Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Announces First 3D Blu-ray Disc Players

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the please-remaster-that-boring-casablanca dept.

Media 145

angry tapir writes "Sony has announced a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too. The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems, which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year. Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification, which was finalized by the Blu-ray Association in December, can be shown on the players."

cancel ×

145 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HDMI spec (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31091956)

Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.

It is HDMI, forget DisplayPort for TV (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092052)

Sony and Blu-Ray are behind HDMI, as is every other media company around. Any TV that does not support HDMI will have no market share.

Right, but... (2, Interesting)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092166)

It's yet another HDMI version. They were supposed to even have larger connectors that transferred more data, but I see those nowhere. I'm not seeing why a 24 Hz movie can't be doubled to 48 Hz for 3D when it transfers at 60 Hz anyway usually. I think the tremendous amount of bandwidth needed for those black bars around movies means we all have to upgrade.

Re:Right, but... (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092268)

Most of the different HDMI versions are just implementations in software, not hardware. That is why all it takes to make the PS3 capable of 3D is a software upgrade.

When you see an "HDMI 1.3" cable, it is likely 100% identical to a 1.1 cable - the only difference is in the tolerance requirements of the conductors.

Re:Right, but... (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092326)

60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.

Re:Right, but... (4, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093286)

60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.

Not at 60p, it doesn't. 60p, whether at 1080 or 720 resolution tranfers a full frame 60 times per second. It's only interlaced formats that are transfer half the image with each refresh.

Re:Right, but... (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093454)

Yes, but what devices support 60p output? Or for that matter, do any TVs support 60p input? 60i, yes; 24p, yes; I haven't heard of 60p usage outside of computers, though.

Re:Right, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093986)

You haven't gone TV shopping in a while, have you? Any HDTV supports 720p60 and any new one that is large enough (that is, around 30"+) supports 1080p60.

Re:Right, but... (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094826)

Holy shit have you been in a cave? We've had 60Hz progressive scan for ages in LCD and Plasma TVs!

Re:Right, but... (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094932)

My TV supports 1080p 120hz and it's from 2 years ago.

Re:Right, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31095268)

You're out of touch with the market then, aren't you?

PS3 & XBox360 both support 1080p @ 60Hz, and all TVs listed as 1080p will support 60Hz input.

In terms of movies playing at 60Hz, no. Most are of course still recorded at 24 fps on film.

Re:Right, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092372)

Its HDMI 1.4

http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=101

There are new specs for connectors, but its mostly a mini connector (camcorders ect.) and a connector for automotive use.

Most of the 3D and the higher resolution formats (4Kx4K , 4Kx2K ect) arn't spec'd for full 60Hz refresh rates (30Hz or slower), so they don't exceed the available bandwidth (around 20Gbs) on the existing cable.

"support" and "Support" (1)

wfolta (603698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092864)

Our Verizon DVR doesn't like our Samsung flatscreen. Lots of loss-of-synch's over HDMI, and that's not very unusual. HDMI is sort of like TIFF that way: so many options that it's a wonder any sender and receiver can sync at all. So there's a difference between supporting plugs and basic protocols and actually working well together.

Fortunately, our PS3 plays Blu-rays flawlessly to the Samsung... so far.

Re:"support" and "Support" (1)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092992)

The Verizon DVR problem is really a failure of the manufacturer not a problem with the spec, and it is entirely software. The problem is pretty well documented on various forums, Motorola seems to have no interest in fixing it. See

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21921761-HD-FIOSMotorola-Box-vs-Samsung-HDMI-not-Working [dslreports.com]

for a lot of links.

Re:HDMI spec (3, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092082)

exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears ...

Re:HDMI spec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092332)

They aren't exactly analog anymore if you live in the US. I will say though that broadcast TV is the best solution right now. Who needs all those other channels? What can you watch on them you can't see on Hulu?

Re:HDMI spec (1)

nuclearpenguins (907128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093784)

In my case, live sporting events. The Internet streaming options aren't quite ready for primetime yet.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094840)

"They aren't exactly analog anymore if you live in the US."

