http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/ Engadget Comments for Blu-ray's 3D spec isn't what it could be http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 1:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/its not a big deal Sony announced 67GB single bluray disc few days ago because of the new 3D movies, they can include both of the 2D and 3D copies of the movie in the same disc 67GB

oh and these discs will work on PS3 and existing bluray players via firmware update no need for new hardware.

Also since most existing Blu-ray titles weigh roughly 30GB, which requires a dual-layer 50GB disc, meaning the proposed increase to 33.4GB per layer could lead to cheaper Blu-ray movies for the consumer.
]]>Jan 8th 2010 7:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Those are very nice specs, howeve after looking at Sony's 3D TV today at the Sony store on 550 Madison Ave, NY Sony needs to inprove on a few things!

Sony has "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" playing in a small 5 minute loop. Picture quality was good, the color depth on it look a bit dark, not as rich as the colors should be, a tad bit wash, just a tad even though I have not seen the movie in the cinemas or at home.

Compairing Sony's 3D TV to the Blu-Ray movie Coraline in 3D. When watching Coraline in 2D the colors are VIVID! Awesome Picture! When watching in 3D things tend to look dark and colorless. For those who have Coraline in 3D they will understand what I am talking about. Sony's 3D TV is not as bad however the colors did remind me of that darker semi-wash look. In fact I have The Ultimate 3-D DVD Collection, Haunted Castle in 3D, Alien Adventure in 3D and Encounter in the Third Dimension. When viewing them in 3D everything gets very dark, so these 3D specs needs to be work on.

In 2 - 3 minutes my eyes started to warter a tad. Not to sure if it was from the 3D technology or me simply not blinking for that amount of time. Never the less this is something that you WILL notice and you can only take so much of it. 1 movie is ok. watching hours of TV everyday with those glasses... NOT

When not wearing the glasses you can still see that double image which produce the 3D effect, however it is much smaller this time and not as annoying as much. Though you still need the glasses to watch your content.

The glasses were pretty big. They fit over my prescribed glasses with no issues. However these were not the glasses that you wear when you go to the cinimas to watch a 3D movie today. They are a lot bigger. Cool and not cool.

3D is really HOT, if you have everything right. I had 3D glasses connect to my computer when I use to play Unreal Tournament. It was AWESEOM!!! Awesome that is If I had my head a certain distance from my monitor, very close to produce a IMAX-ish submerge effect. It was trully AWESOME! I was really in the game/machine. The 3D at Sony was no where like that and if that is what you are expecting, well move your TV, Monitor, etc much closer to you to get that EXPERIENCE! I think the 3D at the movies are much better than what I saw today and less annoying on the eyes. I was a tad bit dissapointed with Sony's 3D however this is "ahem" somewhat new-ish technology.

Conclusin 3D would be AWESOME for gaming first, maybe certain animated content second, and live actors totally last. More improvement needs to be done. Hence the reason why most 3D movies today are animations of some sort.

Hope this helps...]]>Jan 8th 2010 1:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/It would be extremely simple for them to have the film stored as two separate camera angles for the entire movie, then combine the two angles for the stereoscopic experience. The 2D players would then be able to play the movie in it's entirety from either perspective and the 3D players could show it in either the stereoscopic or standard format. Seriously, this isn't rocket science.]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 5:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 1:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
I get a headache whenever i watch a full 3D movie in the theater. My eyes suck so that might be part of it though.]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Yeah, who wants to have to wear special glasses to watch this stuff? No thanks.]]>Jan 8th 2010 9:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 10:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Seriously, just because the spec doesn't support framerates higher than 24 fps and some 3D discs might not work on 2D players says nothing about the quality of the home experience. I can't even figure out what the big deal is about them--so far as I'm aware, Blu-ray players don't support higher framerates for 1080p content but nobody throws a fit over that. And 3D discs not working on 2D players doesn't mean that you HAVE to watch the disc in 3D, it could just as well mean that 2D players won't necessarily be able to play 3D discs... codec reasons, firmware reasons, who knows. Doesn't mean the 3D-capable player itself, with an appropriate 3D disc, won't give you the option of doing 2D if that's what you want.]]>Jan 8th 2010 10:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
This sentence needs work. I do hope that 3D cameras and TVs can do high enough frame rates per eye to reduce the flickering I see when I goto a RealD movie.]]>Jan 8th 2010 1:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 1:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 2:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 2:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Name one thing about Blu-ray that was done right the first time. ]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
The name?]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Touché.]]>Jan 8th 2010 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Feb 23rd 2010 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/[How 3D should work]
Take a book and look at the edge (like your looking at an I). You should be able to see the cover and back at the same time. Now tilt your head 90 degrees (until the book looks like a horizontal bar -). You shouldn't be able to see the cover and back anymore just the edge.]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 3:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/It would be near impossible to film a movie this way. CG, yes but still would cost way too much.]]>Jan 8th 2010 4:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 8:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 2:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
-Brian]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
What's the problem with 30/60 fps? Every modern display seems to default to a multiple of 30 or 60 fps. Then they support a multiple of 24 as an extra.]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
No every modern display do not default to 30 or 60. Only if in the states or a country which use similar frequencies. In Europe the speeds are 25, 50, 100, 200 etc. for instance. For a long time we have been watching our movies about 4% faster on the TV than in the theaters since they simply run it at 25 instead of 24 frames per second when showing it on TV.]]>Jan 8th 2010 4:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Actually, all HD TVs support 60Hz. They have to, it's in the spec. Multi-standard TVs have been the norm in Europe (well at least the UK) for years now. Even my CRTs supported 50Hz/60Hz. What do you think happens on HDTVs that don't support 24Hz natively? They use 2-3 pulldown to go from the 23.967Hz content on BD to 59.94Hz for display (most BDs aren't stored at pure 24fps). My TV supports 23.976Hz, 24Hz, 50Hz, 59.94Hz and 60Hz, and it's over two years old now. It doesn't 'default' to anything; it simply displays whatever source its given. If I only ever ran BDs or NTSC DVDs it wouldn't 'default' to 50Hz.]]>Jan 8th 2010 5:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
The fact that a HDTV ACCEPTS other frequencies was not the point.

