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.
@DoctarPeppar
Oh sorry, you'll also need a display that has at least 120HZ. That's the key right there -- not sure how good your TV is..even if you bought it a year ago, depends on the class and quality of the display.
@FlowingAway
Sorry for the comment spam, but I totally agree with you about DVDs and other crap like that...it's 100% bullshit...every 4 years a new optical media format comes out...I am sick of that crap. Thats why I have a 4TB RAID and as soon as I get a disc, I rip it to my RAID volume, compress it, then sell the movie or take it back to the rental place. There's no point in purchasing something like a movie if it's going to be stored on an optical disc that's extremely succeptable to wear and tear, scratches, etc. Rather keep my movies safe on a RAID5 array.
@DoctarPeppar
I've read that there are current 120Hz tvs (not labeled as 3d ready) will not work with 3d tech because they cannot input true 120Hz signals. They take the 60Hz signal and interpolate it to the 120Hz.
@FlowingAway
Not to be rude to you, but this is how it works. In a few years, there will be something new that makes this 3D tech obsolete. And a few years later, something else.
That's what these companies are in business to do. If you like your 50 inch TV, then what's the problem? It will be just as awesome whether I have 3D or not. You don't have to keep up with the latest and greatest. You don't need this. You aren't being damaged by advances.
As soon as you realize that, you can just enjoy your stuff for its own value. Maybe skip an advancement or two. Never buy version 1.0. Always get it on sale.
Life's better this way, and these advancements are simply promises for the general future.
I just wonder if HDMI 1.4a will be compatible with HDMI 1.4 coming equipment. It would be a shame to buy already obsolete stuff??
Im glad we have a new 3D picture to supplement the 3D camera at the football game! haha
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me that all the 3D-naysayers in here are... oh, I dunno... wrong?
@Old fogie late bloomer
This blog's readers are not necessarily representative of the common consumer. The common consumer is impressed by tinny surround sound speakers placed 2 inches from their ear playing explosions that don't blend into the sound space. You bet they'll be impressed by 3D explosions that appear 2 inches in front of their face even if it looks unnatural.
@(Unverified) I agree that the average consumers will think that 3D with glasses is fine ( but times are changing as the dinosaurs/ tech tards fade out ) - so the said 3D makers won't be apple to push these crap wear 3D glasses for too long any ways!
I'm in
Lets stare at the TV in 3D. I'm sure that'll be good for your eyes over time
This is 8-track.
Seriously I cant believe they are going forward with glasses when auto-stereoscopic is already feasible. Watch, the market will speak for itself. The only way I am putting goggles on is to see an IMAX 3D, or to wear a head mounted display set. Let the people vote with their $....
Insane thought just crossed my mind...
When wireless transmission of HD signals improves significantly, and OLED tech produces nearly clear and very small displays, we could integrate augmented reality into wearable computers displaying the overlays on the lenses. That way, everyone in the room could be watching something different on the TV screen/wall/floor/ceiling/billboard/etc in 2D or 3D. The majority of the tech is there, but adoption could be a problem.
Fine. As long as I never have to use the 3D feature or pay extra to buy a TV in the future because it is 3D-enabled, then I have no issue with the 3D fad.
all this 3D...i think it will kill us all
Get ready for the $250 "3D Ready" Monster cables.
@zuht
ROFL! And don't forget the in store comparisons -- one side using composite cables and the other side using monster HDMI "3d ready" cables -- wow it looks so much better!!
@zuht Ever heard of Monoprice.com or SFPlanet.com give people credit a $5 HDMI 1.3a cable will do just as good as a $80 HDMI1.3a Monster Cable... Digital is Digital, on and off are the only things transmitted down an HDMI cable. Voltage for on(1), no voltage for off(0). There is no quality difference between expensive cables made to the spec, and cheap cables made to the same spec, just a cost difference.
@AlaskanHandyman I know this. Please recalibrate your sarcasm meter.
Don't want 3D unless it's without glasses.
@(Unverified)
I'd prefer glasses free 3D too. I'd prefer surround sound that didn't require wires or molly bolts or bluetooth. I'd prefer PS3 games that didn't require HDD instal. I'd prefer cars that can fly.
But I think I'll manage with what is realistically attainable.
