Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Movies Entertainment

Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010 178

Posted by timothy
from the reformat-your-viewing-cave dept.
Barence writes "Nvidia has announced that 3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010. A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association — to which Nvidia is a contributor — had settled on the 'proper parameters [for] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010.' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology, using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second — twice that of a standard movie — although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth' to ensure smooth playback. New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format, which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies.' Update: HotHardware has some additional details, including images of demo hardware.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010

Comments Filter:
  • by MojoKid (1002251) * on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:43PM (#30379992)
    Also, some nice high res images of the Acer panel here: http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/ [hothardware.com]
    • DLP? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by goombah99 (560566)

      I'm not really interested in having a fancy pants 3D diplay on my computer or laptop. All I want it is on the wall and it seems to me the simplest way to get it there is DLP projection since you can decouple how the pixels are created from the display surface. i.e. just use a regular DLP at twice the frame rate. Have the rotating color wheel or a secondary wheel do the polarization flipping. That way there's no crazy polarizer the size of the display surface or a linticlar lens system to mess with. che

      • by goombah99 (560566)

        I forgot to mention: also no stupid shutter glasses.

        And as for blue ray and 2x blue ray.
        first 3d info should not take double the bandwidth. There's only a little added information (depth usually) since the RGB and intensity (nearly all the bits) are the same for most objects in the scene. (things like velvet and pearlescence being exceptions that don't look right anyhow in Binocular vision 3D and can only be differentiated for foreground pixels anyhow.

        Second for most 3D I would guess that HD resolution i

        • by Richy_T (111409)

          And as for blue ray and 2x blue ray.
          first 3d info should not take double the bandwidth. There's only a little added information (depth usually) since the RGB and intensity (nearly all the bits) are the same for most objects in the scene. (things like velvet and pearlescence being exceptions that don't look right anyhow in Binocular vision 3D and can only be differentiated for foreground pixels anyhow.

          Only for planar surfaces. Depth is not enough. One eye will see things the other eye doesn't see all over th

          • by goombah99 (560566)

            yes but it's a tiny portion of the data. Nearly all the bits are in the RGB and these change in a slow mostly predictable way between the images. it takes very few bits to encode the unpredictable differences.

            • by darthflo (1095225) *

              You raise an interesting point.
              A standard 2-D movie is basically a succession of I-frames (full images) and B-frames (delta information). Seeing how the I-frames are expensive in terms of storage space, the standard (e.g. left eye) track could be left as normal, but an alternative path of B-frames for the right eye could branch off after each I-frame. Alternatively, each right-eye frame could be branched off it's corresponding left-eye frame with that path staying intact, again.
              The former would work better

        • Second for most 3D I would guess that HD resolution is pretty meaningless. Once you go to stereo systems all sorts of visual effects make things much less clear. When I want to watch a 3D movie I'm going for 3D not maximum resolution. DVD quality is going to be fine.

          Pure speculation. When bluray geeks get to comparing the picture quality of various discs, animation always seems to end up on top, along with 2K and 4K digital films. You don't have to have a large precisely calibrated screen to see the difference. No grain to get in the way. No soft focus to get in the way. No art to get in the way.

          Those are the sorts of films that get released in 3D. And those are the sorts of films that will get released on 3D Bluray.

          • by goombah99 (560566)

            No this is not speculation. It's a well known problem. It's exactly the reason Disney upped the frame rate on their theater systems. And it's also something anyone with $10 can go watch. GO see IceAge 3D and look at what happens when character's move fast: the 3D messes up and the image washes out. It's not subtle. Animation is the ideal case too since you could in theory try to make corrections to the motion you could not in live action.

  • New players AGAIN? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kardos (1348077) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:44PM (#30379996)

    >>> “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

    Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

    • by DebianDog (472284) <`dan' `at' `danslagle.com'> on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:51PM (#30380072) Homepage
      HA my procrastination pays off AGAIN!
      • Yep. On the other hand, if you've bought a PS3 from the beginning, you're probably only software update away from 3D capabilities.

        On the other other hand, if you own a PS3, you're only one software update away from DRM hell, so I guess it evens out.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Interesting. If I could see out of both eyes, I'd consider buying one (then again, I haven't bought the current run of crap... err... blu-ray stuff, so I won't have wasted money on it). Unlike vanilla crap-ra- I mean blu-ray, this actually seems like it could be worth the upgrade. At least, if you have two eyes...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)

      The PS9, featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month. Think I'll wait for that.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      >>> “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

      Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

      Bah, we live in a throw-away society anyway, sadly enough. Chances are that POS hardware you paid top dollar for 3 years ago will die sometime soon anyway, nothing in electronics is built to last anymore.

      The more the consumer products have the look and feel of a computer, the better the chances are you'll be replacing/upgrading them like they were computers.

      • You must pick some really shitty hardware.
        My limited anecdotal evidence, agrees with Google's massive statistical evidence; Computer hardware, even consumer grade, is very reliable.

        ...appliances on the other hand deserve their bad reputation.

    • Players are the least of their worries, HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      C'mon, did you really think the evolution of A/V media and equipment had finally come to a permanent conclusion with whatever you got at BestBuy last Black Friday? If the technology is any good, cost and adoption are just matters of time; right at first it will cost a fair bit extra, eventually it will be standard on low-end hardware. Just like color, just like stereo, just like digital tuners...
    • Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!

      Why? There's plenty of demand for cheap used Blu-Ray players.

      But I question the need to sell - many people use PS3's for blu-ray and they should be able to support this with a firmware update - the PS3 came out of the gate supporting HDMI 1.3.

      Players that do not support HDMI 1.3 would be the ones that might have to be let go of, but newer players that do might also be able simply to be updated to add support.

      However, I don't really see the 3D stuff being mor

    • by jhol13 (1087781)

      My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier. All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.

      Make a wild guess.

    • by pnewhook (788591)

      Just get a PS3 - future proof.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      It works for the computer industry....

    • by IrquiM (471313)

      PS3 only needs a firmware update to play 3d blu-rays according to Sony. No need to buy a new one if you got the best ;-)

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:45PM (#30380012) Journal

    Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Meshach (578918)

      Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

      I would settle for a plot that was at least somewhat plausible. Movies now seem to be just a mixture of scatological jokes and special effects that mask the fact that nothing is actually happening.

      I don't see the port of 3D when there is nothing to watch.

      • by abigor (540274) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:57PM (#30380116)

        That's because you see bad movies. There are many good ones released each year. Hope that helps.

        • What are some good movies that are in 3d? I haven't seen any. There are some good non-3d movies , however.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by vossman77 (300689)

            > What are some good movies that are in 3d? I haven't seen any.

            Pixar's Up was awesome, other than that nothing.

          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            Disclaimer: I saw it at a free screening, but I thought the 3D "A Christmas Carol" was pretty good. The *extra* "roller coaster ooh-look-we're-3D" stuff wasn't necessary. The 3D during the other parts of the movie (you know, the parts following the plot of the old book, faithfully I add), was very good.

            Do I think any of these 3D movies are worth the extra 3D premium? I'm not sure, but I was pleasantly surprised by the effect. It will likely make me at least try a few more 3D movies.

      • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:03PM (#30380182)
        I would settle for a plot that was at least somewhat plausible. Movies now seem to be just a mixture of scatological jokes and special effects that mask the fact that nothing is actually happening.

        Think what you want, but I personally can't wait to witness the destructive forces of ShitStorm3D!!!
    • by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:31PM (#30380442)
      How do you feel about stereo sound? Stereo vision is just the same issue, except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears.
      • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @07:48PM (#30382898) Journal

        Well, I either need to wear a dorky thing on my head, or have it sticking out of my ears, or I need to have it installed in a room with the proper spatial qualities and locations for the performance. Video is higher bandwidth, making the investment far greater. Thing is, from the existing spatial information in a 2D image I can discern most of the 3D information that existed in the original print. Somewhat more to the point, since a movie is a 1 dimensional plot through a storyline, and the director is giving me the "proper" perspective, why would I want to wander around the room for a diferent one. Or worse, like in audio - only have one "sweet spot" in the room where I can see what the director intended. There's a reason the seats in the middle of a live performance hall are more expensive than those on the edge. Remember - this is for blu-ray, not things like games or live sports.

        Every 3D demo I've seen has been limited by the act that you have to look at a monitor with a very limited angle of view. If I turn my head, I get nothing. To get a different perspective I have to move my body and turn my head back to the screen, or just sit and wait for whatever the director wants to throw at me.

