3D industry mistakes

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1) every room is different, every seat is different, so there is no "one answer", right, someone could have 6 HT seats in a row and someone else one couch

2) even if people did spend the $$$$$$$ and bought the right seating for it to work, the reality is that we are talking about inches making the difference, correct, the two images have to be exactly right for each eye, so if my left eye is where my right eye should be (or vice versa) then the 3D effect is ruined. So if you cuddle with the person beside you or are tired and lean a bit on the arm rest or the person next to you "poof" there goes the 3D. Will people really want a vice grip around their head (or be patient enough to have their head at the exact right spot) for it to work

Exactly I so wish the many who whine and complain about glasses would understand this. Wearing glasses may be a pain but having to watch a movie with your head in one place for 2 hours is a far bigger pain. Some newer autostero displays have 3 sweet spots instead of 1 but even this is far far to restrictive for home viewing. In the average family room there are probably hundreds of different head positions and locations someone can have. For 3D to be viable without glasses they would have to invent some kind of television that can track your position in the room and adjust its sweet spots to wherever your sitting. Thats a ways off at least another decade. I have no intention of waiting half my life for quality 3D when active shutters displays quality 3D with glasses that are perfectly comfertable and satisfactory and give a great experiance.

[Jimmy Smith]

According to this link

Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs 3D Blu-Ray will remain exclusive to Panasonic equitment till March of next year

Coraline will remain exclusive to Panasonic till September of this year.

More exclusives

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (at least in the UK) is currently the only title confirmed to avalible for separate purchase this summer.

Im hoping that when Coraline 3D Full HD is avalible on the open market Universal will discontinue the old anaglyph 3D release and have the 3D Full HD version the only one avalible.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

According to this link

Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs 3D Blu-Ray will remain exclusive to Panasonic equitment till March of next year

Coraline will remain exclusive to Panasonic till September of this year.

More exclusives

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (at least in the UK) is currently the only title confirmed to avalible for separate purchase this summer.

Im hoping that when Coraline 3D Full HD is avalible on the open market Universal will discontinue the old anaglyph 3D release and have the 3D Full HD version the only one avalible.

i agree with you time to ditch anaglyph

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by john_1958

i agree with you time to ditch anaglyph

Personally I believe that once 3D Full HD versions of movies are avalible the original 2D only Blu-Rays should be immediately discountinued. It makes no sense to keep the 2D version on the market when 3D discs easily downconvert themselves to a 1080p 2D presenation. Having both versions on the market makes as much sense as releasing separate 1080p and 720p Blu-Ray versions for different display resolutions. This is completly unessesary because Blu-Ray players downconvert 1080p discs to 720p when played on 720p displays. Of course all extras should be also ported over to the new 3D Full HD versions so that consumers can upgrade there titles and lose nothing.

As for anaglph movies not only do 3D Full HD discs deliever a far superior 3D presenation but they also take up less disc space. Old anaglyph Blu-Rays require the movie be encoded twice in 2D and 3D and thus doubling the needed bitrate. 3D Full HD discs encode the 2D version inside the 3D version so that only 50% higher bitrates are nessesary. It might even be possible to downconvert 3D Full HD discs to anaglyph if someone without a 3D displays still wants to see a 3D effect. Given these facts keeping old anaglyph Blu-Rays on the market makes little sense.

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Personally I believe that once 3D Full HD versions of movies are avalible the original 2D only Blu-Rays should be immediately discountinued. It makes no sense to keep the 2D version on the market when 3D discs easily downconvert themselves to a 1080p 2D presenation. Having both versions on the market makes as much sense as releasing separate 1080p and 720p Blu-Ray versions for different display resolutions. This is completly unessesary because Blu-Ray players downconvert 1080p discs to 720p when played on 720p displays. Of course all extras should be also ported over to the new 3D Full HD versions so that consumers can upgrade there titles and lose nothing.

As for anaglph movies not only do 3D Full HD discs deliever a far superior 3D presenation but they also take up less disc space. Old anaglyph Blu-Rays require the movie be encoded twice in 2D and 3D and thus doubling the needed bitrate. 3D Full HD discs encode the 2D version inside the 3D version so that only 50% higher bitrates are nessesary. It might even be possible to downconvert 3D Full HD discs to anaglyph if someone without a 3D displays still wants to see a 3D effect. Given these facts keeping old anaglyph Blu-Rays on the market makes little sense.

I am not so sure this is true, the 3d format is different than the 2d format and an older Blu-ray player probably cannot read the new 3d format.

I would like to see the 3d circular polarizing TVs become more popular so their price would come down. The JVC is over $8k but a little mass production could probably drop it down to something reasonable. The ability to use throw away glasses to watch 3D would really be a plus.

[Anthony P]

Personally I believe that once 3D Full HD versions of movies are avalible the original 2D only Blu-Rays should be immediately discountinued.

I agree, but let's face it, it won't happen. Rule #1 for any company is to make money, and the studios paid for the manufacturing of these disks. They won't make a recall the same way they don't make a recall when a new edition comes out.

