The drumbeat for HD 3D continues to pick up the pace, and with broadcasters around the globe pushing forward 2010 plans
to bring 3D home HDMI has updated the course of its latest
1.4 spec to ensure compatibility between displays and boxes. Quite simply, existing cable and satellite hardware isn't going to be held to the same requirements as Blu-ray and videogame equipment rocking the 3D sticker and expecting compatibility with displays on the way, since they won't be passing the same high quality, high bandwidth dual-stream 1080p images anyway. Additionally, some broadcasters are pushing for HDMI to officially support "Top/Bottom" 3D transmissions they plan to use, which sacrifice resolution while saving bandwidth by shoving left/right images into a single frame. While that should add an entirely new angle to the line counting and claims of "HDLite" (get ready for 3DLite) all viewers can do is wait to hear when or if their hardware will get a software upgrade to 3D (like the one we expect will allow the PS3
to play 3D Blu-ray discs) in the months and years to come, once there's a
standard everyone can adhere to of course.
posted December 23rd 2009 8:19PM
Will the PS3 accept 1.4?
@jeremytodd1
thats a good question. I am not sure if will or not, after seeing Avatar in 3d i was very impress to see it. But i'm not sure if it will be worth the complete uprgade cost to get my ht gear hd3d ready.
Given these, probably:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/blu-ray-3d-specifications-finalized-your-ps3-is-ready/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/02/video-sony-confirms-its-bringing-home-3d-starting-in-2010/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI_1.4#Version_1.4
I highly doubt the PS3 will support anything in 1.4 anyways. 3D video might be possible with a firmware update, but why would Sony do that when they could sell you a new 3D player for $400? Audio return won't be useful, higher resolution won't be useful, and the HDMI ethernet apparently requires a 1.4 cable (so I am assuming it has extra pins, which the PS3 obviously won't support).
I still have yet to see any 3D anything and honestly I don't see them taking off at home. The other features of 1.4 sound nice though, but I am still waiting on TV's to start supporting 4k (what they do with the integrated ethernet could be interesting, hopefully manufacturers setup some API's for interaction between all of the otherwise dumb systems).
Obviously, because they'd rather expand the PS3 userbase with as much functionality as they can. I'm sure there will be standalone Sony players as well, but there's not a single good reason not to support it.
Also, I wouldn't exactly look at your average football game attendee for technical or market acumen.
@jeremytodd1 I doubt the PS3 will be able to claim it is HDMI 1.4 compliant. However there is about a half dozen ways to send 3D to a TV in the HDMI 1.4 spec. Some of them may well be achievable with the existing hardware. I don't really expect its 3D support to be anything to write home though. After all, 3D is likely to put at least 50% extra load on video decoding so it may have to scale back on resolution or advanced audio decoding in order achieve it.
I don't get the 3D craze at all. It seems like alot of headaches.
@Gflo Thats something an old geezer would say!
@Gflo
that's because you haven't seen Avatar yet
@Gflo If you get headaches watching 3D, go get your eyes checked.
@Gflo I don't think there is a 3D craze; it's more a case of movie studios and consumer electronics companies pushing it very hard. I think the incident at the Cowboys game proved that the majority of people really aren't interested.
For movies it's nothing more than a gimmick but for gaming I think it could be good.
@Gflo I think there's about 80,000 Cowboys fans that agree with you
@Gflo
It's sad to see so much anti-3D rant in the posts... I've seen U2 concert in 3D (in IMAX), I've seen Christmas Carol in 3D, and I think they are incredible. I think it is great that movie studios started picking up on 3D and that we are slowly moving towards 3D without glasses. I also think 3D has a big potential to benefit the storyline, and that cinematographers will eventually learn the art of 3D (so it will not be just a bunch of special effects).
The fact that an appetite for profits drives movie studios and TV manufacturers to produce 3D doesn't matter. We will still get a chance to discover a new dimension in cinematography (which, unfortunately, remains flat since the beginning).
@Gflo i wish everything was in 3d....
@Electromodo
"I also think 3D has a big potential to benefit the storyline"
Can you back that up with an example?