        Besides, I don't think you're getting much more actual information. Your eyes (well, brain) process a 3D image to create a 2 dimensional representation with depth perception information which cannot be determined from placement/obscuration. It's a fairly minor effect, and you can get most of the cues from a single eye. Depth matters in areas where you need to dermine fine spacial relationships, such as driving, or hunting, but it has very little effect otherwise. Live performances have practically no useful depth information, and yet they are the original 3D. They are just as enjoyable in 2 dimensions on a screen.

        Personally, I think multi-channel sound and good LFE adds a great deal more to a movie than the visual dimension of depth.

      • Maybe this is what the poster before me said, I don't know... but when I listen to Stereo music, the music sounds better and everything else around me sounds normal in spite of the music. With 3D, everything's going to look very abnormal, except for the 3D show.
    • Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!" I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.

      1) No
      2) No
      3) Yes they are annoying
      4) I'll get off your lawn soon enough

      There is never a NEED for anything like this. Television wasn't necessary since the Radio could deliver the news. But now it's considered pretty staple.

      These kind of advancements in the entertainment business help drive new technologies. If 3D becomes popular enough, it'll get developed properly (compare the first Black and white televisions versus todays HDTVs). Once it's done up right, it'll be a completely new immersive experience, wa

    • Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?

      No.

      You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.

      However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to. They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.

      Either way you

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Burning1 (204959)

      Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"

      Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous. Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology? One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheSync (5291)

      Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?

      This is under development, but the challenge is that non-glasses based 3D systems need to code a large number of views - you may need to be able to generate 100 views so that everyone in the room can view 3D properly. Rather than code and transmit ~50 views, it is likely that you will have to code and transmit 3D model (think: Quake model) and render the views at the display device.

      The different views c

  • fuck blueray (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:48PM (#30380044)

    http://fuckbluray.com/ [fuckbluray.com]

    • by Brad1138 (590148)

      fuckbluray.com

      In todays world, where things change by the day, a "techy" opinion web page that says "Last updated November 16, 2006" is completely pointless.

  • by mrboyd (1211932) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @03:54PM (#30380090)
    From TFA

    3D Blu-ray movies will need screens with refresh rates of 120Hz, double the current standard of 60Hz, and 2x speed Blu-ray drives. As with all of Nvidia's 3D products, shutter glasses will be required to view films. The new specification raises concerns about the capability of current hardware to play forthcoming 3D releases, with Berraondo confirming that “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.

    I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it. All 20 of them.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I wonder how much they'll be gouging for these movies. I notice the price of normal Blu-ray disks still hasn't come down.
    • I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it. All 20 of them.

      TigerDirect will gladly sell you a brand-new 46" Sony BRAVIA LCD and Sony Blu-Ray player for $1300. 1080p. 120 Hz Refresh.

      Both set and player have Ethernet connectivity and together will deliver pretty much every widget and streaming media service you could name.

      Sony KDL46W5150 BRAVIA W Series 46" LCD HDTV and Sony Blu-Ray Disc Player Bundle(FREE SHIPPING) [tigerdirect.com]

      The 120 Hz set is easy to fi

  • Eh (Score:4, Informative)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:08PM (#30380224)

    RTFA. First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d. Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it. (that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)

    Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie. PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.

    And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d. Obviously Avatar is the next one up. This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again. It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.

    3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though. It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics. The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.

  • by syousef (465911) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:09PM (#30380234) Journal

    Until you can manage 3D without the polarised glasses, I doubt it'll take off as anything more than a novelty. This is more of a barrier than even new hardware requirements. You average viewer wants to be able to relax in front of a movie. Those that don't wear glasses to begin with - ie the majority - can't do that while wearing these glasses. Until you can relax, fall asleep and cuddle or get romantic without having to worry about glasses poking you in the head or eye or getting in the way, it just isn't going to be mainstream.

  • Show of hands please: how many here think "color" in movies is just a technological gimmick?

    Dig back in time and you'll find pretty much the same complaints about the introduction of color into cinema. "Doesn't add to the plot." "Distracting when directors go 'look! color!'" "Waste of money upgrading perfectly good 5-inch black-and-white TVs." "Nobody really wants to see skin close-up in color." ...thing is, color is a part of our visual perception of the world, and we now demand it - in good quality - for

    • Re:Color? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MooseMuffin (799896) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:32PM (#30380456)
      I don't need to wear special glasses to see color tv.
      • Is that the only issue? Seems to be. The inconvenience of wearing special glasses won't stop the 3D market from thriving, as the 3D movie market is still going decades after it came out.

      • Here, just wear these fresh contact lenses instead of those clunky glasses: http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090827ptan20090213459.php [freshpatents.com]
    • The choice wasn't between upgrading a TV to the new standard and not, it was between going to the cinema and staying home. In order differentiate their product, movie studios introduced widescreen, increased the use of color, and the movie theatres installed air conditioning.

      The first widescreen movies were composed for 1.33:1 and then cropped...

  • How does multiview work? Is each video channel its own stream? Or is one channel a master, and deltas stored off that? Do they share common base frames?

    I don't enjoy 3d movies. I don't find wearing glasses that long to be comfortable, and I don't find any added benefit to the extra dimensionality of the product. I saw the 3d Toy Story double feature at the local theater, and while the 3d was near perfect, I never once felt it added anything to my enjoyment. I've also seen Coraline, Cloudy With a Chanc

    • For those of us who wear prescription lenses already, seems like they could make lightweight clip-ons, such as are used for sun-glasses frequently. Since you are already wearing glasses, which you are used to and are comfortable, it seems like if they were well-designed, the clip-ons would be almost un-noticeable. But, I am kind of with you - for the most part, added depth-perception doesn't add much to the movie experience.

      • by Luyseyal (3154)

        I think something like 2001 would be better fodder for 3D. Or something like the BBC's Planet Earth series.

        $0.02USD,
        -l

    • by TheSync (5291)

      How does multiview work?

      Already, MPEG-4 AVC encoding (and MPEG-2 before it) predict the current frame from past and future frames, thus only coding the difference in the frames, generally motion.

      MPEG-4 Multiview Coding (MVC) allows a right eye frame to be predicted from past, current, and future left eye frames as well.

      Unfortunately, there is a big difference between "motion prediction" which generally offsets of just a few pixels between frames that can be well coded as linear block movement, and "stereos

  • Figuring out the specs for en/decoding the data is no big deal. Display devices capable of producing the images without costing a small fortune and requiring the viewer to wear glasses... that's the challenge.

  • by rAiNsT0rm (877553) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:53PM (#30380710) Homepage

    Never. I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams. BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses. It's always been a gimmick and nothing more. 3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch. Majorly flawed.

    • BR adoption is tepid at best

      No, actually, Blu-Ray adoption is actually about on par with where DVD adoption was:

      http://www.homemediamagazine.com/tks-take/harris-interactive-survey-gets-slammed [homemediamagazine.com].

      You HD-DVD supporters just can't let it go, can you. Despite obvious evidence in stores and truly cheap Blu-Ray players now, you just can't fathom something succeeding that killed you beloved HD-DVD (even though they are just about the same in terms of content delivery!)

      Rejoice that consumers are embracing HD video,

      • by rAiNsT0rm (877553)

        Wow, assume much? I own no HD-DVDs and saw it for a dead format from the beginning. Blu-Ray numbers are not accurate from any number of sources because of combo packs and PS3s among other factors. The adoption is not as meteoric as you seem to think, digital distribution will be the adopted standard before Blu-Ray will have anywhere near DVD penetration.

        • The adoption is not as meteoric as you seem to think, digital distribution will be the adopted standard before Blu-Ray will have anywhere near DVD penetration.

          The mistake you make is in thinking digital distribution can or will replace physical media - a precondition for this would be the removal of all DRM on digital media. Not Going To Happen.

          I enjoy digital distribution and purchase a lot of video online myself (as well as make use of many legal free sources and some of the "others"), but it's always in

    • Actually, I think it will. The difference between 2D and the perceived 3D the glasses offer is enough that people will be willing to put up with the glasses, __ as long as they look good wearing them and as long as the glasses are comfortable __ . I mean, people all over the world are perfectly fine with wearing glasses so they can see clearer. The trade off - asking them to don glasses for a couple of hours for a much more immersive entertainment experience - is not really that big an ask. In addition, th
  • Is the DRM also 3D? Does it actually come out and stab you in the eye?

  • I beleive the 'donotwant' tag is quite sufficient here.
    I couldn't care less about this and it's going to dilute the blu ray market which is already unfortunately weak.
    I believe this is a foolish move.

    • I think you click that triangle to the left of the current tags and then you can type your own. And then it will show up there and convince you everybody else can see it too.
  • And call them "Stereo"?

    Because you wouldn’t call stereo audio "binaural audio" too, would you?

    You can start calling it 3D, if you can actually focus on different depths and rotate it.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Working...