Physics error! All transmissions, digital or otherwise, are still carried by means of an analog electromagnetic emission.

Re:HDMI spec (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093538)

To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US. If you're still watching OTA broadcasts, spend an hour on a weekend to make one of these [blogspot.com] . It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears. I found the reflector to be unnecessary.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094050)

Any old TV antenna should work just fine in the new era because the digital TV band is a subset of the TV bands used before. I'm pulling in digital HD signals from stations that I used to get a fuzzy picture from using the same rooftop antenna. HD Radio works too!

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31095202)

To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US.

Maybe they are close to the boarder, Canada is still not all digital broadcast (until Aug 2011) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans (I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder, 50 miles away.)

Re:HDMI spec (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092188)

Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

If they claimed to stand behind it, would you trust them?

I can imagine this being announced by most, implemented by some, and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest. Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093606)

In 1998 they were all behind IEEE1394, which had very good link-level copy-protection. It was going to tie all the home theater components together. Sony made one TV with it, calling their version iLink. Then Intel turned its back on it, favoring USB 2.0, and that was the end of it. Even Apple, who owns many if the patents (calling it Firewire), has backed away from it.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094042)

The markets went with the compatible option (works with existing USB 1.0 devices and hosts) and the mass market option (whatever wintel supports out of the box). IEEE1394 is better in many (most) ways, but the market of generic computer users prefer the cheapest thing that gets the job done; ie, the just-good-enough option. 1394 ended up as more of a high end thing, so was more commonly used in the Mac market where they're used to spending a bit of a premium. (and 1394 wasn't really about video, it was just a serial SCSI bus, good for video or hard disks or cd burners or whatever high volume peripheral you had)

For HDMI though, that feels inherently like a high-end thing. Something that people on the bleeding edge want. The mass market isn't excited about this; they just want to hook up a DVD player or DVR to a new TV. If the mass market does care about the latest thing, then it's about how big the new TV is not the technical details. If they subscribe to cable/satellite/u-verse, they want it to plug into whatever ten year old TV they have. Yes, lots of early adopters to be sure but it's not a ma-and-pa thing.

Re:HDMI spec (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092198)

HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092214)

There is a new proposed HDMI spec for the additional bandwidth needed, but it doesn't have widespread acceptance by the TV industry yet.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092246)

Well, of course it doesn't quite yet, its just that, new and proposed. HDMI isn't going anywhere just like USB isn't. But right now USB 3.0 ports are still a rarity on most computers. There are very, very few people who are going to want to spend the money buying -another- HDTV, and most people just want a cheap one.

Re:HDMI spec (1, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093302)

HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

Trolling again, I see. Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.

Re:HDMI spec (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094846)

save for Apple.

Is that will, reflex, or fortitude?

Re:HDMI spec (2, Interesting)

hazydave (96747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092222)

So far, the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI. There's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts, but hey, most modern TVs have VGA connectors too. It's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count.

cable boxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093004)

Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.

I'm more interested in cable boxes supporting HDMI (with CEC).

I still have old school analog cable, and so I can connect the coax directly into my TV and only have to deal with one remote for channels and volume.

For crying out loud, this is the century of the fruit bat! Why can't we have a single remote control for channel surfing.

What about the PS3? (2, Interesting)

Xamusk (702162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31091962)

I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.

Re:What about the PS3? (0, Flamebait)

Xamusk (702162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092036)

I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.

I guess they will release an update to the PS3 firmware only when those new players are old and sold out.

Re:What about the PS3? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092098)

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/ps3-getting-3d-firmware-update-this-summer/
Or, maybe this summer

Re:What about the PS3? (5, Informative)

Gandhi of War (1741426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092128)

It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs.

Launch PS3? (2, Insightful)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092200)

Including the launch PS3 (I think they were 20/60 GB)? Only so much you can do with a system update.

Re:Launch PS3? (3, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092232)

Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

Re:Launch PS3? (1)

Gandhi of War (1741426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092266)

The article I read didn't specify, but I feel like they would've said if the launch PS3's weren't able to support them. It'll probably be a big update though, so start getting rid of those save games you'll never use again.

