Panasonic puts forth proposal for 3D standard on Blu-ray Disc

For those of you plugging your ears whilst humming along in hopes of this whole 3D revolution fading away, we've got a rude awakening headed your way. Just days after hearing that the HDMI specification could be updated to better handle stereoscopic 3D content, along comes word that Panasonic has submitted a proposal to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) for an official BD standard to store 3D imagery formed of "left / right-eye two-channel Full HD images." Panny reportedly made the move early in order avoid a format war, but really, it's just looking to cash in on royalties for the next decade five years or less. It's no secret that movie studios are dead set on moving forward with 3D production -- might as well be ready on the other end, right?

[Image courtesy of 3DS]

[shawnmos @ Nov 24th 2008 11:02PM]

Lame. Who is actually interested in this 3D crap?

[Stompntom @ Nov 25th 2008 12:18AM]

Something like Planet Earth in 3D would be sweet

...and the porn

[who? @ Nov 24th 2008 11:23PM]

If it didn't require goggles/glasses (hologram or interactive video file) I would think it was awesome. They could have cameras located all around the stage when filming so you could rotate the film and view each scene from any conceivable angle (they'd just add navigational arrows to the player for you to move yourself around the room/area). Now that would be 3D!

[rock99rock @ Nov 24th 2008 11:27PM]

Me, and anyone else generally interested in technology. So you just insulted engadgets reader base as a whole. Shame on you.

I want those shades.

[RoboDan @ Nov 25th 2008 12:04AM]

3D NOODZ 2 Thu ppl!

But seriously, I would buy a Blu-Ray player for this 3D thing (and only that)

[nohone @ Nov 25th 2008 1:55AM]

A year ago, the BD faction was chastising HD DVD for having a richinteractive programmability model. "Nobody watches the extras" theysaid. Today BD Live is "all the rage". Now something new...

[Brent Summers @ Nov 24th 2008 11:04PM]

Just imagine the porn...

[letstakeawalk @ Nov 24th 2008 11:14PM]

As long as it's not your avatar in 3D...

(What is that anyway?)

[who? @ Nov 24th 2008 11:26PM]

The furry elf-man of South Korea?

[Brent Summers @ Nov 25th 2008 12:49AM]

http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Hairy_Chinese_Kid

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 24th 2008 11:11PM]

Look at that old lady (back left). Poor thing, she probably was feeling dizzy as hell from wearing these glasses, like if she just puked moments ago. :p

[mvp @ Nov 24th 2008 11:17PM]

Is that moby in the bottom right corner?

[holycow @ Nov 25th 2008 12:26AM]

nah, that's Ryan Block.

[BJ is Gooder @ Nov 25th 2008 11:19AM]

It probably is if that's Pete Sampras.

[Joshua Walters @ Nov 24th 2008 11:46PM]

If they could somehow manage it without the lame glasses (which are secretly amazing) it would do so much better.

[Wade @ Nov 24th 2008 11:51PM]

Bah. Stereoscopics are evil, I say. Biased towards those with two retina. Where's Johnny Chung Lee when you need him?

[Say Pros of Device, List One Flaw then Say I'll Pass or I'll Wait Guy @ Nov 25th 2008 12:00AM]

Pros:

- Surreal 3D Imagery

- One standard for 3D for all companies

- Possibly avoiding a 3D format war

Cons:

- It can't create robots from scrap metal in my trashcan


I'll pass

[keithwwalker @ Nov 25th 2008 12:14AM]

Is it just me, or is it conceivable that Jeff Goldblum actually thinks that LARGER glasses will make Jeff Goldblum even more Jeff Goldblum-ier!

[Evan @ Nov 25th 2008 12:22AM]

I'm dreading the onslaught on 3D. It will inevitably mean a couple years of gimmicky things coming out of the screen cheese.

[GaryZ @ Nov 25th 2008 3:07AM]

the people in picture looks like getting brainwashed, lol

[Darkflame @ Nov 25th 2008 3:20AM]

Its a shame that so many people are against glass's seeing as the most stable, flexible and universaly viewable 3D images require them.

Paralax barrier-methods have limited viewing angle and reduced resolution, and (sigh) holographic star-wars stuff is just physicaly impossible. (light cant be made to stop in mid air, it has to reflect off something).

For us to have any hope of true "personal viewing angle" 3D, as well as merely steroscopic 3D, glass's of some sort have to be used as well. (at least if you want to allow more then one person to watch at a time...Johnny Lee's method would work for one person...but even then youd have to ware a headband, so your going to look stupid either way!).

Personaly I dont see the problem with glass's, as long as there
a) Standard.
b) Light, comfortable and adjustable.

Millions of people already wear glass's everyday, might as well make the things usefull for more then mere focus correction.

[csmitty @ Nov 25th 2008 8:43AM]

Actually this looks like a Lips 3D game preview. Why else would a middle aged man wearing a suit be singing into a microphone. And apparently the people arn't amused. Except for jeff goldblum.

It looks like the guy in the middle of the frame is dead.

[JM @ Nov 25th 2008 10:42AM]

As long as it doesn't affect the image quality of Blu-Ray.
Seeing those 3D movies in the theater were just terrible.
Some scenes it works but in fast motion, it fails horrible...

It's enough that we have to deal with some of the artifacts of 120 Hz...
Can you imagine 3D on top of that.

[Nerdherder @ Nov 25th 2008 11:33AM]

What a nerdy looking group.

[Eliot Castillo @ Nov 25th 2008 5:56PM]

Is that Thom Yorke from Radiohead?

[shibathedog @ Nov 25th 2008 8:45PM]

Wait what the fuck? "left / right-eye two-channel Full HD images." are they saying they want to take up more capacity by having two separate video streams? That is so incredibly stupid, why not have the player just do the effect on the fly? Then you could easily turn it on and off whenever you wanted to and it would work with any movie. I'm pretty sure it would require less processing power that way too.