DailyTech - Blu-ray 3D Specifications Finalized

Submit News

Gadgets Blu-ray 3D Specifications Finalized
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 17, 2009 9:51 AM

41 comment(s) - last by Lazarus Dark.. on Dec 25 at 8:17 AM

PS3 will support 3D Blu-ray

CES 2010 is only a few weeks away and one of the new technologies that is most interesting that will be unveiled at the show is 3D Blu-ray. Blu-ray in 3D will provide 1080p resolution to each eye allowing for full HD playback of 3D movies with compatible displays.

The Blu-ray Disc Association announced today that the standard is finalized and it's set to release the Blu-ray 3D specifications. The specifications were worked on by Hollywood studios, consumer electronic makers, and the home entertainment industry.

“Throughout this year, movie goers have shown an overwhelming preference for 3D when presented with the option to see a theatrical release in either 3D or 2D,” said Victor Matsuda, chairman, BDA Global Promotions Committee. “We believe this demand for 3D content will carry over into the home now that we have, in Blu-ray Disc, a medium that can deliver a quality Full HD 3D experience to the living room.”

One very good bit of news for PS3 owners is that the specification will be supported by the console, which will mean a firmware update will add 3D playback. The specifications will deliver a 3D image to any compatible display regardless of whether the TV is LCD or plasma and no matter is the screen requires glasses or not.

The specifications also allow for the playback of 2D discs in the coming 3D players and 3D discs can be played on 2D players already installed in homes around the world. The specifications calls for encoding 3D video with the MVC codec, which is an extension to the ITU-T H.264 codec currently supported by all Blu-ray players on the market.

Blu-ray 3D is expected to reach consumers in 2010.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Avatar

By therealnickdanger on 12/17/2009 10:07:15 AM , Rating: 4

So far, every 3-D movie I've seen in the theater has been pointless. The movies themselves were fine, but the 3-D just seemed gimmicky and did nothing for the storytelling. Surround sound is more effective, IMO.

The entire 3-D money-making machine is riding on Avatar. If Avatar can prove to the masses that 3-D is worth it, then we may see fast adoption of the standard and lots more movies on the way. Personally, I think until we have 3-D without glasses in the theater and at home, it's useless to me.

RE: Avatar

By donjuancarlos on 12/17/2009 10:12:56 AM , Rating: 2

And I logged in just to post how I was looking forward to getting Avatar Blu-ray in 3D on my PS3...

Parent

RE: Avatar

By HighWing on 12/17/2009 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Personally, I think until we have 3-D without glasses in the theater and at home, it's useless to me.

Agreed, I've been saying that for awhile now. Fact is the whole 3d with glasses has been out for decades and never took off. What makes these company execs think anything has changed?

Parent

RE: Avatar

By BansheeX on 12/17/2009 12:50:26 PM , Rating: 2

I couldn't be more perplexed by all this new chatter about 3d glasses. Huh? Nobody cares. We have far more substantive improvements coming. I can sum them up easily: OLED, OLED, and OLED.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By HighWing on 12/18/2009 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2

OLED is cool and all, but 3d tv can still trump it's success if it is achieved without glasses.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Akrovah on 12/17/2009 3:39:45 PM , Rating: 5

What has changed is the technology available. Previously 3-D was acheived by using colored filters, but this had the side effect of washing out the colors of the image. Current 3-D tech uses light polarization, which can be done using clear-ish filters. The result is an image that not only pops out in apparent 3-d, but is also full color.

As for 3-D without glasses, that would be cool yes, but as long as the source is a 2-D surface, something has to separate the image your right eye sees from your what left eye sees, and glasses are simply the best way to do that. To do so without any kind of filtration would require your source to actually be in 3D, in otherwords, like holograms in Star Trek. We're along way off from that, but what they are trying to roll out now can bring us a similar effect (as long as we don't try to walk around it) with current technology.

I myself have not seen a movie with the new 3-D technology, but the consensus from people I know who have is that it is quite impressive, and that the new glasses are not quite the hinderance the old ones were.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By HighWing on 12/18/09, Rating: 0

By HighWing on 12/18/2009 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 0

quote:
What has changed is the technology available. Previously 3-D was acheived by using colored filters, but this had the side effect of washing out the colors of the image. Current 3-D tech uses light polarization, which can be done using clear-ish filters. The result is an image that not only pops out in apparent 3-d, but is also full color.

I'm just going to assuming you've never heard of stereoscopic and or Viewmasters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master They've been out for decades and achieved 3d in full color. So that is nothing new.

So I'm going to assume you meant that it is new for movies to achieve this. Which is true, but again the technology of how it works is still not a new concept as I recently pointed out. And again as someone else here has already pointed out, this seems to only work best for moves, as did the previous 2 color 3d did.

And there have been other attempts at making 3d images in full color that have been tried years prior. I don't know the exact name of it, but it involves shutters and I think one TV manufacture is trying it for 3d tv.

But none of that changes the fact that it has already been proven several times over that it will not work for mainstream use as consumers do not want to wear the glasses all the time.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By AnnihilatorX on 12/18/2009 6:55:33 PM , Rating: 2

You can emulate 3D without user having to wear 3D glasses by using wave inference methods, in essence producing different images for 2 eyeballs. The problem is view angle and amount of simultaneous viewers.

In future I think a TV with intelligent eye tracking device , double panels and fast switching optics can emulate 3D effect without glasses.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Spivonious on 12/17/2009 10:31:11 AM , Rating: 2

Coraline was neat. Rather than the gimmicky "things jumping out at you" they used the 3D to provide some depth on the screen. Aside from making my eyes tired, it was a definite improvement over the 2D version.

With that said, I don't think 3D will work at home. It works in the theater because you are immersed in the film. TV screens are just too small, and TV rooms too distracting.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By therealnickdanger on 12/17/2009 11:16:35 AM , Rating: 2

I had a different experience with Coraline. I thought the movie was creative and everything, but to me the 3-D just didn't add anything - certainly nothing that made it worth wearing the glasses or paying the extra $3 per ticket. I admit, I liked the more subtle useage of the 3-D in Coraline, but I still didn't see the benefit.

The worst part about wearing the glasses is that if you take them off (discomfort) then you can't watch the movie since it becomes a blurry mess. That's why I think the technology has to be part of the display - whether screen or TV.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Lazarus Dark on 12/17/2009 7:18:40 PM , Rating: 2

Strangely, I find Coraline less enjoyable on Bluray now. I saw it three times in theater, all in 3d. Then I got the Bluray and while the movie is still quite good, I can still remember how immersive the 3d was, it was like being transported into the screen and I feel the experience is lacking. The anaglyph 3d on the bluray is just unwatchable due to the washed colors.

I watch blurays on the htpc, so as soon as Arcsoft supports the 3d movies, I'm getting the nvidia glasses and a compatible 3d tv.

In my opinion, for movies like Coraline and Avatar, 3d is like OAR. It's how it was meant to be seen. You wouldn't crop a 2.35 movie to fit your 16:9 screen... WOULD YOU? (don't answer that, I don't want to know)

Parent

RE: Avatar

By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2009 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 2

I hate cropping! Not sure I agree on 3-D being quite the same thing. Sure, movies with "3-D" in the title are like OAR, but if the movie comes out in both formats...? If it was Cameron's vision that this movie only be seen in 3-D, then that would be the only option.

I'm going to see Avatar in both 2-D and 3-D and try to remain objective. People are saying that it's the best "proof" for 3-D film yet... but I think I'll see it in 2-D first.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2009 1:24:26 AM , Rating: 2

OMG. I'm sold on 3-D. At times I felt as though I was in a hippie drum circle, but DAMN, Cameron knows how to make a high tech movie!

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Lazarus Dark on 12/25/2009 8:17:55 AM , Rating: 2

the thing is... this movie looks like crap in 2d! It only really works in 3d. In 3d, the avatar characters are lifelike and real, I believed them. But in 2d they look like cartoons!

I will never see this movie in 2d again, thank god for my 3d ready tv and bluray 3d being finalized.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Spivonious on 12/18/2009 10:06:52 AM , Rating: 2

My local theater had the 3D and 2D versions at regular price. I agree that the effect wasn't worth an extra $3 on top of an already expensive movie ticket ($10 here).

Parent

RE: Avatar

By Chocobollz on 12/18/2009 12:09:07 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
It works in the theater because you are immersed in the film

Not really, sometimes I'm more immersed by the hot chick sitting next to me, especially when the movie isn't really worth watching :P~

Parent

RE: Avatar

By zerocool84 on 12/17/2009 1:46:34 PM , Rating: 2

I've seen many 3-D movies. The cheap ones and the "good" ones and not one has been so good that it would be any different without it. It's just one big gimmick.

Parent

RE: Avatar

By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:10:35 PM , Rating: 1

http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow

Parent

wwwcd post

By wwwcd on 12/17/09, Rating: 0

RE: wwwcd post

By ebakke on 12/17/2009 1:16:30 PM , Rating: 4

I read your post twice, and I still have no idea what the hell you said.

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By wwwcd on 12/17/2009 3:37:56 PM , Rating: 1

Sorry! Google translator takes care of me!

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By SlyNine on 12/17/2009 1:36:11 PM , Rating: 2

What the hell does having a THEORETICAL 2.79 TFlops have to do with making a Holographic 3d Image. Plus, The Radeon 5870 is geared towards rasterization just like ANY OTHER 3d card. The problem with 3d isn't the processing power, its the display technology and we are no where close to photons and energy *holodeck*.

I think you're a few watts short of a 60watt light bulb.

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By Akrovah on 12/17/2009 3:46:34 PM , Rating: 2

The graphics cards and their processing power only matter if you are talking about 3-D games, in which case eahc frame must be rendered twice. This article is talking about 3-D movies, which are pre-rendered and would only take the computational power needed to decode 2 HD signals at once (If I am understanding the tech correctly), and this does not need some 3TFlops of computational power.