In the end there is no issue with the 2D


On a side note, I would hope this even more with the anaglyph, to use your example I can easily picture Joe at BB asking what is the difference between this Coraline in 3D and that other Coraline in 3D

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I agree, but let's face it, it won't happen. Rule #1 for any company is to make money, and the studios paid for the manufacturing of these disks. They won't make a recall the same way they don't make a recall when a new edition comes out.

In the end there is no issue with the 2D

On a side note, I would hope this even more with the anaglyph, to use your example I can easily picture Joe at BB asking what is the difference between this Coraline in 3D and that other Coraline in 3D

Im not saying the 2D edition should be recalled just discontinuted. I would never expect a studio to not try to sell every disc they produced that would be a waste. I just don't think new 2D only discs should be produced upon 3Ds arrival. Thats different then a product recall. After the 2D discs have sold out and 3D discs are all thats left on the market numerous consumers could trojen horse 3D in there homes and have plenty of discs even before they own the equitment. That way when they get around to buying the equitment a few years down the road they will have plenty to play on it.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I am not so sure this is true, the 3d format is different than the 2d format and an older Blu-ray player probably cannot read the new 3d format

NOT TRUE

I can personally testify 3D discs play in any Blu-Ray capable device in 2D just fine without any hitches. So many on this forum have doubted this and I don't know why? 3D Full HD discs are made of two independent eye views. One left eye view is identical to a standard 2D 1080p Blu-Ray and a right eye view for depth. The disc simply feeds the left eye view only to the 2D player which easily downconverts the 3D disc to 2D. Its similar to how DVD players easily downconverted anamorphic DVDs to 4:3 displays without a hitch. This is why 3D Full HD discs don't need separate 2D versions.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Im not saying the 2D edition should be recalled just discontinuted. I would never expect a studio to not try to sell every disc they produced that would be a waste. I just don't think new 2D only discs should be produced upon 3Ds arrival. Thats different then a product recall. After the 2D discs have sold out and 3D discs are all thats left on the market numerous consumers could trojen horse 3D in there homes and have plenty of discs even before they own the equitment. That way when they get around to buying the equitment a few years down the road they will have plenty to play on it.

OK, sorry I misunderstood when you said "immediately discontinued" you meant they should not be sold any more (with a recall from merchants like Disney does with their volt). The issue is even if they stop production (which I 100% agree with you) for every movie many more are replicated then shipped to merchants and sold. So even if they do that then there can still be copies for years. And long after a title is not interesting any more (i.e. cheap bin)

[jsteinhauer]

I am in wonder why it follows that consumers want 3D in the home, just because they "flocked" to theaters to see it. It's a gimmick and a fad. Just last week, I learned that I know two other people, instead of just one, who own a Blu-ray disk player. D-Box owners will be excited to add 3D gear to their theaters.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I would like to see the 3d circular polarizing TVs become more popular so their price would come down. The JVC is over $8k but a little mass production could probably drop it down to something reasonable. The ability to use throw away glasses to watch 3D would really be a plus.

Problem is I don't see polarized displays being fiancially viable compared to active shutter for a while. Certainly being able to use cheap $1 glasses would be plus compared to the $150 active shutter glasses sell for. Even if a polarized display could make a 50 inch display sell for $4,000 (half what they sell for today) and active shutter glasses and displays stayed the same price active shutter would still be by far the cheapest. Panasonics 50 inch active shutter display sells for $2,500 and come with one pair. Even a family of 8 wanted to watch a movie together they would spend $1050. Unless you have the desire for over 13 people to watch the movie at once active shutter will be far cheaper even if polarized displays were to half in price while active shutter glasses and displays staying the same. Since I suspect active shutter glasses to drop alot in the next couple years it will be a long time before its fiancially advantagous to go with polarization over active shutter.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

OK, sorry I misunderstood when you said "immediately discontinued" you meant they should not be sold any more (with a recall from merchants like Disney does with their volt). The issue is even if they stop production (which I 100% agree with you) for every movie many more are replicated then shipped to merchants and sold. So even if they do that then there can still be copies for years. And long after a title is not interesting any more (i.e. cheap bin)

True but if 3D titles are being produced and sent to stores and 2D only versions are not it only stands to reason that after time the 3D version will be more prevent in stores and thus more likely to be purchased even by the uninformed consumer.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

I am in wonder why it follows that consumers want 3D in the home, just because they "flocked" to theaters to see it. It's a gimmick and a fad.

because if people thought "it is a gimmick and a fad and I don't want to see it", then they would not go to see it in the theatres either. Now some are "I want 3D but I am willing to wait for home because I don't have the $" and that makes sense. But why would you want to see Avatar several times in the theatre in 3D (like some have) want to buy it to be able to watch it at home (because they like the movie) and then not want to see it in 3D at home (because fad/gimmick= perfect for theatre watching but not for home). How does that even make sense.
It is as nuts as saying "I love that restaurants Pizza and even they deliver I will only have it at the restaurant, when I go take out I want that pizza from that crappy restaurant"

[blacklion]

I take my kids to Six Flags/Disneyland every few weeks/months to ride roller-coasters, therefore it follows that I must want to install a roller-coaster in my back yard.....

