3-D and HD - Just out of curiosity...... - Blu-ray Forum

almy · 12-19-2009, 11:30 PM

Evidently, the next big thing in BluRay is going to be 3-d without the red and blue/green glasses. Just wondering: If (God forbid) Toshiba and their HD system had won the format war, would they have been able to do 3-D??

EricJ · 12-19-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almy

Evidently, the next big thing in BluRay is going to be 3-d without the red and blue/green glasses. Just wondering: If (God forbid) Toshiba and their HD system had won the format war, would they have been able to do 3-D??

Yes. Only it still would've been red/blue.

(Or green/purple, whatever they're using now.)

JJ · 12-19-2009, 11:53 PM

Interesting question - one wonders if they would've had the disc space to pull it off. I might have to preemptively say no.

RiseDarthVader · 12-20-2009, 03:18 AM

They probably would of been able to do it because they would either:
1. Compress the movie a lot more and have less lossy audio tracks
2. HD DVD was working on a I beleive 60GB HD DVD. So had HD DVD continued they would of probably put a 3D movie on one of those 60Gb HD DVD's.

phatrat1982 · 12-20-2009, 05:46 AM

Sure they could have done it, there have been movies in 3-D on DVD, VHS even laserDisc, none of those have the space capacity of HD-DVD.

42041 · 12-20-2009, 06:19 AM

Who cares? HDDVD is dead...

KubrickFan · 12-20-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

Sure they could have done it, there have been movies in 3-D on DVD, VHS even laserDisc, none of those have the space capacity of HD-DVD.

Yeah, the anaglyph version. The 3D system that's used in cinemas today would never work on those formats.

phatrat1982 · 01-26-2010, 01:22 AM

I guess I did not know there was a difference.

Anthony P · 01-26-2010, 02:57 AM

who knows, but it would have definitely been a hell of a lot harder for them.

Quote:

Interesting question - one wonders if they would've had the disc space to pull it off. I might have to preemptively say no.

actually I see BW as the big issue. For one capacity can always be circumvented (and I don't mean stupid stuff like 4 layer disks that never make it to market). But BD was speced from the beginning at 1.5x which is why it had 40mbps for video and 48mbps for AV, HD DVD was speced at just over 30 for AV and just under 30 for video. Now BD pumped up the rates a bit, but at ~30 for AV that was already hard to have 1/2 decent pic for video and lossless (which is why most HD DVD did not) add now needing ran average of 1.5 the BW for video (assuming it used the same concept as BD) and that 30mbps looks tremendously small. Now if they could have done it at 1.5x then it would have been speced at that from the get go (the deeper the data layer the more power the diode needs , same way as the deeper you dive in water the darker it gets)

HDMe · 01-26-2010, 03:46 AM

The format war ended... but to answer the question.

HD-DVD dual layer was 30GB, while Blu dual layer is 50GB.

Depending upon the length of the movie, and if extras were omitted... it's quite possible. The approved Blu-ray spec for 3D is said to only require 50% more space for the 3D movie... so a 20GB movie would need 30GB for 3D.

Something like Kingdom of Heaven or Lord of the Rings Extended wouldn't fit on a single HD-DVD... but lots of other movies would.

12-19-2009, 11:30 PM	#1
almy Active Member Member since:Aug 2007	3-D and HD - Just out of curiosity...... Evidently, the next big thing in BluRay is going to be 3-d without the red and blue/green glasses. Just wondering: If (God forbid) Toshiba and their HD system had won the format war, would they have been able to do 3-D??

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Out of curiosity...	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	homer860	4	12-29-2009 03:56 AM
Out of curiosity...	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	homer860	1	12-29-2009 03:28 AM

12-19-2009, 11:53 PM	#3
JJ Blu-ray Count Top ranked HT gallery Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Miami, FL Home Theater Gallery:99 4K collection:619 Blu-ray collection:1293 DVD collection:31 Digital collection:5 Blu-ray reviews: 18 Trading Score:203	Interesting question - one wonders if they would've had the disc space to pull it off. I might have to preemptively say no.

12-20-2009, 03:18 AM	#4
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	They probably would of been able to do it because they would either: 1. Compress the movie a lot more and have less lossy audio tracks 2. HD DVD was working on a I beleive 60GB HD DVD. So had HD DVD continued they would of probably put a 3D movie on one of those 60Gb HD DVD's.

12-20-2009, 05:46 AM	#5
phatrat1982 Banned Member since:Jul 2009 Location:I move around too much to keep this accurate Blu-ray reviews:1	Sure they could have done it, there have been movies in 3-D on DVD, VHS even laserDisc, none of those have the space capacity of HD-DVD.

12-20-2009, 06:19 AM	#6
42041 Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Oct 2008	Who cares? HDDVD is dead...

01-26-2010, 01:22 AM	#8
phatrat1982 Banned Member since:Jul 2009 Location:I move around too much to keep this accurate Blu-ray reviews:1	I guess I did not know there was a difference.

01-26-2010, 03:46 AM	#10
HDMe Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jan 2010 Location:North Augusta, SC	The format war ended... but to answer the question. HD-DVD dual layer was 30GB, while Blu dual layer is 50GB. Depending upon the length of the movie, and if extras were omitted... it's quite possible. The approved Blu-ray spec for 3D is said to only require 50% more space for the 3D movie... so a 20GB movie would need 30GB for 3D. Something like Kingdom of Heaven or Lord of the Rings Extended wouldn't fit on a single HD-DVD... but lots of other movies would.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals