HDMI 1.4's 3D spec publicly released
By Nilay Patel 
posted February 5th 2010 10:04AM
posted February 5th 2010 10:04AM
posted February 5th 2010 10:04AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
3D will be the biggest fail ever. Until they can figure out how to do it without the glasses all it will ever be is a novelty.
@SNESimon
They could still do 3D with glasses, they just need to find a way to use low cost, no power, lightweight and stylish glasses...oh right! They already have that (not quite stylish though) and I wore them through Avatar (Real3d?). That way, everyone could wear the glasses and if you lost/broke them, they aren't that expensive to replace. Also, The passive technologies don't have the flicker effect that many people (myself included) can notice. Your eyes are not designed to have images displayed into one eye at a time which can cause eye strain very quickly for some people.
@SNESimon Famous last words!
@egghead
My thought exactly why are we using active shutter glasses when we can use glasses that don't require power and are cheap to replace ( 80p when i went to watch avatar). This way when you have people over and want to show off you new 3D movie you just bought you can have enough spare to go around without having to pay a fortune.
@SNESimon
They can already do 3d without glasses, but angles are bad, 2d is bad. It's not ready. Shutter glasses are by far better at this point. Recent shutter glass technology limits flickering and provides an image mostly free of artifacts, detail loss, color loss. They are getting better at allowing more light through.
@SNESimon
The reason for active glasses is cost and ease of implementation. Soon 120hz+ tv's should add 3d compatiblity at least as a option, if the costs aren't too costly, it should just be a matter of adding a 3d hdmi 1.4 component and IR/wireless transmitter to sync the glasses. Glasses should be a option for those that want to use 3D and should come down in price over time.
I'm planning on getting one once they get down to a reasonable price, not to use 3d right away, but to get a tv with a high refresh rate and be ready should 3d become mainstream.
@SNESimon I'd be content if they could take my current 3D-less perscription glasses and make them 3D. Single purpose gadgets are sooo last decade.
@egghead
Passive glasses work well for projectors, but have several problems when applied to flat-screen displays:
1. Increases the cost of the television, because a screen-size polarizing film must be embedded into the LCD panel.
2. Reduces the brightness when operating in 2D mode, because the screen's polarizing film is permanent.
3. Reduces the resolution when operating in 3D mode, because each eye only sees every 2nd pixel.
Active glasses are advantageous for the home:
1. Do not impact the cost of the television's LCD panel.
2. Do not affect the image when operating in 2D mode.
3. Do not reduce the resolution when operating in 3D mode (instead they reduce the effective frame rate).
@Stephers
Agreed, I already wear glasses, and when this 3d stuff takes off, I really wouldn't mind at all spending a little extra so that my prescription glasses can serve as shutters when needed.
@(Unverified)
"1. Increases the cost of the television, because a screen-size polarizing film must be embedded into the LCD panel."
I'm not convinced that this would cost more than making the screen capable of refreshing at 120Hz....
2. Reduces the brightness when operating in 2D mode, because the screen's polarizing film is permanent.
I agree that this is a legitimate point, but on the other hand, I find the maximum brightness of most screens to be overwhelmingly high (though admittedly I look at them in darkened rooms). I just bought a Dell U2410 and the maximum brightness is eye-searing.
"3. Reduces the resolution when operating in 3D mode, because each eye only sees every 2nd pixel."
This does not have to be a limitation at all, especially with the larger screen sizes. Considering that your typical -VA panel on a TV already has each subpixel broken down into something like eight segments, I see no reason why you couldn't subdivide each subpixel vertically. This argument also works in favor of lenticular displays.
I'm not against active glasses, but a consideration for me is that I'd rather have a display that compares favorably to the best IPS panels in 2D mode, rather than a display that is a decent TN display in 2D.
@(Unverified)
Interesting. I never really thought about it that way. I guess we now know why the CE industry didn't choose the polarized system for home 3d.
I think the thing that will determine the relative success or failure of 3d in the home will not be the gear (it will just come with most new gear) but how many people actually pay for the media (blu-ray or broadcast channels). If there isn't enough interest content providers won;t waste the money to produce the content and 3d will have about as much impact on the industry as BD-Live. I guess we'll see what happens.
@SNESimon
I don't care for 3D effects anyway. Like @ the Grammys, that Earth Song segment, that was maddening to watch a blue filter half off a plan in one direction and a red one in the other.
@(Unverified) Very nice informative post.
@SNESimon:
I completely agree. Everybody I know, myself included, went and saw Avatar in 3D. We all thought it was a fun experience, but that was all it was. It was good for a one time viewing. I went back and saw it in 2D, and personally thought it was much better in 2D, but the 3D was fun for once.
But none of us want it in our homes.
I'm not going to wear glasses to watch TV. I don't want to invite people over to watch a movie only to make them wear glasses. I just want to sit down, watch a good program, and be entertained. The content of the program is more important than the visual. I don't care if there's the 3rd dimension if the show is boring. Plus, we all know that studios are going to try and pump the most cheapest, gimmicky, 3D crap through the pipes. Avatar did 3D well, most content will not.
3D is trying to be brought to primetime by studios, manufacturers, and a select few people. I don't think the public wants 3D outside of special instances such as going and seeing Avatar, which is some-what an epic event, in 3D.
@Firehazel we are talking about a completely different technology from the red/blue here. this 3d actually works
"Passive glasses work well for projectors, but have several problems when applied to flat-screen displays:"
...
Where did this information come from?
My understanding is that shutters do not require a polarized display. The shutter flips the image on/off, rather than the polarization doing it (RealD).
Shutter also should give you full 1920x1080p to each eye. One frame is shown for left, then for right. There is no need to downsample/interlace.
A source would be great because I think the info is all incorrect.
-Pie
@EatingPie Shutters are active, thus "active shutter". As you quoted, he was referring to passive glasses. The ones that require no power and look like sunglasses. They have opposite polarizations for each eye.
@menosdabear Ah, I still don't have too much of an interest in it anyway... :/
@SNESimon
Yeah, I can maybe see a few people sitting down to watch a 3D movie, but I can't really see 20 people walking around in 3D glasses at a Super Bowl party. Considering it's even been a challenge to convince consumers to get a blu-ray player for the HDTV they already own, 3D is going to have a long road ahead.
@naterecording
Oh, I don't know, it's a lot easier to see the difference between 3d and 2, than dvd and blue-ray :)
@Sarig: not when you have good eyesight and 1080p. (*Blu-ray)
@Prokanda
Ever heard of the story of the Emperors new clothes....
@coolblue2000
"Ever heard of the story of the Emperors new clothes...."
Now imagine that in 3D, scary thought!
@Sarig
Point taken... but they will also have to convince people to buy a new TV, wear the glasses, and buy new media for 3D movies as well.
@Prokanda OR MONSTER CABLES
Agreed. I *MAY* buy 3D tech that requires glasses if i build a dedicated theater room some day, but I will never want to dig around in my living room for glasses that need to fit over my existing glasses, that I hope my kids hav'nt smudged/broken, and that I hope are recharged and compatible with my current BD, TV, XBOX, etc. No thanks.
I don't mind the glasses. I just want a standard so that my glasses work everywhere. Bring the 3D!
3D doesn't seem like that much of a must have to me. Don't get me wrong I'm excited it's coming out but, it's more for prices dropping on current HDTV's...
Defo do want 3D, glasses are a non-issue, 20 mins into Avatar at cinemas and you've forgotten there's anything on your face.
@Almo See I disagree. I almost think Avatar lost some of its clarity and sharpness, and I saw it in IMAX. I prefer to watch things full HD, but 2D. Seems sharper and clearer to me.
@Almo
That depends, While watching UP in 3D I had annoying glare throughout the whole film, Not to mention that the 3D was rubbish even the titles which were impressively projected sharply and in the middle of the theatre were ruined by the fact that they were projected overlaying peoples heads and the fire exit signs....
@Almo
Avatar put me completely off 3D. Not only did the 3D look fake but it was highly irritating. I very much look forwards to watching the film in 2D so that I can concentrate on the story (ala Dances With Wolves In Space). I simply do not find the 3D effect to be in the slightest bit immersive - my eyes can certainly tell the difference between reality and an optical effect.
@coolblue2000 Which is precisely why 3D is better in the home than the theater. If there's something blocking the screen, you move it.
@Kelmon Then there was a problem with the equipment. If done right, your eyes can't tell the difference between the "optical effect" and reality any more than you can tell the difference between a movie and reality normally. They can't tell the difference because there is no difference to them, each eye sees a different image, like you would if you were actually there. That's really all there is to it.
All I need is 3D tech for my existing prescription glasses and it'll be totally seamless. Ha. Four eyes FTW :-)
I don't 3d mind glasses either..I wear contacts, would never be caught dead wearing actual eyeglasses -- too nerdy. Anyways, I love 3D but we need to make it so all the 3d glasses are compatible with every 3D format...like universal glasses...I wouldn't mind spending 150$ or so on some decent 3d glasses that I know would last (have nice build quality) and that would work on every 3d source from here on out into the future. What people don't want is to be forced to buy 4 different kinds of glasses that only work for format x,y,z,etc. 3D won't fail, if it's done with open-ness in mind and it's consumer friendly. Make the glasses stylish, make them good quality -- and people will love it.
@DoctarPeppar
You sir are an idiot for the following 2 reasons:
1. Most people with glasses look damn good, especially women.
2. You are probably the only person i've ever heard of that wouldn't mind spending $150 per person watching your tv. When there is a tech out there, in movie theaters, that uses cheap disposable glasses that I can throw out when my son accidentally steps on them.
Now I gotta make sure my 3d glasses are charged up before can watch a movie without worry? Thats ridiculous!
Yours Truly
The glasses wearing, non filthy rich, pragmatist.