How does that even make sense?

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I am not so sure this is true, the 3d format is different than the 2d format and an older Blu-ray player probably cannot read the new 3d format.

I would like to see the 3d circular polarizing TVs become more popular so their price would come down. The JVC is over $8k but a little mass production could probably drop it down to something reasonable. The ability to use throw away glasses to watch 3D would really be a plus.

throw away glasses ? lol

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

NOT TRUE

I can personally testify 3D discs play in any Blu-Ray capable device in 2D just fine without any hitches. So many on this forum have doubted this and I don't know why? 3D Full HD discs are made of two independent eye views. One left eye view is identical to a standard 2D 1080p Blu-Ray and a right eye view for depth. The disc simply feeds the left eye view only to the 2D player which easily downconverts the 3D disc to 2D. Its similar to how DVD players easily downconverted anamorphic DVDs to 4:3 displays without a hitch. This is why 3D Full HD discs don't need separate 2D versions.

After doing some digging it appears you're basically correct, the codec, AVC-MVC, used for 3d is the same as 2d so existing players are able to read what they need to pick up the 2d image. I wasn't well convinced by your statement however.

Originally Posted by john_1958

throw away glasses ? lol

What do you think most people do with the glasses from the theater? You take them home, decide they have little to no value and they get trashed. However they work fine with the JVC 3dtv. Hopefully the LG polarized TV will be the same and bring the price down.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by blacklion

I take my kids to Six Flags/Disneyland every few weeks/months to ride roller-coasters, therefore it follows that I must want to install a roller-coaster in my back yard.....

How does that even make sense?

It does not, nothing you say on the subject seams to make any sense. I am not that big of roller coaster fan, but it sounds like fun. Can you tell me where I can buy a roller coaster that can be installed in my yard for under 10k$ that will recreate the Six Flags/Disneyland experience then we can see what demand there is? On a different note, google home roller coaster and you will see some fans with extremely large yards (OK, they are farm land and not a yard in the suburbs) that did actually build home coasters (on the other hand they are no where near the same as the professionals).


So why don’t you try and find an actual real example that proves the contrary instead of going with something delusional.

this is what you need
1) actual activity that is liked by people (if people don't like it from the get go then it is not like 3D where many paid to see it in theatres)
2) activity can easily be simulated "at home" because of mass produced item
(so nothing like roller coasters where people don't have the space for it, 3D at home does not need anything special in the home, it is just replacing some old equipment)
3) the reason for public vs home is that people don’t want it at home because it needs to be public and not that they can’t afford it.
(don't go like "people like traveling but they fly commercial instead of having their own private jets", I am sure everyone that likes traveling would love their own jet if they could afford it. Or having a maid to make the bed like in a hotel.... but most can't afford it, and those that do tend to have them.) the point made was that people want it in theatres but not at home, and not that they can’t afford it or might have just upgraded and so is not ready to pay for a home 3D upgrade.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

NOT TRUE

I can personally testify 3D discs play in any Blu-Ray capable device in 2D just fine without any hitches. So many on this forum have doubted this and I don't know why? 3D Full HD discs are made of two independent eye views. One left eye view is identical to a standard 2D 1080p Blu-Ray and a right eye view for depth. The disc simply feeds the left eye view only to the 2D player which easily downconverts the 3D disc to 2D. Its similar to how DVD players easily downconverted anamorphic DVDs to 4:3 displays without a hitch. This is why 3D Full HD discs don't need separate 2D versions.

Except that it isn't identical. It will give the left eye view of the stereoscopic encode for a 2D view, but that isn't necessarily what was on the 2D Blu-ray, or the 2D version that was played in cinemas.

[Jimmy Smith]

Unfortunitly after reading the review of Monsters vs Aliens 3D it seems like it make 3 huge mistakes

1. Compatibility issues - Reviewer claims it failed to play on the Playstation 3. Other testers I read claimed it played fine in 2D devices. Universal compatiblity with all 2D Blu-Ray devices is a nessessity for 3Ds success. Compatibility issues this disc has needs to be sorted out before it hits major retail.

2. Lack of lossless audio - Seriously. For a 90 minute movie with few extras they couldn't port over the 2D versions TrueHD track. Seriously

3. Lack of extras - 3D versions need to be true upgrades of the 2D releases thus they can't leave anything missing

Simply put unless the studio doesn't fix these issues before this release gets a wide release 3D is in trouble.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

After doing some digging it appears you're basically correct, the codec, AVC-MVC, used for 3d is the same as 2d so existing players are able to read what they need to pick up the 2d image. I wasn't well convinced by your statement however.



What do you think most people do with the glasses from the theater? You take them home, decide they have little to no value and they get trashed. However they work fine with the JVC 3dtv. Hopefully the LG polarized TV will be the same and bring the price down.

why not i kept mine from the theatres