Blu-ray 3D Specifications Finalized

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to the folks at Engadget, the Blu-ray 3D specifications has been finalized and it will be backwards compatible. Thanks to Vargas for the link.

The key details? First, that the Blu-ray Disc Association has chosen the Multiview Video Coding (MVC) codec to store 3D, so that even though it is now providing a full 1080p frame for each eye, it will only require about 50% more storage space compared to the 2D version, and all discs will be fully backwards compatible, in 2D, on existing players.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if HD-DVD could have done 3D?

All this new fangled 3D stuff sure makes me want to upgrade my TV, but for now it's not worth if it the only thing I can play is that stupid nVidia powered glasses kit or Avatar.
 
It's a good thing they went back and got 3D, because they already had 4D nailed down,

Because one can sit down in front of a Blu-ray player and loose 2-5 hours of their life.... :D
 
I guess its time to try again.

Don't know if the public is ready for it, from the boos they got at the Cowboys game using the old red blue glasses, it might be a tough sell.
 
I was really glad to see " PlayStation 3 will be forwards compatible". Just another reason why the PS3 is the best Bluray player around. Well maybe not, but its up there.
 
Diablo2K said:
I was really glad to see " PlayStation 3 will be forwards compatible". Just another reason why the PS3 is the best Bluray player around. Well maybe not, but its up there.
Click to expand...

It may not be the best player, but it really is a good one. It is also virtually guaranteed to be kept compatible with any updates or feature upgrades to the BR spec when possible. It is a bit more flexible than a standard BR player software wise, and has processing power to spare for most any thing I can think of that they might try to add over the next few years. That, and Sony has a strong financial stake in keeping the PS3 platform viable for as long as possible.

Not really sure how well this is going to take off. Stereo 3d was considered a gimmick in the 70's, then again in the 80's, and then yet again in the 90's, and still is to most people. To be honest, I think it will always be considered a gimmick until special glasses are not needed. Which pretty much means, it will not take off outside of a tiny niche until monitors/TV technology changes. I don't see 3d TVs becoming the norm any time soon. The tech for that already exists, but who knows whether or not it will be feasible or when.
 
So is this going to be kind of like NVision? I wonder how the uptake will be? Given recent films, especially Avatar, it makes sense to have a 3D spec for commercial distribution. But I guess it will all depend on the cost of the gear required for this.
 
Hmmm... Need to check into this and find out when PC drives and software will be available for this.
 
im not wearing anything to watch tv. the tv will have to make 3d holograms before ill buy into that crap
 
Plus, the mind's capabilities aren't so limited that it needs this boost to make things 3 dimensional. I've tried out the 3d technology a few times now, and never felt it added anything over 2d.
 
Nice to hear this will be backwards compatible, even though I'm not excited about this tech, feels more like a gimmick. And I would not jump on anykind of 3D until there are enough of content, and secondly I would not wear glasses or shutters.
 
I've worn glasses for like 16-years of my life since the middle of high school when I went to an optomitrist and realized my eye sight was bad. Honestly, you get used to glasses. Really, all the complaints about shutters I think are rather silly since after a few minutes of wearing them, you'll forget your wearing them and just notice the 'better vision'.

I'm curious if those who complain about shutter glasses, complain about having to wear headphones or earbuds with their mp3 players? Do they complain that their mp3 players don't come with built-in speakers they can use to blare loud enough to drain out the sound of everyone else mp3 players/voices/talking/the noise of their furance/the noise of their family watching tv? Do they complain about this all because wearing headphones are earbuds are soooo uncomfortable and such a nusiance? I mean, you never get used to wearing them after say 20-30 minutes and almost forget they are there? *rolls eyes*

I see people wearing headphones at the gym, while jogging, etc. Its really odd, that people can stand putting things in their ears or over their years and have gotten quite used to it. I mean, they used to listen to radios, boom boxes, stereos, etc before the walk-man was invented. Did people complain back then that they'll NEVER USE HEADPHONES. NEVVERRR like they do about shutter glasses now adays?
 
I've always felt its a limitation of the human mind too... Whether its learned or an inherent limitation is the only question to me.

Its like "pat your head rub your tummy" and then switch. True 3D "should" be natural to us, but not after we have been trained to look at a static 2D flatscreen for the last decade or so.

If these limitations are learned, for the upcoming generations its great. If its an inherent limitation of the human mind, then were screwed...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...g_circles.svg/350px-Revolving_circles.svg.png < Move your head back and forth while staring at the center. Unfortunately thats an inherent limitation of the human mind.
 
Well i'm glad my PS3 is going to be updated to the new standard. I'd be pissed if I had to buy a new one!
 
There are issues with LCD glasses technology that are still unresolved.

Glasses are not completely transparent, so there is a drop in brightness and contrast.
They are not completely opaque either, so there is a ghosting.
There is a slight color shift
Since lcds go on and off, there is some flickering.

Note that most of this issues have been reduced over time, but not eliminated. Until they are, I don't think Stereo 3d will succeed.
 
catsby said:
I really hate 3D. It makes my eyes hurt.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you saw 'cutting edge' 3D, 1995?

You should try the new 3D. With 120hz input, allowing 60fps per eye, the headache is gone. If you've only seen 3D in theaters, or with the decade old video cards, you haven't seen the new 3D.

Give it a chance. I'm sure it will be at your local Best Buy soon enough.
 
I enjoyed the movie Up in 3D. There are a few movies out there that would be great in 3D.

After Up's success, there's been a ton of movies being pushed out in 3D and I thought it was getting annoying. It causes studios to design movies for effects over storyline.

3D is wonderful, but don't overdo it!
 
avatar 3-D is like Up in 3-D, you are looking beyond the wall as opposed to gimimicks popping back into ur face (like G-Force).
 
Bgrngod said:
I wonder if HD-DVD could have done 3D?

All this new fangled 3D stuff sure makes me want to upgrade my TV, but for now it's not worth if it the only thing I can play is that stupid nVidia powered glasses kit or Avatar.
Click to expand...

To answer your question...

, it will only require about 50% more storage space compared to the 2D version, and all discs will be fully backwards compatible, in 2D, on existing players.
Click to expand...

So unless 3D BD is going to put additional layers on the disc, yes TL-51 HD DVD could have done 3D, but would also require new players, except for the Xbox 360 which like the PS3 would have only needed an update. :p

I'll pass on the 3D in the theaters and at home. Still more gimmick than anything else.
 
MisterSparkle said:
Plus, the mind's capabilities aren't so limited that it needs this boost to make things 3 dimensional. I've tried out the 3d technology a few times now, and never felt it added anything over 2d.
Click to expand...

exactly. i dont know about anyone else, but if you get a REALLY good quality 1080p tv youll notice it actually does look 3d naturally....
 
Azhar said:
I enjoyed the movie Up in 3D. There are a few movies out there that would be great in 3D.

After Up's success, there's been a ton of movies being pushed out in 3D and I thought it was getting annoying. It causes studios to design movies for effects over storyline.

3D is wonderful, but don't overdo it!
Click to expand...

This. What Up did right(and based on the preview, what I suspect Pixar will continue to do right) is the nature of the depth illusion. Almost every time I've seen a 3D movie it's been about silly "pop-out" scenes. You know the type; The baseball star his the ball and it flies out towards you, a character opens up his tape measure into the audience, etc.

Pixar does it right; When you watch Up, or presumably Toy Story 3, in 3D, there are basically no popouts. What you get with Pixar is a stage. The screen falls away to reveal an actual living, moving cast of animated characters that must have been hiding behind the curtains the whole time. There are no tape measures, ladders, or broomsticks popping out into your face. One scene in particular silhouetted the man against a bright red-orange background and I could have sworn what I was seeing was actually there, a set of silhouetted wooden cutouts set in motion perhaps by actors or machinery. There really is nothing like it, and if you think you've seen "3D" by watching a "OMG spill your popcorn!" movie with red/blue glasses, you're completely wrong.

Once studios start doing the 3D effect properly, I think people will warm up to it more. It's less about "extreme" things happening and more about just adding a natural feel to the film. I didn't really notice the glasses during Up, and I certainly would give up whatever amount of color or brightness that I did to achieve the effect.

The biggest problem the "new" 3D has to overcome is how badly done the "old" 3D was. All I can say is; Go see Toy Story 3 in 3D when it comes out.
 
Spewn said:
The biggest problem the "new" 3D has to overcome is how badly done the "old" 3D was. All I can say is; Go see Toy Story 3 in 3D when it comes out.
Click to expand...

When you say "old" 3D, are you referring to the previous incarnations of 3D using the similar LCD glasses + multiple frames, or the gimmicky 3D?
 
When I say "old" 3D I mean the gimmicky style. Terminator 2 3D at Universal Studios gimmicky, Michael Jackson's Moonwalker in 3D gimmicky, Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D gimmicky.

To me, "new" 3D shows an understanding of what depth perception can bring to the experience, "old" 3D shows an understanding of how to make a quick buck when a new fad comes up.
 
Stoly said:
Glasses are not completely transparent, so there is a drop in brightness and contrast.
Click to expand...

This...

Whoever asked why we hate wearing glasses, but don't mind wearing headphones.

Headphones don't hinder the experience. If Headphones muffled the sound then I'd refuse to use them. Thats essentially what the glasses do. They make the picture dull because you are wearing glasses that aren't completely clear.

Not to mention the strain on your eyes.
At this point I prefer simple 2d in all its brilliance, over 3d with a pair of glasses that dulls the picture and makes my eyes feel worn out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top