Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010 178
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.
More details including a notebook version... (Score:3, Informative)
DLP? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just old fashioned motion blur.
Re: (Score:2)
I much prefer polarized glasses over shutter glasses, no power supply required, no syncing with the machine required and small thin glasses instead of silly glasses that look like safety goggle
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why it requires twice the frame rate: two images, one for each eye in the same original frame rate. This means twice the overall frame rate. At double the frame rate, you do not get a dimming of the image.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that the backlight is the same and also, for simplicity, lets say the power output of the light is 120x(units dont matter)
60Hz (60 refreshes/frames per second):
120/60 = 2x per frame = 2x*60 per eye = 120x per eye
120Hz (120 refreshes/frames per second):
120/120 = 1x per frame. 60 frames in each eye, means 1x * 60 = 60x per eye.
Intensity is half.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right - half is half, realized this later. Although displays I've seen increase the brightness when using shutter glasses to compensate.
New players AGAIN? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>> “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!
Re:New players AGAIN? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:2)
None of the 3d techniques that use glasses will work when viewing through only one eye.
I know the GP was going for funny and you were going for flamebait, but I figured I'd point that out anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The PS9, featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month. Think I'll wait for that.
Re: (Score:2)
But then how will it do 3d?
Re: (Score:2)
>>> “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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the computer, really. Self-assembled stuff can last for a very long time. I have a backup PC that has been around for about 10 years, and still works flawlessly. My main PC is about two years old, no problems. PC's I've assembled for relatives all work, and these machines have been around for 3-5 years.
On the other hand, laptops DO break easily. But again, the electronics last - it is the battery and the mechanical component, most notably the hinge, that break down quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Appliance do not have a bad reputation. Now if you buy a cheap audiovox or other cheap brandname appliance then your experiences may vary. However, that being said you buy a real brand and they last almost forever.
Crap, I have a 1998 Mitsubishi DVD player from the early days of DVD that's still in use today. It works just as well now as it did new. The only thing it lacks comparatively is progressive scan output.
Re: (Score:2)
And those usually used IDE DVD-ROM drives back then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, bought a PS3... others may work (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get a PS3 - future proof.
Re: (Score:2)
It works for the computer industry....
Re: (Score:2)
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 ;-)
Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you see bad movies. There are many good ones released each year. Hope that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> What are some good movies that are in 3d? I haven't seen any.
Pixar's Up was awesome, other than that nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (Score:4, Funny)
Think what you want, but I personally can't wait to witness the destructive forces of ShitStorm3D!!!
Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
fuck blueray (Score:4, Interesting)
http://fuckbluray.com/ [fuckbluray.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Like that's going to work this time... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Behind the curve (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You are. They picked 120Hz because all the major refresh rates divide into it evenly. 24fps video shows each frame for 5 cycles, 30fps video shows for 4 cycles each frame, and so on. You wouldn't need 120Hz otherwise. Except the interpolated motion gimmick, that is.
Eh (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
3D glasses the death of this (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Color? Why? (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All they have to do is kill DVD.
Once DVD is dead blueray will enjoy format monopoly status and stay locked in simply because nobody will be able to choose differently.
I also predict that the DVD forum will be getting some payoffs to sabotage the format in the future.
Coming from an industry where content-degrading, consumer-frustrating DRM is a feature and not a bug, I don't think my paranoia is misplaced.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Cool! (Score:2)
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
They need clip-on versions (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think something like 2001 would be better fodder for 3D. Or something like the BBC's Planet Earth series.
$0.02USD,
-l
Re: (Score:2)
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
solved the easy part... (Score:2)
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.
It will NEVER catch on. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Blu-Ray adoption as good as DVD adoption... (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
One question (Score:2)
Is the DRM also 3D? Does it actually come out and stab you in the eye?
I don't know how to use the tags on /. sadly but.. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop calling them "3D"? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How do these shutter glasses synchronize with the video playback? That is, I would assume for this to work right, the timing of the shutter 'blacking out' that eye has to be pretty much exactly at the time the screen starts drawing a new frame (and, conversely, un-blacking the other eye must happen right then, too) I assume in this day and age they use some sort of wireless or optical calibration system that doesn't require any wires from your 'glasses' to the DVD player?
Re: (Score:2)
According to this [nvidia.com], it's wireless with a 6' USB recharge cable.