The standard image frequencies in Europe is displayed att 25, 50, 100 etc. FPS and NOT at 30, 60 etc. It's as simple as that.]]>Jan 8th 2010 7:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Your Televisions run at multiples of 25hz because of the line frequency (50hz) of your electricity. If your televisions run at anything other than that multiple it creates a beat frequency between the lighting in your room and the television image which is pretty hard to look at when the refresh rate is low and of course depends on lighting conditions. This is largely historical of course. There really was no way for the european HD group to resolve this even though they had the opportunity, it would have meant going to 300hz (least common denominator) in order to find a compromise between PAL and NTSC based television. Their primary concern was both the cost of 300hz and backwards compatibility with legacy television broadcasts.

]]>Jan 8th 2010 8:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
This is the reason an old TV could just have the voltage drop to work in Europe, it actually needed the 60Hz power signal to work. On that note it was always fun to hear about old school analog clocks that used the A/C signal for their timing. If you took them to Europe and lowered the voltage, they would run exactly 10 minutes slow on the hour.

None of this is an issue with modern displays, but the standards remain.]]>Jan 8th 2010 11:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
It's very much a part of the cinematography, and part of why sometimes you don't want a serious movie shot at 24fps to look like a soap opera does with a much higher fps. There *is* some liberty granted by just FPS.]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 2:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 3:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
What are you on about?

God this has been hashed over and over. There is not a single tech spec about HD-DVD that was better. Yes, the spec was finalized. Yes the initial hardware was cheaper. But, spec wise, Blu-ray was and is simply better. You sound like the people that whine about how much better America was when the were a kid -- fantasy nostalgia that is all.]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
I agree the software was more mature on HD-DVD. Java sucks.]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Go and troll somewhere else !]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BD-J

The capacity for HD-DVD was never an issue. The majority of movies for Blu-ray were (not sure if they still are) encoded with MPEG2 (no idea why) while as HD-DVD were encoded with AVC (H.264). H.264 can produce the same quality as MPEG2 while using a much lower data rate.

I understand that the higher the data rate the less lossy the codec is, however, I have found personally that the high data rates found on most movies, although welcome, are not entirely necessary. The Dark Knight Blu-ray video is encoded at about 30Mbps (or more?) and yes it looks stunning on a good set, but guarantee that the movie at full 1080p will still look amazing. Why do I say that? Because I ripped my Blu-ray copy for my HTPC setup to H.264 at 5Mbps at 1080p and there are no visible artifacts (unless you get right up to the TV it is only barely visible).

Anyways, my point is that the whole size argument about Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is irrelevant when it comes to movies. Storage is another matter, but just tell me of someone you know that uses Blu-ray discs to back up anything like we used DVDs for.]]>Jan 8th 2010 8:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Eh, both formats were doomed to failure (if the download-to-view crowd ever comes up with a standard), and 3DTV will be hanging out with VRML soon.]]>Jan 8th 2010 12:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
-Brian]]>Jan 11th 2010 12:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/If I need a new "3D" television set to view it,
then all this blu-ray-3d is CRAP.

I won't change my Kuro Plasma for any shitty "3D LCD"...

Maybe OLED, when/if they come out. (and if we can pay for them)]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Hey we have even made it so we can sell it before it is ready.....Forst time you turn it on.....ten updates are ready to install.....]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
Sadly, they just chose to use AVC+MVC, ensuring more opportunities for Warner to bit-starve their movies, especially when the studio decides to throw 3D in the mix..]]>Jan 8th 2010 3:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 3:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/That was the same shit people were saying when HDTV's came to the market... "No ones going to throw their CRT tv's out of the window now that 16:9 HDTV's are here".
HD is basically the norm now, so the entertainment industry needs the next best thing to continue growing the business. If you can tell by the success of Avatar, and all the movies released in 2009, and coming up in 2010 that are being made with 3D in mind, then it should be apparent that this is just not an overnight gimmick. There are many companies and industries on-board with this (studios, CE manufatureres, satellite TV, gaming, etc.) so with all that is being invested, and the marketing that will follow suit, you can bet this will take off in the next 1-3 years.]]>Jan 8th 2010 1:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 5:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/Jan 8th 2010 6:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/If the PS3 can do 3D BD with a firmware upgrade then maybe there's a chance, but a very slim one.]]>Jan 8th 2010 7:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/HDTV was NOT an easy sell in the least, especially since there was so little HD content when they came out, and no one wanted to throw out their old TVs. It's only in the last 3 years or so that they've finally reached market acceptance.]]>Jan 8th 2010 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/blu-rays-3d-spec-isnt-what-it-could-be/
I think backwards compatibility is the reason for 30Hz or 60Hz per eye in the BD3D spec, any 60Hz capable screen is 3D-capable like that and they can make the PS3 support 30Hz 3D with just a software upgrade. Single-link HDMI cannot do 1080p120, you'd need a hardware upgrade for that. The real issue will probably be syncing; if the glasses get their sync from the PS3 through some IR dongle then you will need to compensate for processing delays in the TV - maybe they can use the audio delay compensation feature for this... I'm looking forward to 3D on my Pioneer Kuro - but I'll never trade in that screen for anything else.

]]>Jan 8th 2010 8:11AM