Comments on: 3D coming to Blu-ray?

The Blu-ray Disc Association has started looking to officially integrate 3D technology with the Blu-ray standard, potentially giving Blu-ray another leg up over standard DVDs.

[Jahntassa]

If the production companies keep coming out with more and more 3D movies, and it is more widely adopted, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to invest in home 3D technology.

That is, if the price points are right. If 3D tech adds another $1,000-2,000 to the price of a set, then I can't really see it being worthwhile.

If price points get to current HD standards, maybe..

[gorillamask]

I would jump all over 3D if they could find a way to integrate it with the 120hz HDTV I already have. If they could have a complimentary set-top box that would split the left and right signals into 60hz one eye and the other, you could have a workable stereoscopic image. The polarized glasses are sooo much more comfortable than the cardboard monsters.

[peterwhite]

I purchased a couple of Blu-Ray 3D titles for my Home Theater. I really enjoyed the films but my ears and nose were bothered by the cheap cardboard glasses. I just wish there was a convenient place to buy a set of four inexpensive glasses - more comforatable (molded plastic, rubber padding, etc. Retro fitting in 3D could also help incentivize me to replace some of my existing DVD titles.

You can find good quality 3D glasses from a lot of web sites for $6.95 each like the Proview? Professional quality 3D Glasses. I picked these up and they are so much better that the cardboard ones.

[jrhcipp]

The industry embracing 3D by causing the consumers to throw away the current 1080P TV sets is absurd and a good way to STOP the transition to Blue Ray capabilities.

As an alternative, a development of technology that?s end result will be a 3D rendering that can be played by a Blue Ray player would be the ultimate consumer friendly upgrade. Oh, and Yes, I would wear the polarized glasses to view 3D on my 67" and expect to pay extra for a tile with that capability.

[blusky08]

It really isn't a question of if 3D will become mainstream, but when.

That said, it will be painful for current consumers who have purchased new equipment over the past few years. Those who purchased PS3s may be safe as Sony has said a firmware upgrade might make it compatible. However, there is already a new HDMI standard (with a new, smaller connector) that is paving the way for 3D.

Given a new HDMI standard (which unfortunately seems to have escaped any news attention), the longevity of all current equipment seems in jeopardy anyway.

[AnthonyNYC]

First off, all this is speculation, show me the sets in stores then talk about it!
3D is coming to newer tv sets where you don't even need any glasses or special bluray to see 3 d, it is a new set design that adds depth to the dimensions of the screen, small depth but none the less looks 3d, that technology will take off far more faster in my opinion, than anyone running out to buy a bluray player and a totally new $3500 tv set to see 4 titles in bluray 3D! Get real.

[rainsft]

Having been wowed by a few 3D IMAX experiences at the Kennedy Space Center and Daytona USA, I was convinced that this was the direction that TV would eventually go. The picture was so much more involving and real that I thought it added significantly to the viewing experience. However, I've also noticed that I might be in a minority of people who would actually get excited enough by this to actually go out and buy a unique 3D TV and wear special glasses to get this experience. I think that there will be a real problem trying to get the mainstream to buy in, much as was referenced in terms of their apathy toward Blu-ray. Additionally, you'll have the usual problem with hardware and content manufacturers saying "you first" to each other. I think that, although the newer 3D technology will succeed in appealing to a smaller community of advocates, content will be minimal and hardware prices will stay high.

[deanbvfx]

It's not a "You First" anymore, TV makers already have have 120hz TV's on the market. All it should take is the BDA deciding on a standard, then a simple firmware update to BD-live players. And Monster vs Aliens been shipped with a 3D version with some phunky glasses.

[fuzbears]

Don't forget that quite a few of us who have Samsung model TV's already support 3D.. The only issue is that you have to have a computer hooked up and buy specially encoded movies.. Having it part of blue ray standard would open this up.. The kit to turn my tv 3d was only 80 dollars..

[NervClaX]

To push new hardware on consumers at this point would be a complete betrayal. If manufacturers wanted to go in this direction they should have thought of it before. It's too late to ask cash-strapped parents to buy new TVs for Toy Story 3D. This should be worked into the next-generation of OLED TVs. They're at least 7 years out, right? Leave 3D in the theatres where people can wear their goofy glasses and go home happy. Actually, I think the movie theatres would be happy to have the 3D advantage over home theatres.

Also, I shudder to think of the eye-strain put upon children watching those Disney movies in 3D over, and over, and over, and over...

[AnthonyNYC]

Great Point! We don't want crossed eyed children! LOL
And movie theaters definitely need an edge to people staying home where popcorn isn't $12 a bag,
So 3D might just be the savior of movie houses, but will they need new million dollar 120Hz screens? Or use old style projector type red and green glasses, i hate those!
:)

[tonhogg]

Well all I can say is when this 3d wave began in 2004 with polar express people said history would repeat itself and 3d would die out just like before. Now this has been the longest 3d wave so far. The big one of the 1950's only lasted two years. This one has now gone on for 4 and a half years. Plus it has been the people going to the 3d movies that have had to drive further to see one, only a handful of theaters have been showing them in 3d, the other 75 % of the showings of a movies like Monster Vs Aliens has been only in 2d, and most movie plexes had them both in 2d and 3d, yet the 3d sold more tickets between 2 and 4 to 1. My Bloody Valentine was 6 to 1. So I can only say a lot of people are willing to drive further and pay more to see a 3d movie. Otherwise the movie studios and the television manufacturers would just abandone the idea of doing 3d.

So the people you really need to blame for all of this are the private citizens who are paying to see these movies. If they didn't pay for them, it would just die away.

[tipoo_]

I for one would want the "HD gimmicks" as you call them, even if they are gimmicky. Why wouldnt anyone? Apart from wearing the lame-looking glasses, of course.


I don't think there is any reason why DVD's couldn't support 3D effects though, unless I'm missing something.

P.s the last movie i saw in 3D used the red and blue glasses, it looked pretty good. What exactly makes polarized glasses better than anayglyph?

[DarthViking1]

Blu-Ray is good enough for me right now, but if I had extra funds on hand I'd upgrade to 3-D in a second!

[FiguredMaple]

How about a polarized vinyl overlay to stick to your TV's screen? Similar to temporary auto window tint. Would that work?

[Gorifyny]

I don't see any possibility of such a method working. Even the possibility of any home system utilizing polarization is, I'm afraid, far-fetched. This would probably require a whole new paradigm in screen design with a dual-layered screen having a different polarization direction for each layer, with micro apertures for each. The sequential switch approach is apparently the only possible practical way of doing this and that, too, requires TV's with a capability quite different from most of today's models (I am not familiar with the Samsung referenced above.)

[ooprus]

I believe the 3D Samsung HDTV's use rear projection DLP technology at 120 Hz. There are also 3-D DLP front projectors. This is fast enough to show 60 frames/sec for EACH eye, combined with LCD shutter glasses synchronized to the alternating left/right frames. I nice thing about this technology is non-3D, withough the shutter glasses looks just fine. Any kind of polarization grid built into the screen will effect non-3D movies negatively.

Film movies show 24 unique frames/sec, double displayed to 48 frames/sec. I'm curious if you showed 30 frames/sec alternating left/right (which would be the 60 Hz used on current HDTV's), combined with LCD shutter glasses, might be not unlike film movie flicker. Perhaps not optimal (120 Hz), but also perhaps passable on current 1080p HDTV's.

[Antjel]

3d requires you to separate the left and right image for each eye. That's why it needs to be glasses, you can't get around it. Anaglyph (red/green) glasses work but will distort the color (obviously) a little. Polarized glasses don't distort the color but your TV has to be able to display in two different polarized images (hence it would require new hardware or atleast dual projectors with a special screen or paint on your wall). Lastly is shutter glasses. Shutter glasses are synchronized with your screen, your television displays the left and right images alternately instead of simultaneously then the shutter glasses blink alternately in sync. This happens so fast your brain doesn't notice and each eye only sees their image. Although shutter glasses mean you don't have to replace you TV you do need some sort of wireless controller for the glasses and now expensive electronic glasses for each of your audience. I have shutter glasses for my PC gaming experience it's wonderful but it's not cheap if I want anyone else to view at the same time my 3d experience.
So ultimately the argue over the technology is still there. Buy cheap polarized lens in bulk for all of your family and buy an expensive TV? or keep your current TV and buy expensive 3d glasses for each member of your family.
I personally think all 3d movies should come with an 2d version, an Anaglyph version and a polarized version. Then you can use the red/green glasses until you can afford the new tv or just view in 2d. This would allow everyone to take their time without worrying about the dog chewing up a pair of $200 glasses.

