What is all the hype about with 3-D?

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by garlad

Why are blu-rays sold with 3D versions if no one has a 3D tv? I take it then we still see 3D when we wear the glasses on a non 3D tv? So why the need to introduce 3D tvs if our current tvs work anyway?

As I explained before. All current 3D blu-rays use anaglyph (red and blue) technology. This works by combining two images into a single video signal and uses two color glasses to filter out the signal to each eye and produce a 3D effect. This is the only kind of 3D that works on all televisions cause it manages to put both color feilds into a single video signal. Anaglaph looks lousy though. It smuthers the image in red and blue and produces a nasty distracting ghosting effect around objects. This is the same kind of 3D that audiences rejected in the 1950s. The new 3D standard uses a full color polarization that produces a far superior 3D picture then anaglyph can ever do. No color problems or ghosting just pure natural digital 3D like the kind we get in theatres. Unfortunitly this new and 3D will requre a new television and player cause current equitment can't handle the dual 1080p video signals it requires.

Your confusion is precisly why Anaglaph Blu-Rays should never have entered the market. They do nothing but create confusion and stunt the growth of proper 3D when it arrives. For the new 3D standard to suceed there needs to be more education and people need to understand not all 3D is the same.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by garlad

Why are blu-rays sold with 3D versions if no one has a 3D tv? I take it then we still see 3D when we wear the glasses on a non 3D tv? So why the need to introduce 3D tvs if our current tvs work anyway?

3D is all about seeing different pictures in each eye (close left eye, look in front, then open it and close the right one, see what I mean) Earlier the way to do that was to use colour filters and colour shifted images. then those two (usually one blue and one red) would be superimposed. This worked for a normal single film and normal DVD and BD. Every BD so far uses that method and since there is one simple image any TV can be used (unless you manage to find a B&W TV). Today, there exist better tech (at least for theatres) and what the BDA wants to do is bring it home. So you can enjoy 3D the way it should be seen.

[garlad]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

As I explained before. All current 3D blu-rays use anaglyph (red and blue) technology. This works by combining two images into a single video signal and uses two color glasses to filter out the signal to each eye and produce a 3D effect. This is the only kind of 3D that works on all televisions cause it manages to put both color feilds into a single video signal. Anaglaph looks lousy though. It smuthers the image in red and blue and produces a nasty distracting ghosting effect around objects. This is the same kind of 3D that audiences rejected in the 1950s. The new 3D standard uses a full color polarization that produces a far superior 3D picture then anaglyph can ever do. No color problems or ghosting just pure natural digital 3D like the kind we get in theatres. Unfortunitly this new and 3D will requre a new television and player cause current equitment can't handle the dual 1080p video signals it requires.

Your confusion is precisly why Anaglaph Blu-Rays should never have entered the market. They do nothing but create confusion and stunt the growth of proper 3D when it arrives. For the new 3D standard to suceed there needs to be more education and people need to understand not all 3D is the same.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

3D is all about seeing different pictures in each eye (close left eye, look in front, then open it and close the right one, see what I mean) Earlier the way to do that was to use colour filters and colour shifted images. then those two (usually one blue and one red) would be superimposed. This worked for a normal single film and normal DVD and BD. Every BD so far uses that method and since there is one simple image any TV can be used (unless you manage to find a B&W TV). Today, there exist better tech (at least for theatres) and what the BDA wants to do is bring it home. So you can enjoy 3D the way it should be seen.

Thanks for explaining that so well guys..

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

As I explained before. All current 3D blu-rays use anaglyph (red and blue) technology. This works by combining two images into a single video signal and uses two color glasses to filter out the signal to each eye and produce a 3D effect. This is the only kind of 3D that works on all televisions cause it manages to put both color feilds into a single video signal. Anaglaph looks lousy though. It smuthers the image in red and blue and produces a nasty distracting ghosting effect around objects. This is the same kind of 3D that audiences rejected in the 1950s. The new 3D standard uses a full color polarization that produces a far superior 3D picture then anaglyph can ever do. No color problems or ghosting just pure natural digital 3D like the kind we get in theatres. Unfortunitly this new and 3D will requre a new television and player cause current equitment can't handle the dual 1080p video signals it requires.

Your confusion is precisly why Anaglaph Blu-Rays should never have entered the market. They do nothing but create confusion and stunt the growth of proper 3D when it arrives. For the new 3D standard to suceed there needs to be more education and people need to understand not all 3D is the same.

since anaglyph doesn't meet standards of 3d then why have it?