W
Re: (Score:2)
How do these shutter glasses synchronize with the video playback?
An infrared emitter attaches to the display device, and the glasses sync to the IR signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I kind of suspected it might be something with Infrared. Makes sense. Cheap, safe, effective.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's 120hz, it probably syncs the display and the glasses by simply flickering right along with the AC power...
Warning: You're being "marketed" (Score:3)
This is stereo vision, not 3D. Two images taken from a single, locked human-like perspective (meaning they're about an eye-width apart.) This is precisely the same technique the toy View-Master [wikipedia.org] has been using since 1939, only with a stream of frame-pairs instead of a single pair.
Actual 3D [gizmodo.com] allows you to see from multiple perspectives, defined by your angle of view. If you move your head, the scene changes. In a fully implemented display, if you went behind the display, you'd see the rear of the scene. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
The image appears to vary in position in the Z axis therefore 3D. If another technology comes along, you may need to qualify the 3Dishness (fixed point 3D vs limited angle 3D vs full sphere 3D for example) or come up with a new term.
RBP (Score:2)
RBP (read before posting)
The technology is already here. Follow the second link in the GP. Therefore, original point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant for common use. I am aware there have been many experimental and development and special use displays over the years.
3D: 3 Dimensions. X,Y,Z. Stereoscopic counts in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
As do SIRDS in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Holovizio is 3D with different perspective based on viewpoint, but you CANNOT walk behind the monitor and see the backside of the image. So since even that is limited field of view, nothing really meets your definition of 3D except sci-fi in the movies.
Stereo is 3D, just single viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Holovizio is 3D with different perspective based on viewpoint, but you CANNOT walk behind the monitor and see the backside of the image
This display [usc.edu] allows you to walk 360 degrees around it and see 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall some 2D isometric viewpoint adventure games in the late 80's / early 90's being advertised as "3D".
It is routine today to refer to games like Bioshock as being a "3D game", while something like Super Mario Bros for the Wii as being a "2D game".
For now, calling stereoscopic vision "3D" is fine, since there is nothing else to compare it to. Someday, if someone figures out how to make "true" 3D, then our standards will change and we'll be more precise in what we call stereoscopic displays.
Re: (Score:2)
While that's a sweet little demo and I can think of plenty of applications for it, videos are not one of them. I don't know about you but I don't tend to move around the room while watching movies. There's also the little issue of filming. Stereo vision is all that's necessary.
Oh but to answer your question, well, somewhere along the way marketers changed 1080p from being HD to Full HD so....Full 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you're not paralyzed, so, do you ever turn your head? Lean? Would it not be more immersive if the scene changed appropriately?
And seriously, science show is on, they're showing something cool, you're not going to look around the scene being displayed if you can? View a galaxy from the side? How about sports? Look down a cheerleader's blouse? See the play from the angle you prefer? Never? In answer to yo
Re: (Score:2)
If you allow the manufacturers to pervert stereo views into "3D", what will you call actual 3D when it becomes available?
High-definition 3D, duh.
Definition (Score:2)
Definition is presently understood to be resolution along an axis. If you hijack it to mean the presence of an axis, what happens when the resolution along that axis changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Definition is presently understood to be resolution along an axis. If you hijack it to mean the presence of an axis, what happens when the resolution along that axis changes?
We'll call that "super 3D" or "full 3D", then. Or come up with some supposedly catchy name for it, like "Green-D" or something...
If you wish to explain the precise meaning of "definition" to any marketing department in the world, then best of luck to you, but I'm very skeptical regarding your success.
Re: (Score:2)
Super-High-Definition.
You shouldn't consider a career in marketing, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right, I'm a very poor liar, nor am I mused by lies, deception, misdirection, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If you allow the manufacturers to pervert stereo views into "3D", what will you call actual 3D when it becomes available?
The "SMPTE Task Force on 3D to the Home" suggested the term "non-glasses-based 3D displays (NG3D)".
Re: (Score:2)
If they follow the pattern they did with HD, they'll probably call it Full 3D...
Re: (Score:2)
The prefixes "True", "Ultra", "Pure", or "360" come to the dark corner of my mind devoted to generating Marketspeak.
(Yes, and I realise that 360 degrees are a product of a plane, not a 3D space.)