I don't get what everyone's problem is with having 3D in the home. Im seriously shocked at how many people are complaining about wearing glasses. What is the big deal? You wear them at the theater?? For the people that say, "I will only accept 3D when I dont need glasses." Ok cool - let me explain something. Have you ever seen a lenticular poster or image? There is about 4 or 5 different viewing angles. In other words, thats 5 different frames that has to be rendered or generated to create that 3D image. Do you know how expensive that would be for a CG film like Avatar? Being in the CG industry, its extremely expensive as it is right now to render out the other camera to get that second image (right eye image). Also, for theater use, it would be so expensive to display something like that, that it would be impossible for theaters to get. It will be at least 5 times more expensive then an IMAX projector. For the home use, I heard there was a display company that came out with a non-glasses 3D tv with some 70 viewing angles. Thats faked 3D. IMO, I would not mind wearing glasses to watch a 3D movie at home. Its NOT A BIG DEAL. Get over it. If you dont like it, dont get it. Period. Saying that 3D will "FAIL." Is ignorant, and quite frankly wrong, seeing that so many people are seeing movies in 3D. The only thing of concern for me is the size of the TV you are viewing 3D content on. Obviously if you go see Avatar in IMAX 3D, the screen is gigantic, and you wont have that same experience in the home. So you have to take into account that screen size difference. Not a big deal, just sit closer i guess :D
/rant
/zips up flame suit
@thefiend1
I too am baffled by the comments of rage about wearing the glasses. It's great for special events and movies. You don't have to wear them to watch Seinfeld re-runs.
As far as the glasses-less 3D screens, I have always wondered how they tackle extreme angles. Is it resetting the same 3D image every some-odd angles or are you getting like what you suggest; actually a fully 3D image you can walk around? Say if you paused the screen, can you see the left side of an object then walk to the other side of the screen and actually see the right side? If so, now THAT is MUUUCH less likely to catch on than glasses due to extreme production costs.
@Chibi Chaingun
You are correct - if you paused it, you could "walk around" the room, and you would see different angles of the 3D content. It wont catch on unless it is faked. WAY too much money for film companies to create...Case in point - you are currently doubling production cost to render out the second camera, or your right eye camera, to see the 3D image. In order to have a wide viewing angle you would have to render out different degrees of left and right eye angles, quadrupling (+) your render costs ( FAIL, not cost effective, not worth it ). You could essentially just render out different degrees of left, OR right eye camera angles, but you would have limited viewing angles (left to right). Meaning you would have one frame of the left eye with multiple right eye frames, or vise versa...this is how they do lenticular images.
I agree, 3D is great for special events like football games and movies. Its not like they are FORCING you to watch everything in 3D.
i think we need to just install a usb drive in our necks hooked up to our brains so we can upload movies, and info needed to succeed
I'm confused. Does this mean 3D playback will require HDMI 1.4? I thought the PS3 was compatible. So would I need a new receiver in order to play 3D blu-rays?
@Shinn Asuka Your not the only one. If it uses hdmi 1.4 that also means we will have to buy new receivers if we want to hook up our surround sound unless the blu-ray players have 2 hdmi out slots.
active shutter depend too greatly on the time of frames AND glasses. A FUBAR on timing and the 3D effect is lost and a head ache is gained.
Am I the only one who thinks 3D should stay in the theatre? Any home implementation should be done right. i.e. Projectors only, polarized only. We should be limiting 3D, not expanding it. It's bad for the brain to go from real life 3D to faked 3D and back over and over again. Which is exactly what will happen if it's in our homes.
I say, expand 3D options in the theatre. Like allowing 3D and 2D at one time, thus eliminating the need for big cineplex to take up 2 screens for big 3D releases. But limit home 3D. For example, instead of trying to cut costs and bring it to the average consumer, do it right and leave costs where they land, allowing elitists to adopt it as they please.
I know this is just wishful thinking. My only real worry is that studios will focus their energy on 3D Blu-Ray releases and 2D versions of 3D movies (cough-Avatar) will become background noise. Fingers crossed folks.
120hz TV means 60hz per eye, right? Maybe it's smooth enough. But redraw time will be the critical point, too laggy and there'll be a ghost image in the other eye all the time. But hey, did anyone use the 3D glasses back in the days of the SEGA Master System?
Epeleptic, I'm telling you... But that was 50hz on my PAL system, 25 fps per eye. Pure epelectic.
@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.
latest 3d glasses - lol
http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100207&t=2&i=57198632&w=460&r=2010-02-07T104851Z_01_BTRE6160TXO00_RTROPTP_0_IRAN-NUCLEAR-FUEL
I love seeing all these comments that people are making about the HDMI1.4 spec, and Active shutter glasses. Probably without ever reading the spec changes or seeing some of the new high speed shutter glasses in person.
I like the Idea of watching 3D at home but I won't buy a TV & Shutter Glass system. I am waiting to upgrade my projector to a 1080p version
that uses lasers and 2 DMDs to create a polarised 3D image that can be viewed using passive glasses.
Ummm the PS3 does not have an HDMI 1.4 port. How will it be 3D compatible? I don't understand? I thought the Display would have to have HDMI 1.4 as well as the player.