@Maurizio
I'm saying that I wouldn't mind paying that much for good quality stylish glasses that would last and be compatible with every 3d format...charging is not a problem, make them induction charge based, and offer discounts for 4-5 packs for the family. If your kid accidentally steps on them, then lock him in the basement for a week and feed him table scraps -- that'll learn him to watch where he steps next time!! :P And yes, I think normal eye glasses are totally ugly and make people look nerdy. Sunglasses are a different story though. Just my opinion, don't need to call me an idiot..people are allowed to have different opinions, no? :)
@DoctarPeppar
So now we're adding an induction pad (they currently run around $100 right now) to the equation?
I think that my point still stands.
About the idiot thing, maybe you should think about how dissing people who wear glasses, in a tech blog, will make you look.
BTW the nerd look is totally in.
AND...
Wearing what looks like sunglasses inside looks idiotic.
$500 for 4 pairs of glasses (with a $100 discount) is still ridiculous for something that could easily cost $20 for a pack of 10.
But I digress...i am sorry for calling you an idiot.
@Maurizio
Listen BULLY, he is entitled to his opinion regardless of if you agree or not. Attacking someone on here who has a different opinion than you by calling them names just renders your point moot and discredits you completely. People like you are the reason Engadget shut off comments last week. If you felt threatened by what he said or how he said it, be a man, have an intelligent debate with him and spare yourself the embarrassment of coming off as a child. I for one agree with DoctarPeppar and he has a very interesting point about contact lenses anyhow...I wonder if they can make contacts do 3D? Maybe that would catch on?
@Chaosdivine
1.Not trying to be a bully, just standing up for my peeps with glasses.
2. You think that "I wear contacts, would never be caught dead wearing actual eyeglasses -- too nerdy" is an interesting point? I respectfully disagree. And i think a lot of people disagree with it too, since he's been downranked into oblivion.
3. I do think that you have a great idea there. And you should find a way to patent it quickly. 3d contacts! not being sarcastic at all. I wonder if that would catch on...single use polarized contacts...hmm...seriously call someone about that...oh darn thousands of people read this blog.
Everyone ready set GO!
BUT...just make sure you dont have to recharge them.
@Maurizio
OK, maybe I was a bit hostile towards you...I aplogize. I always stick up for the little guy myself, always have and always will I guess. Ya, they did downrank him into oblivion...we both felt the need to be protectionist. Well I have to get glasses eventually here. One eye of mine is not as good as the other for distances. Thing is, I don't want to get glasses because I feel I don't look as good as without them. So yes, being a bit vain, I'll probably go for the contact route. Honestly, glasses on others don't bug me at all but for me personally, I'd rather skip em. Well 3D contacts might be useful in certain applications but then again, glasses (if made in aesthetically pleasing shapes) would be more convenient. I can't see too many uses for 3D contacts now that I think it through...any ideas?
I'd never get a 3D TV until its sans-glasses. Bring on Philips and Intel...
Since HDMI 1.4 is needed to watch 3d movies I'm assuming the ps3 will be incapable of doing so?
@JohnWayneJoker The PS3 will do 3D, this is just for new devices that use HDMI 1.4.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/blu-ray-3d-specifications-finalized-your-ps3-is-ready/
@JohnWayneJoker
Why make that assumption? That's an internet meme that is probably well intentioned, but it's just too easy to look into. Of course the PS3 will be able to put out 3D. Even that "max 1080i" rumor has been debunked.
For better or worse, the blu-ray format is chained to the PS3.
@JohnWayneJoker The only real change between the HDMI 1.3 spec and the HDMI 1.4 Spec is adding, ethernet over HDMI, the visual stuff will still be the same. As it stands now the PS3 is not even close to utilizing every bit of bandwidth provided for in the 1.3 spec. I saw a Demo of WipeOut HD in 3D on the PS3, and I can say that I am looking forward to 3D gaming on the PS3 as much or more than I am for 3D Blu-Ray. Replacing my current HDTV was something that I was planning on even before the 3D Blu-Ray Spec was released.
3D has a long way to go. The rectangle shape of your traditional flat screen was made for 2D. To maximize 3D you will have to reshape it to a more 3D friendly shape for an example a sphere. Many changes of specs would need to alter like aspect ratios.
As more information comes out, the more confused I get about what equipment will be needed to display 3D. Am I correct when I say if I want 3D programming, I'll have to buy a new TV, new HDMI cables, new Cable Box, AND special glasses?
I just got a 50" plasma less than a year ago. And it can't display 3D programming? BS.
Why invest money into anything when it's going to be irrelevant in a year or two. I'm sure there are people everywhere with huge DVD collections that were pissed when VCR went out the window, and they'll be pissed again when BluRay totally takes over. Same goes for TV's.
@FlowingAway
That's why you use a HTPC -- that way you can upgrade the parts when new technology becomes available. You don't need special HDMI cables...you can use Nvidia's solution that's out right now -- connect computer to tv via normal HDMI cable, use NVIDIA capable GPU, and then turn on stereoscopic 3D -- you will also need the 3d glasses kit from nvidia. As for cable box, use a TV tuner card. With this solution everything on the entire TV will be displayed as 3D -- all movies, video, even the desktop.