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By wwwcd on 12/17/09, Rating: 0

RE: wwwcd post

By SlyNine on 12/18/2009 3:35:04 AM , Rating: 2

Once light hits the retina of your eye all 3d information is lost. It's your brain that creates this 3d experience thanks to the information it gets from 2 eyes ( and other factors). So Nvidia's system just gives the brain enough information to create a 3d experience for you..

I think you have some misconceptions about how the brain eyes work together, or I'm completely misunderstanding you.

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By wwwcd on 12/18/09, Rating: 0

RE: wwwcd post

By SlyNine on 12/19/2009 3:44:09 PM , Rating: 2

Sorry man, but I cannot understand a sentence you typed. Which makes this impossible to debate. Which leads me to believe that you're using a internet based translator, as such you cannot possibly infer my proper meaning.

*(slight sarcasm/irony intended).

Parent

RE: wwwcd post

By wwwcd on 12/18/2009 5:40:42 AM , Rating: 2

Is definitely different to see a real space designed holographic images and videos! Russian scientists were already in the 197X to do, so what it cost in today's digital technology!?

Citation :

Ups, cirilic not have in Daylytech!

Parent

one thing troubles me

By kattanna on 12/17/2009 10:59:23 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
compatible displays

that phrase is mentioned twice, with no further clarification of what a "compatible display" is.

any one got any further info on that?

RE: one thing troubles me

By Marlonsm on 12/17/2009 11:15:59 AM , Rating: 2

It might be anything from a color TV, to use the red-blue glasses, up to a TV that emits polarized light.

But it's more likely to be an 120Hz TV.

Parent

RE: one thing troubles me

By HighWing on 12/17/2009 11:16:04 AM , Rating: 2

well from what I've been reading, it pretty much means you will need to buy a new 3DTV if you want to see 3d. But the way this is worded it seems like it could be supported on some current TV's. Though I would be surprised if it was more then a select few top of the line systems.

Parent

RE: one thing troubles me

By nafhan on 12/17/2009 11:20:29 AM , Rating: 3

I think it's 120hz. You need to get 60hz for each eye.

Parent

RE: one thing troubles me

By ExarKun333 on 12/17/2009 11:29:11 AM , Rating: 2

Too bad the only "true" 120hz screens are DLP.

Parent

RE: one thing troubles me

By Dribble on 12/17/09, Rating: -1

RE: one thing troubles me

By TSS on 12/17/2009 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 1

If i recall correctly, that means that the TV must support sony's 3D technology. So, Sony's TVs. Basically enabling this on the PS3 is an incentive for people like me (i've got a PS3, but samsung LCD) to go out and buy a sony 3D tv. A quick google search says those will be out end 2010.

Personally though i'm very skeptical. Simply because i hardly watch the crap on TV at all. The only thing i watch is southpark..... on the internet.

Parent

Another reason not to buy a Blu-Ray player

By nafhan on 12/17/2009 11:18:44 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, there you go Blu-Ray association, give consumers another reason to hold off on buying stand alone blu-ray players...
PS3 still seems to be the way to go for a blu-ray player.

RE: Another reason not to buy a Blu-Ray player

By melgross on 12/17/2009 1:53:50 PM , Rating: 2

I don't know about that. BD player sales are up 119% over last year this time. The increase is more than DVD saw at the same time in its introduction.

Parent

RE: Another reason not to buy a Blu-Ray player

By bplewis24 on 12/17/2009 8:20:38 PM , Rating: 2

That's not really practical. The far more prohibitive cost in achieving a 3D Home Theater is going to be the display. People who want to watch Blu-rays NOW are not going to hold off because of a $10,000.00 TV.

Either they have the money to buy the display AND the money to buy two blu-ray players (one now, and another that is 3D compatible), or they don't have the money for the TV and could care less (generally speaking).

Brandon

Parent

Imax 3-D is Awesome

By yoyoma245 on 12/17/2009 10:27:48 AM , Rating: 2

I saw christmas carol in imax 3-d and it was awesome. Didn't feel gimmicky. But had to wear glasses. I'd like to hear from people who saw christmas carol 3-d in regular theaters.

I agree it would be MUCH better to have 3d without glasses. Hopefully they'll figure that out.

I think 3-d is as potentially important to TV as color was. It adds an additional visual component that can be taken advantage of by content creators, just like color.

In English Please

By GTVic on 12/17/2009 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 2

"and no matter is the screen requires glasses or not"

Too many idiots questioning 3D

By Lankym on 12/17/2009 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 2

The problem with 3D ever taking off is that too many people comment about it without ever experiencing it. Watching some crappy show at an ammumsement park is not experiencing 3D it is expeiencing a gimmick. However what is being produced now in hollywood is extremely impresive. If people are really that bothered about wearing glasses then maybe they should look into the passive 3D displays that are being showcased. 3D should of taken off years ago but the tv manufacturers haven't pushed it enough. Stores should be showing the sceens off and then i can guarantee within a year the take up would be massive.

Avatar 3D was awesome but not enough people know that you can get a coputer screen in your home for $300. Look up the zalman trimon.