Re:Launch PS3? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093200)

Why would you think an update be be that large? We are only talking about an additional protocol and maybe some post processing of the video. Nothing fancy at all. In fact, the Sony BDP-S370 will also be getting an update and already has a similar XMB GUI that the PS3 uses. I'm not sure how much internal flash storage the BDP-S370 has, but the BDP-S570 has 1GB internal. Not much at all.

Re:Launch PS3? (3, Informative)

Edgewize (262271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092348)

You would be amazed what firmware can do. Sony recently announced a revision to the physical disc format that places the pits closer together to increase storage by a significant percentage... and all existing Blu-Ray drives will be made compatible via firmware.

There is a reason that these drives cost so much to manufacture. The physical hardware is incredibly generic, and nobody really knows the limits of its capabilities.

Re:What about the PS3? (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092132)

The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony's announcement at CES last month. It's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it. Apparently, the bigger problem is that you'll likely need a new TV [engadget.com] from what I've been able to find. There are some models [3dmovielist.com] that are apparently capable of supporting it, but it seems fairly sparse.

As far as I know there isn't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either. Avatar is a nice example, but I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head that's mainstream or will be ready any time soon.

Re:What about the PS3? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092376)

Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

Actually, ALL PS2 emulation was removed. The launch units had a PS2 inside them, the later ones had just one of the parts, while the cheap one lacked it and couldn't do PS2 playback at all. The new slim ones also cannot play PS2 games, and cannot do "OtherOS" (aka Linux). And lack 2 USB ports.

What I want to know is if the PS3 was so forward looking that it can support 3D Blu-Ray, why can't the launch units handle piping Dolby Digital TrueHD/DTS Master Audio over HDMI? They only pass through the DD/DTS core streams, and the only other way is LPCM, but the PS3 only outputs 48kHz (TrueHD/Master Audio can do lossless 192kHz/24bit/7.1 output, and it appears the PS3 really only likes to output 48kHz/7.1...). The new Slims can do TrueHD/Master Audio just fine, though.

Re:What about the PS3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092690)

What I want to know is if the PS3 was so forward looking that it can support 3D Blu-Ray, why can't the launch units handle piping Dolby Digital TrueHD/DTS Master Audio over HDMI? They only pass through the DD/DTS core streams, and the only other way is LPCM, but the PS3 only outputs 48kHz (TrueHD/Master Audio can do lossless 192kHz/24bit/7.1 output, and it appears the PS3 really only likes to output 48kHz/7.1...). The new Slims can do TrueHD/Master Audio just fine, though.

The inability of non-slim PS3s to bitstream the HD audio codecs is in fact a hardware limitation of the HDMI chip used in the older models. Also, you are incorrect in saying that the PS3 only outputs 48kHz. If you have a disc that has lossless audio mastered at 96kHz (or even 192kHz), the PS3 will output the decoded PCM stream at that higher sample rate (trust me, I have a few discs that work perfectly fine with my 40GB PS3).

Re:What about the PS3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094162)

Blu-Ray is limited to 192kHz/24bit in 5.1 only, for 7.1 you can only use 48, or 96kHz

Re:What about the PS3? (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092212)

I'm pretty sure they're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.

But Sony's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray. They need to have support for 3D games, and of course, Sony's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing. My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3, and receiving what's essentially 60 "flip a bit" signals per second can't be all that draining on the battery. It's a good move... I don't know if I'd worry too much about 3D if it meant a new TV and Blu-Ray player and all, but if it's $100 for a pair of glasses or two from Sony, I'm in.

Sony is almost certainly doing Blu-Ray over HDMI-1.3. The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic, which should be good enough, as well as working on existing gear. HDMI 1.4 will support a bunch of more sophisticated 3D modes... presumably, there's some formula for handshaking the specific version between player and TV. This also makes the TV 3D aware, which it will not be over HDMI 1.3. But hey, you can do 3D today on plain old everyday computer monitors as long as the PC is driving the shutter sync, so this ought to work fine now.

until the glasses are gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31091972)

3d will never catch on

InB4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31091978)

In before "3D gives me headaches" and "I'm too cool to wear the glasses".

I'll pass.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31091990)

Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players.

Re:I'll pass.... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092684)

They already did, like 25 years from now. I was amazed at how many ifths per oofth it will have.

Re:I'll pass.... (1)

dindi (78034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092838)

it is 3d .... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie. that is an extra D there for you.

Why bother (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092004)

The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years.

Along these lines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092354)

The fall of religion and intellectual property will make the DRM in the cable obsolete in only 20 years.

Meh (0, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092012)

But they'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours. Screw that, I'm holding out for 4D.

Okay, seriously -- what do they think, that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H watch bad fake "3D" too? They're dreaming.

Re:Meh (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092306)

everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can

Hard to say if their plan is to profit off the "everyone brings their own $200 sunglasses" model, or the "every house has a stack of paper plates" model.

I could see this as a path to get everyone to upgrade their glasses... baby boomers aren't getting any younger, they probably all wear glasses, and its time for the corps to shear the sheep again?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094498)

It really doesn't matter to me if some corporate shills spitefully mod me "troll". It is bad, fake 3D and you all know it. You're not fooling anyone.

Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092046)

Bottome line: 3D tech will not work at home in any real way until anybody in the room is able to view it just fine with the naked eye.

Re:Do Not Want (2, Funny)

tolkienfan (892463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092686)

Future generations will have genetically engineered polarized corneas for the purpose.

They are evil (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092072)

"Bluray" is how the Italian terrorists hipnootize our women and use them ass islamocommunist terrorist anti-american jihadists that is why I do not allow any Rays or computers in my Home and I forbid my children and Wife from accissing the intortet without the supervision of myself or another Patriotic Christian man.

Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093342)

You are a boring troll... please cut your losses and just stop posting.

Finally (5, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092118)

Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

Re:Finally (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092272)

Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

I still have one of those old fashioned "entertainment centers" you know a 2001-movie style monolith of wood with cutouts for various machinery such as my CRT TV. In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

Re:Finally (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094550)

In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

Yeah, but I find that the wooden frame can only support ten or fifteen thousand of the players, since even though the 2D players have no thickness they still have mass. And the cabling is a real mess once you get past fifteen or twenty.

It is nice that you can pick them up for nothing at the local store. Just keep the thin edge pointed towards the security camera and they never see you walking out with one. Or ten. Just be careful -- remember how bad a paper cut is, being cut by the edge of a 2D blue-ray is worse. Thankfully they contain a laser that can cauterize the wound while making it.

(I've got one of those centers, too. Not made for HD TVs. If I want to replace my reasonably sized regular TV with an HD, I have to get a really small HD. Or I guess I could just have it stick out the left edge, it won't cover anything there.)

Re:Finally (1)

FrigBot (1459361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092290)

Heh heh.

Stereoscopic != 3D (1, Flamebait)

stavrica (701765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092210)

Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public's collective throat?

Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092256)

Nope.

Maybe one day when there is actual (commercially available) 3 Dimensional Projection it would matter. Since there's not, No, I'm not bothered at all.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (2, Interesting)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092472)

Exactly. I was bothered by the "Flat Screens" being sold in a confusing manner to "Flat Panel". I dislike "High Definition DVD Player" which "upscales" DVDs to "HD resolutions" as a method to confuse consumers expecting HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I loath 480p/i, 720p/i, and other resolution display devices being sold as HDTV in markets where the consumer is expecting 1080p/1080i.

I have issues with marketers selling crap using names that approximate something else in an effort to confuse the consumer into making a purchase they would not otherwise make. In this case though, masses will not rush out to buy a 3D tv/player with the expectation of anything other than stereo-scopic projection. I leave some room for a few true idiots out there who may believe they are getting 3D TV as I believe society was built upon the stupidity clause. However, since we don't have anything coming to market with "true 3 dimensional projection", 3D Blu-ray is fine.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093588)

720p is closer to HD than 1080i. 720 lines is more than 540.

Interlacing should just go die.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094444)

1080i: Each half-frame is 1920*540 = 1036800 pixels
720p: Each full frame is 1280*720 = 921600 pixels

Which one is higher definition again?

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094468)

720p24 is less than 1080i60.

Yes, interlace should die, but with a frame-rate double its lesser lined equivalent, the resolution of the higher-lined but interlaced content will be higher.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094508)

Does anything actually use 720p24 except for (possibly) some films? ATSC uses 720p60.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092352)

Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

Stereoscopic, def.: "The viewing of objects as three-dimensional."

Clue: you're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute, beside the obvious.

Re:Stereoscopic != 3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092714)

These types of movies have been called 3D for about 60 years. What percentage of the population do you think is confused by what someone means when they say 3D movie (other than you, apparently)?

About time! (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092220)

I gotta say I can't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out. I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch!

Finally... (1)

markowen58 (917436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092258)

I'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...

This extra dimension you refer to interests me, do you have more information in the form of a pop up book?

Of course. (0, Troll)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092318)

1) Create Blu-ray Players
2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media
3) Keep changing the encryption methods so people are left in the dust if they bought a cheap player
4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players
5) Profit!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some non-DRMed media on my free as in freedom media player over my home network on my Linux desktop... for free.

Re:Of course. (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092544)

>> 4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players *and DVDs of the same movies*

Fixed that for you.

Re:Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093428)

> 2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media

I think that covered it.

3D (0, Offtopic)

Niris (1443675) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092344)

I don't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies. Do they mean like "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just "Damn that's some nice graphics"

Re:3D (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092392)

They mean "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with glasses and specialty devices.

"Damn that's some nice graphics" has no impact on the source media or display device.

Re:3D (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092418)

Holy shit, that's popping out of the screen.

Re:3D (2, Interesting)

Niris (1443675) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092468)

Awesome, thanks. I was wondering if they'd come out with some way to release movies like Avatar in 3D soon since most people are saying that's the only way to see it. Good to know.

on a side note, hooray for being labeled off topic for trying to clarify what the new technology is :P

Re:3D (2, Interesting)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092664)

The usual term is "stereo" or "stereo-3D." It's been around since shortly after the invention of photography.

I love stereo-3D myself, and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo. It's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera, providing there's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture, moving over about a foot, and taking another framed the same (and hopefully, with the same exposure). Viewing can be done with budget viewers from your LCD video monitor, side to side, or using the crosseye technique, etc.

That said though, I think in this case it's a cheap excuse to try to sell more BluRay players since the market just hasn't been taking off-- HD doesn't get you enough over SD DVD for many people to bother to spend the money (including me). Unfortunately, 3D will get the short-shrift it always does, and when it doesn't explode into an "everybody's gotta have it right now" craze, the producers will tire of spending money in the production for insufficient results. So we'll have a couple of wowzer stereo films (Avatar and one or two others, probably), but not enough to justify converting your entire video system over unless you've got too much money or you're a total gadget geek.

A "Ted Turner" could start taking old content and producing artificial plane-separated synthetic stereo from existing media, and that might pull it a long for a few more miles, but even then I seriously doubt it'll be enough to carry it along. And it likely won't be quite as easy or as cheap as "colorization" was, at least to do well.

I'd love to see stereo become mainstream, but we've been down this road before, and I don't see anything new here, just the dollars involved are bigger (which itself doesn't bode well, because for too many people, it's just non-essential)...

If stereo computer monitors got cheap enough I might get one of those so my 3D modelling work can be done in full stereo, but I don't get paid for that so I'm not willing to spend a whole lot over what a plain-old 2D monitor costs.

I'd like to see it, I really would, but I just don't expect it to happen. There's just not enough momentum. It looks to me like a last-ditch attempt for a few desperate folks in tinseltown to give the public a reason to pay more for their stuff. It's just not a good enough reason, frankly. And even if we weren't in a recession, and digital entertainment hadn't lost a whole lot of it's value over the last decade due to the glut of content and its distribution, I just don't see it becoming any more than an expensive parlor-trick...

3D!!! (2, Funny)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092484)

A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.

Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.

Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.

Sorry.