[the_iceman]

I'm not a fan of 3D and I'm a little surprised at its come back recently. I find it very 80s and gimmicky

[AlSleet]

I've only had a plasma for a few months. No I am not going to buy another one for some ******* reason like this. And the idea of hooking some noisy computer to the TV so I can see 3D is not happening either.

[oassaf]

so hypothetically lets say 3D does catch on and is used widely in movies in 6 years...everytime we ant to watch a movie we would have to wear these glasses, whether it be a at a movie plex or at home. I thought with advances in technology we would remove the need for those extra items. it can be healthy for your eeys to be wearing these 3d glasses whenever you stare at a screen. And what if you wear eye glasses, how comfortable would that be.

[memeroot]

my plasma is about 5 years old so I'd have no problem upgrading to a new screen, I'd also hapily pay the premium - just as I did with the old screen.

the only question is technology based and whether that tech is in screen or the glasses.

when that's resolved I'll pick up a new screen - afterall this purchase is rather more expensive than a hd-dvd player.... (currently serving as an external drive for the umpc......... ah early adoption :-(

[deanbvfx]

Current 3D tech involves a 120hz TV (which more are coming to the market) and polarized glasses.
If the BDA join in then the only extra tech would be a tweak to the blu-ray player, which for BD-Live players should just involve a firmware update.

[AnthonyNYC]

well how many BlyRay players sold to date have bluray Live deature? like the last 1 % sold? Good luck getting all thos bluray owners to go buy a totally new bluray payer which has bluray live feature to receive firmware update, then convince them to go buy totally new plasma or LCD which had 120Hz, for the possible promise of a few 3D movies released at a premium each year, Yeah! Good Luck to the studios on this brilliant idea.
Why didn't they add 3d as a feature of next generation movie disc from the beginning? Oh wait, they were busy fighting a format war, yeah, that's it.
What makes anyone think as soon as bluray choses a 3d format, some other tv brand won't introduce a totally new incompatible 3d version. I already read they are working on screens with depth grooves which will show mild 3 d image on all pictures, no glasses needed at all, so basically the right eye will see just a little different image then the left eye sees because of pixel positioning, nothing to do with 120hz 3D.

[TheHuckster]

Anyone who is downplaying the quality of the 3D experience has not been to a 3D movie recently. I took my wife to see Coraline 3D, and it was the most amazing, captivating movie experience I have ever had. The 3D effects are seamless and breathtaking and are not over emphasized, as in theme park rides like the old Captain EO at Disneyworld. I strongly encourage anyone who feels the dorky glasses are not worth an extra $3 at the box office to take a chance. If this technology makes it home in the same format as the REALD 3D movies, it will be worth every penny.

[dizug]

I agree with you 100%. The upgrade in visual quality from DVD to Blu-Ray is great and all but personally I think DVD quality is still good enough. It is not the jump in advancement from say, Videotapes to DVD. That next giant step would only naturally have to be 3d which I believe should and will most likely be the future of home theater.

[kingofkings1968]

I agree with this article that blue ray handily beats dvd in resolution , but to me it just isn't enough to justify the steep price. what they need to do is just reduce the price point so most people would find it justified for the level of improvement . I wouldn't pay more then 150.00 for a blue ray. my guess is that we will see that price point within a couple of years. just be patient and let the price come to you .

also, adding 3d effect is not gonna appeal to most consumers and falls into the " lets add a gimmick to goose the price up " category for me.

cmon , there are 3d movies out now and no one goes to see them but a few cheap thrill seeking teenagers. and do you really want to put on a pair of dorky glasses just to watch a movie in your own home .

[tonhogg]

Ok you guys need to quit coming on these news article and lying about 3d movies being shown in movie theaters.

1. No there are not large areas that people can see only a 3d movie because the 2d is not showing in thier area theater. Right now 3d is limited to larger cities that have several theaters so the 2d is avaible and many multiplexes are showing the 2d and 3d version of these movies. The number of theaters that can show 3d are rather small right now.