[langn08]

I was able to visit a high end electronics store by me and experience this technology first had last weekend. There was a demo going that ran through some animated films (coraline) and some actual skydiving footage. It was presented on a massive Mitsubishi and I was amazed. The glasses were crazy. The salesman advised that the tech is a far way from being mainstream as you basically would need a whole new setup to start viewing (when they will be on blu)

[langn08]

If anyone lives around Appleton WI check it out at Suess Electronics

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by john_1958

since anaglyph doesn't meet standards of 3d then why have it?

because even at this point in time it is the only way to have 3D in the home. is HD (BD) the same as SD (DVD)? no, HD is much better but before HD was possible SD was the only choice, the tech had not matured enough to offer HD. Same here, there was a need for 3D in the home, there was no other choice so it was anaglyph. But anaglyph destroys the colour because the image needs to be colour shifted while these new methods should not do that.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

As I explained before. All current 3D blu-rays use anaglyph (red and blue) technology. This works by combining two images into a single video signal and uses two color glasses to filter out the signal to each eye and produce a 3D effect. This is the only kind of 3D that works on all televisions cause it manages to put both color feilds into a single video signal. Anaglaph looks lousy though. It smuthers the image in red and blue and produces a nasty distracting ghosting effect around objects. This is the same kind of 3D that audiences rejected in the 1950s. The new 3D standard uses a full color polarization that produces a far superior 3D picture then anaglyph can ever do. No color problems or ghosting just pure natural digital 3D like the kind we get in theatres. Unfortunitly this new and 3D will requre a new television and player cause current equitment can't handle the dual 1080p video signals it requires.

Your confusion is precisly why Anaglaph Blu-Rays should never have entered the market. They do nothing but create confusion and stunt the growth of proper 3D when it arrives. For the new 3D standard to suceed there needs to be more education and people need to understand not all 3D is the same.

They need to call it True 3D or True3D.

[Reboscale]

If we beam the transmission directly into the brain...

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by john_1958

since anaglyph doesn't meet standards of 3d then why have it?

If disc space allows for it and the movie was available in 3D in theaters, it's a nice extra in the meantime. Crappy 3D as an option in the form of an extra isn't a bad idea.

But once BDA finalizes the stereoscopic spec, anaglyph stereoscopic pictures shouldn't be released anymore. A player or TV should be able to take a true stereoscopic 3D system of images and combine them into an anaglyph if that's what the enduser wants to see. I know I won't be upgrading my screen and all that any time soon, so once they get 3D working, the most I'll be able to do is anaglyph, but that's fine with me. I'll be able to have a nice collection of truly stereoscopic films for when I finally upgrade my system.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Everyone that is still unsure of 3D needs to go see Avatar. And I don't get all these people *****ing and moaning about how they don't want to wear some glasses for 2 hours. I can't even begin to imagine what they would be like if they had to wear glasses for medical reasons.

well i have precription glasses
and if sony comes out with their 3dtv sets http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/article/90824

if glasses are to be worn let it be real-d

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Reboscale

If we beam the transmission directly into the brain...

Tylenol please if they can beam images into the brain

[johnk73]

I love using my shutter glasses for DirectX games. Please tell me that I will be able to watch 3D Blu-Ray movies with them. When I go to see a 3D movie in the theater I often wish I could see a certain scene again, but the whole experience is just a little too pricey to buy another ticket.

I've been reading that Blu-Ray is going to require a specially manufactured TV, which is almost guaranteed to kill it. Um, couldn't they sell an external box for the video to pass through on the way to the LCD TV, that gates the alternate frames on the glasses?

Anyway, I think they should start with a PC DirectX driver, which already has a hardware base of 3D gamers, like me. I don't care so much about lower resolution on the PC, if I can get the 3D effect.

Even if whatever television 3D hardware they come up with doesn't survive, the PC could be a rental pipeline that would keep the full-color 3D format from dying too.

[Jay Gowens]

Originally Posted by fredreed

Why are they even considering coming out with movies in 3-D, I mean what is this about them maybe working on 3D televisions, come on people why would I want waste more money that I don't even have to spend on useless nonsense like a 3D television when I already have a perfectly good television for watching movies.

Truth is, it is very easy for Television Manufacturers to suggest to the consumer what they want or should have when the people can't answer these questions for themselves. I mean lets look at it; 3D was tried in movie theaters in the 80's and it failed. Now, the new approach is shove it down consumers throats and maybe it will catch on. If the real authorities in The Television/Projection Industry chimed in on this issue People would certainly discover attempting 3D on small screen tv's (along with the necessary 3D glasses) tend to do more harm to your vision than good. The 3D effect was not meant for small screen viewing, but I suppose to some, having 3D in any form is better than not having it at all.