a second version, you just use part of the 3D (either the left or the right, the difference will be unnoticeable)

[patrick99]

It's been reported that a dual stream 3D version will require 50% more disc space than a 2D version at the same bitrate.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Hale-Bopp

I thought they were talking about just updating the firmware to current blu-ray players to handle the new standard for 3-D at home. Is this not happening now?

Who is going to buy a new player when the old one will do just fine? Marketing wouldn't ever allow it. Don't expect such a firmware release until the 3-D players are well on their way - if ever. I'm certain not all old players could handle it.

When VHS did 3-D, you wore the glasses, plain and simple. When DVD or blu-ray does 3-D, you get the regular and 3-D version. In order to fit "two versions" on the disc you have to cut the quality so it all fits. Even with great compression algorithms the picture still suffers.

3-D is great hype, but nothing great is coming of it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by tron3

When VHS did 3-D, you wore the glasses, plain and simple. When DVD or blu-ray does 3-D, you get the regular and 3-D version. In order to fit "two versions" on the disc you have to cut the quality so it all fits. Even with great compression algorithms the picture still suffers.

This is wrong, because with the growing standards Blu-ray allows for, they can encode the secondary video stream alongside the first one. It wouldn't require anywhere near the data space for the secondary stream and it would look great at very low bitrates.

Even if it is as high as 50% as claimed above, that still leaves 33.3 GB for the primary video stream, and that's enough to encode a movie of normal length. They wouldn't be able to bleed the bitrate needlessly like they often do now, but it's possible to have it compressed that much and still look amazing.

Only "problem" I see is that it would leave little space for extras. An additional disc would probably be mandatory.

[Leopold BUTTERS]

How do 3-D movies that come out on blu-ray now differ from these new ones? Also, Someone said if you have a 240Hz tv your set for 3D, what about plamas?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by patrick99

It's been reported that a dual stream 3D version will require 50% more disc space than a 2D version at the same bitrate.

I don't know if it will be 50 more or less, but obviously real 3D needs more then 2D. The issue is not that, the point you don't need an additional 2D (i.e. if we assume 2D= X and 3D = 1.5X 3D & 2D= 1.5X not 2.5X (a 2D @ 1X and 3D @ 1.5X since the 3D already holds a 2D image in it)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Leopold BUTTERS

How do 3-D movies that come out on blu-ray now differ from these new ones? Also, Someone said if you have a 240Hz tv your set for 3D, what about plamas?

3D now uses the old anaglyph method, there is one video stream but the single image has both a (traditionally) red and green image on it, in essence it is just like a normal BD but the image is messed up, like
you watch such an image with glasses with colour filters, what is white will be seen by both eyes, what is black by none, but what is red will only pass through the red filter and what is blue through the blue one.

With real 3D (or what ever it is called) the BD will have two images (the equivalent of what you see through the blue and what you see through the red filter) that are colour accurate, once you have the two images on the disk, the rest gets trickier because now it needs to get to the display and there could be different solutions at how the two images are brought to you.

displays will be an issue and most are definitely incapable of anything other then anaglyph (so to see real 3D you would need a new TV) but maybe different players will come to market, so if, for example, you want to keep your display which is not real 3D compatible the player will take both images , red shift one and blue shift the other and then compose a combined image to show an anaglyph image (i.e. like the old BDs). The good thing about this is that when you update your display and equipment then you could watch the same BD but now in real 3D instead of anaglyph.

[Jimmy Smith]

I don't see why 3D would compromise quality. 3D version takes up 50% more data then 2D does. Watchmen on Blu-Ray was 186 minutes in length and minus extras only used 33 gigs. King Kong 200 minutes in length used 36. Blu-Rays have storage capacity of 50 gigs. Meaning a 3 hour 3D movie should fit comfertably on a BD-50 and by reading only the left eye stream it should be easy to downconvert to 2D without needing to reencode the movie. Only possible concern is less room for extras but then again many releases have been made 2 disc sets despite the fact that more then one disc isn't nessessary anyway.

[Oddiophile]

VIDEO: IFA 2009 - Panasonic Full HD 3D Tech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bmOz...e=channel_page

Phil looks at Panasonic's full HD 3D Technology which was being promoted alongside a preview of AVATAR



VIDEO: IFA 2009: Sony 3D Tech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ-7z...e=channel_page

We take a look at Sony's approach to 3D TV.




VIDEO: IFA 2009: LG "Live Borderless" and 3D TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L2IU...e=channel_page

George Mead explains the new "Live Bordless" slogan for LG and their approach for 3D TV.



VIDEO: 2009: JVC 3D Technology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbm0V...e=channel_page

Steve Carter gives us a tour of the 3D technology stand at IFA, including unique 3D projection with two HD950 models.

[Anthony P]

nice links, also show what I said earlier (why standardization of output would be bad) the Sony TV uses shutter glasses and "needs" different frames (i.e. LRLRLR for the frames) the JVC TV uses alternately polarized lines so needs them laced together (i.e. LRLRLR for the lines, almost like interlaced) and the dual projector set-up needs two HDMI and separated streams.

[Hale-Bopp]

I hope circular polarization catches on more for home use. That's the best stereoscopic 3-D tech I've experienced yet, plus the glasses are cheap and don't require batteries. Also, shutter glasses have that annoying flicker, unless that particular tech has gotten better since the last time I tried it.

[4styler]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I'm all for stereoscopic 3D encoded on disc, but I'm not willing to pay 50 bucks a pop or whatever they would charge to try to justify the manufacturing costs that some people feel is required.

Us aussies have got it tough! bout 75% of Blus here cost $40+, hate to think how much a 3d 100gb blu is gonna cost, let alone the player + tv/projector

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 4styler

Us aussies have got it tough! bout 75% of Blus here cost $40+, hate to think how much a 3d 100gb blu is gonna cost, let alone the player + tv/projector

I doubt we will ever see 100GB BDs for produced media, but price of movies is not dependent on replication costs but how much the studio thinks they can charge for the movie.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Hale-Bopp

I hope circular polarization catches on more for home use. That's the best stereoscopic 3-D tech I've experienced yet, plus the glasses are cheap and don't require batteries. Also, shutter glasses have that annoying flicker, unless that particular tech has gotten better since the last time I tried it.

Not sure whether 3D front panel technology could use polarization. That is possibly a reason for shutter glasses.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by 4styler

Us aussies have got it tough! bout 75% of Blus here cost $40+, hate to think how much a 3d 100gb blu is gonna cost, let alone the player + tv/projector

Still can be imported from amazon or amazon UK. It is increasingly becoming difficult to ignore globalization.