2. Yes there are large numbers of people going to see the 3d presentation who choose to by pass the 2d version. Even though there are fewer 3d screens the number of people seeing a 3d film vs the 2d film is around 2 or 4 to 1. With My Bloody Valentine For every 1 person that saw it in 2d 6 saw it in 3d, and remeber that is with 3d having quit a few less showings.

People keep saying how it is beening force on us, no it is not, 95% of the population can easily get to the 2d showing if they want, most are choosing not to, and more would go if they didn't have to drive an hour or two to get to a 3d showing.

So don't lie just to make a point.

[AnthonyNYC]

Forget Price of HD and BluRay ever matching that of DVD and replacing DVD, That ship has sailed.
SD streaming movie rentals are $1.99 an episode for most on Amazon OnDemand and HD streaming is $2.99.
That's it, there will always!! be a premium for a better quality picture from now till the end of time, the studios and broadcasters realize this now. DVD's cost $20, BluRay's cost $30, 3D BluRay? $45 with cool glasses, maybe?
It is the price the rich pay for quality they can affor over the lower class, that took a while, since we always had one tv standard, but since going digital, now we have a 2 class standard, lower price SD quality, streaming and disc, and higher priced HD quality streaming and BluRay, they are looking to add even more expensive 3D Bluray, good for them, if people will pay, why not?
We have the have's and the have nots, so why only have one quality tv image? That is no longer an American privaledge, you pay for quality now, or watch lower quality SD image if you can't affor HD. Simple.
And now that studios got a taste of that, don't EVER expect it to change and all even out ever again!
Mark my words on this, the BluRay vs DVD war isn't a war, it is two standards that will exist side by side for eterninty folks, the studios will see to that, even if public wanted to change, which they don't.

[repete66211]

I think it would be cool to watch 3-D movies at home, but I wouldn't pay (much) for it. Since it's a spectacle gimmick I think it's more appropriate for large scale presentation.

[deecee]

Am I the only one finding "3D" movies headache inducing, annoying and gimicky? 3D anything never really looked natural to me, it doesn't add anything to the story telling.
Besides, current display is already fully capable of displaying 3D effects if need to (just like a magazine does not have to be a 3D magazine to print stereoscopic images that's viewable as 3D with a pair of special glasses). Time magazine had a 3D print version a while ago, I don't remember they using any special paper or a speical printer for that matter. 3D is an optical illusion created using the different images for each eye filtered by the glass, there's no real reason the display need to be updated to provide that spacial separation for each eye of viewed image. Companies push for upgrade into TV's just for the sake of selling new TV's, it's that simple.
I much rather the movie maker concentrate on plot, character development instead of goofy 3D effect to get my nickle on a movie anyway.
No, I am not going to buy an iMax anytime soon for my living room either.

[tonhogg]

I get the feeling this person has not been to a 3d movie since Gorilla At Large in 1954. Typical commenters.

[forrell]

I too have problems viewing 3D content and I have seen systems that use the high end work station shutters, polarized 3D, and the old original anaglyph glasses. I can only stand to view 3D for about 15 minutes and then I begin to visually separate the images. Any longer than 15 minutes and I get a headache. Maybe it will catch on, but not for some of us. I wear glasses, so maybe that is a factor.

[Antjel]

You can watch 3d on any tv it's called anaglyph (red/green glasses), it sucks and it's why 3d failed the first time around. Digital polarized images like you can get in the theatres today or with shutter glasses at home are the only way to enjoy a 3d experience. If you are getting headaches from watching 3d I suggest giving it one more try on a movie that uses "Real 3d" technology. Unfortunately it's not available on IMAX yet but it is available in most of the digital 3d movies playing in theatres today. With conventional polarized 3d if your head isn't horizontal to the screen the images will separate, "Real 3d" circular polarization has corrected that. If your getting headaches from standard polarized lenses you may be more sensitive or you may be tilting your head and didn't realize it. The kids working at the theatre making minimum wage weren't taught or understand the technology enough to inform the patrons. That's why circular polarization will eventually replace the IMAX 3d 90 degree polarization. BTW my wife has glasses and has absolutely no issue with watching 3d films and I get dizzy just looking at pin wheel and have no issue either.

[LinuxRules]

Polarized glass will only be for theaters, you need two projectors and left and right filters, or circular polarized filter on special HDTV sets. Most-likely for home 3D, you will need shuttering glasses, which means batteries for the glasses, and your bluray player sending a IR signal to the glasses.