Re:3D!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31092542)

Hah! You deliberately misconstrued the obvious meaning of the story and took it to a ridiculous but logical conclusion. Brilliant!

Re:3D!!! (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094630)

Ummm maybe I missed something but how do they expect to put a 3d image on a 2d screen. Call me when they invent the holosuite. Nothing to see here people. Move along.

This is ridiculous. (2, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31092630)

Which 3D spec is it?
The tech is incredibly immature right now, there's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses, some apparently don't. How is it encoded on the disc, can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie. Is it the same spec as the other companies? What about the TV guys, is it the same spec there?

They (not just Sony) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales, we aren't falling for it this time, the 1080p fiasco was bad enough (it was never an official HD spec, it was added later) you expect us to sell out 1->30 month old HD TV's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles?
I think a 'lol, no!' should suffice here. I'm definitely waiting this one well, well out.

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094128)

What's going to win is someting like VHS - same old boring standard that didn't really change all that much in 20+ years. It seems like the video industry is trying to be like the computer industry and come out with something newer but incompatible every couple of years and expect that people will throw their old devices away and upgrade. It just won't happen. The majority of people will upgrade when the old devices stop working. Which makes me worried about planned obsolescence creeping into these things so that people are forced to upgrade to the latest junk.

Re:This is ridiculous. (3, Informative)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094450)

The thing with the 3D spec's is that it's all in the TV. BluRay's just provide the 3d imaging (left and right frames) it's the TV then projects it, however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses, polarized fields, stereoscopy, Dolby3D, Real3D, hell, even red-blue or magic eye if that's how the set works.

Personally, I think the 3D thing is cool, it's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck. And I figure by the time they work that part out, it'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I didn't get my money's worth out of the current set (and relegating it to another room).

Re:This is ridiculous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31094738)

what 1080p fiasco?

What about the media? (2, Funny)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093022)

If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?

Maybe virtual reality glasses? (1)

dindi (78034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093048)

I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago (10 years or so), and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.

I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p (1280x720?) glasses (per eye) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now, but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600 .... 1024 costs a lot more..... Just do not get it......

Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others would pay for such a thing.... then again, I am not the movie goer, a movie is not a social event in my dictionary....

PS3... (1)

TheTyrannyOfForcedRe (1186313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093140)

Hmmm... No mention of the PS3. Time to sell?

Re:PS3... (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093470)

3-D Blu Ray support for PS3 was announced at C.E.S. last month to be rolled out this summer. Way to keep on top of tech news!

Next Big Thing (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093248)

A few Years ago, I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection. At the time, I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle (I can hardly call it a war) had not begun. It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec. Cool I thought. I am ready for when this starts happening. Then a few months later, I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff. Then start to hear I hear HDMI input. This monster box has coxial, Svideo, component and composite. So in theory, I have a nice large screen television that is HD capable, but no way of utilising this function. Thank you Panasonic. Just last year I bought myself a bigger, Plasma screen - This time 1080p with many HDMI inputs and I have been enjoying HD - However, Damned if I am going to buy - yet another - high end Television (there is no way I am going smaller) in the next few years only to be obsoleted so quickly.

Re:Next Big Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093514)

Not relevant anymore, but you could have sent a 1080i/720p signal over component from a PC or game console. I had one of those mammoth rear-projection CRTs (56") myself. Kept it til it died, then got a new 55" LG 240Hz LED.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31093366)

How have we been able to laugh 3d movies out of our lives for fifty goddamn years or so now and now all of a sudden it's the biggest fucking thing ever?

Either we have been somehow conditioned to accept without question every new goddamn pile of shit technology that has come down in the last few years (LCDs, Blu-Ray, Wii, XBox 360 with its horribly defective hardware, CFL, etc), or we have gotten a LOT less intelligent in that time. Maybe a little of both.

Wake up, people. Holy fuck.

Remember when 3D used to mean... (2, Insightful)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31093462)

Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!

Unfortunately (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094072)

Unfortunately, the Wonka bar is still very, very small. Ah well.

--
Toro

So, tell me, Sony (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31094868)

You going to give us glasses for this? I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?