Some people just don't have the natural physiology to handle some of the 3D systems, it's like an inclination to seasickness or something, it's natural and doesn't say there's anything wrong with you.
And if you happen to not have it then you are pretty shortsighted (get it?) yourself to then act like something's wrong with people's eyes.
It's even possible to argue that you must have dull senses to not notice something is wrong when you are not affected by those 3D systems, like for instance you should have the tendency to judge distance and automatically focus your eyes, now when you watch 3D that is not necessary since the image is in fact flat on a screen, so when your eyes try to act like it's objects in 3D space and at the same time then readjust because it's in reality a flat screen you should end up with a headache.
And maybe if you simultaneously used steroids you might get weirdly big focusing muscles round the lenses, freakish concept.
Really. Engadget. REALLY!
Pay the extra 5 cents for ink or the pixel's bandwidth and use some punctuation. My eyes and ears are bleeding from your long-ass sentences.
Seems all Ok to me.
Or is it the linefeeds and paragraphs you miss when you say punctuation? That makes more sense as a complaint, but if you ever read newspapers you'd not be complaining since you'd be used to it
I can't wait to NOT sit in my living room wearing 3-D glasses.
Will it film transparent airbourne jellyfish?
Yea but what about super duper ultra high speed two-way ultra four dimensional mega 3D 1080p++++? Obviously you'll only get that with the new 1.4 spec HDMI Monster Cables which are a bargain at $300. I mean, if you're spending so much mone...
3d gaming sounds like it has the potential to be incredible, but getting a 3d tv is very pricey :/
I'm certain that 3D movies will be done in 1080p/24 and video games in 1080p/30. Even counting L & R frames in there, 1080p/24 still only has 48 full frames a second and 1080p/30 has 60. Both of these fit in the same bandwidth requirements of regular HDMI, which goes to 1080p/60.
2012 Broadcast of 3D begins.
2015 Networks suspend 3D broadcasts as "dismal failure."
@BuzzMega
January 2012: 3D Broadcast Begins
December 2012: LHC Destroys earth and 3D Technology. Broadcast in 3D stops as it was a dismal failure.
There are already (experimental) 3D broadcasts you know, but yeah it'll probably end in failure, although I've never seen so much of the industry behind it as in this try and people are pretty open to gadgets nowadays, but still..
I'm waiting for HDMI 2.0 so I can just shove a cable in my eye and be in the movie or game ::drooooool:::
The only area I actually could see wanting HD would be in gaming (especially first person and racing titles) and perhaps for sporting event broadcasts.
Pre-produced 3D content is almost always hokey and derivative. I did see Avatar in 3D and while it was better than most I don't know how anybody could call that thing revolutionary.
obviously I meant 3D, not HD
Up next... Wireworld's $2000 HDMI 1.4 cables...
@malvenko only 2,000 that would be a bargain.
Why are they pimpin HDMI 1.4 when the PS3 alledgedly can do it with 1.3? This cetainly cannot be a bandwidth thing since HDMI 1.3 is a monster (no pun intended) at this.
I'm so sick and tired about this 3D nonesense...I respect that some consumers really like using this funny glasses or have headaches without using them...but why not just put resources into developing better pictures on current technology? as far as I can tell plasmas and LCDs even today need some tweakings! or you think that a totally shitty film like Transformers is gonna look better on 3D? NOT! the art of cinema is destroyed nowdays, no one cares about the film itself anymore.. companies needs to sell new crap every year: that's the real thing about 3D
@DarthCardo Ahh there we go again. FUD. Headaches eh? I have had over two dozen people on my facebook and LJ and no one has had headaches. And I'm sorry that you are so freaking fashion sensitive, let me guess iPhone user?, that you would forgo using something that done correctly improves your viewing experience of a movie.
Seriously I heard this same crap when surround sound entered the home theatre market. Same crap when HD came on the scene. People like you will rage against anything that YOU can't see a use for. The rest of us are psyched after seeing what can legitimately be done with 3D in movies like Avatar. A director now needs to add the ability of using 3D in a scene in a way that doesn't feel force fed into their toolbox of skills. Cameron has shown us that it can be done. I'm betting Peter Jackson can do this as well. He was onset during the production of Avatar looking into the tech being used.
@John Doe if you call Avatar a "classic" film then you don't know nothing about moviemaking, while Cameron indeed pushed 3D long time ago and he's a good director...a good movie is MUCH MORE than "uhh" and "ahhs" of technical achievments (which if you read some pretigious websites, it's all that movie's about), but to each on his own if you enjoy 3D good for you...as far as I can tell 3D is truly old and the thing that you don't want to see is that companies are CREATING a need, and that's it...what has surround and HD to do with this???
I think there's a difference between the likelihood of headaches between a home setup and a movie setup, and between polarizing systems and LCD glasses, and I think taking a few claims by a few friends as some end-all is pretty.. facebooky.
Not to mention the time you use them, a movie lasts one movie, broadcast TV can lead to longer sessions, and then there's the production technique used and the kind of scenes and if it's rendered or real images, and if you are a gamer or a casual viewer probably also has an effect.
It would be nice if a TV manufacture would someday get the balls to create a TV that has something akin to a module that allows you to upgrade to these newer versions of HDMI. The notion that I should be buying a new TV just to get this hardware....its insane. The module should have a SD card built into it with the needed firmware update as well. So replace the module, power on, the TV sees there is a firmware update and does so.
Good point, but it's not going to happen, you know how they are, and besides, if it's alternating images it would need to be a 120Hz or 240Hz screen or support interlacing, and that means whole new screen or at least another module altogether.
HDMI will be only one cable for use in the future ...
it is now THE BEST interface in the cable connectors ...
And running after displayport but always behind in specs.
monoprice for the win...
One problem with 3D tv, no lying on the couch to watch a movie, or sporting event.I don't know about you, but Sundays are best spent reclining.
Me? I don't watch sports.
Oh no, I just bought a new AV Receiver with 1.3a HDMI :(
@(Unverified)
Not as bad as all the people that just got new TV's Recievers and DVR's. There must be some way of upgrading equipment without buying all new equipment.
Just think how long it might take to perfect 3D technology! Grammar has been evolving for centuries and we still can't create a readable sentence.
Exhibit A:
"Quite simply, existing cable and satellite hardware isn't going to be held to the same requirements as Blu-ray and videogame equipment rocking the 3D sticker and expecting compatibility with displays on the way, since they won't be passing the same high quality, high bandwidth dual-stream 1080p images anyway."
Evidently, editors have gone the way of SD...
@landoncube I read and re-read this sentence without any success. But I thought it was just me.
I think 3D could be great for gaming, but I rarely think it adds anything to movies. You either don't notice after a while, or it's kind of distracting throughout. You certainly notice the higher ticker price!
Plus all the 3D in the world couldn't hide Avatar's horribly tired and cliche-ridden story, at least for me. Hell I think I enjoyed frickin' Beowulf more.
there goes the marketing department again--we've finally gotten HD, and they already want to replace it with 3D tvs....let me know when we can have the 3D without glasses. I loved Avatar, but I definitely hate wearing the glasses, not because they give me a headache, but they're a pain in the ass and why would I want to have to have spare 3D glasses lying around just to watch tv?
I am not making statements for anyone else, but if I had to choose between an HDTV at $1000 and an HDTV+3D at $1000, I would probably choose the former. Lacking 3D hardware, the regular set probably has better IQ, be it in 2D.
Same goes for buying movies. If I see that 3D sticker, I assume the producers slaughtered their screenwriters and I'll end up with a bad taste in my mouth at the end of the movie. It screams DON'T BUY to me, and I'll probably check out another movie.
I don't want to pay for a gimicky feature. Make better movies with better actors and new stories. Don't shit in my face by spending anything more than a dollar on 3D "effects" - I am not going to Epcot @ Disney World - I want a good story. Just shoot with two lenses for the sake of the future and make regular, good movies (I'll buy your 3D version if it's backwards compatible with my 2D gear).
Start producing enough worthwhile movies shot in 3D, maybe I will consider it... but our culture's back-catalog of movies is all shot through a single lens and so until the year 2025 when there are >2 decent 3D movies, 3D is an anti-buzzword.
I think anything that boosts _real_ contrast, on-the-cheap, is a much better R&D sink.