[mrtew]

That's a good idea because I kinda like BluRays but get pissed when I can't rip them onto my iPhone like I can with DVDs. I wonder if I could do that with the hybrid ones? Nice name too. Sounds really green and saves people from having to buy an extra disk and then put it into the landfill.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

That's a good idea because I kinda like BluRays but get pissed when I can't rip them onto my iPhone like I can with DVDs. I wonder if I could do that with the hybrid ones?

Yes.

[cjrivera]

I'd buy the hybrids, but it'd be even better if they made shipped Hybrids with Digital copy also.

[Eug]

Single layer disc?



If so, that would be cool.

[Railroader]

This addresses my only concern with Blu-ray. If I bought kids movies to play on the blu-ray player I wouldn't have a copy to play in the mini-van when we traveled. So I have been buying plain DVD versions of movies instead of blu-ray versions. Win-win now!

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This addresses my only concern with Blu-ray. If I bought kids movies to play on the blu-ray player I wouldn't have a copy to play in the mini-van when we traveled. So I have been buying plain DVD versions of movies instead of blu-ray versions. Win-win now!

I've been ripping all the kids' movies into iTunes, and then loading them all on an 80GB video iPod. No more fumbling around for DVDs, losing covers, or smudged, scratched DVDs.

Works really well.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This addresses my only concern with Blu-ray. If I bought kids movies to play on the blu-ray player I wouldn't have a copy to play in the mini-van when we traveled. So I have been buying plain DVD versions of movies instead of blu-ray versions. Win-win now!

Until you discover the combo discs will be $40 each, and the standard DVD remains $12 or cheaper...

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by cjrivera 

I've been ripping all the kids' movies into iTunes, and then loading them all on an 80GB video iPod. No more fumbling around for DVDs, losing covers, or smudged, scratched DVDs.
Works really well.

Works really well except the picture quality is cut in half, you've wasted hours and you have a smudgy scratched lost $400 ipod and still haven't answered anything about Blu-rays!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Works really well except the picture quality is cut in half, you've wasted hours and you have a smudgy scratched lost $400 ipod and still haven't answered anything about Blu-rays!

For DVD quality ripping to iPod, it really depends on your settings.

I use Handbrake to rip selected DVDs to QT H.264, and the quality is quite good even compared to the original DVD. However, my settings waste space, with most titles being over 2 GB. That means I can only put a few of them on my 16 GB iPhone. OTOH, I fully expect to own a 64 GB iPhone within a few years. Space will not be a significant issue, even with 2.5 GB movies.

P.S. All three of the last three Blu-ray discs I got (Hellboy II, WALL-E, and The Dark Knight) come with digital copies for iPods. I haven't tested them yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the quality was significantly worse than my own DVD rips, because I expect them to value space over quality.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by cjrivera 

I've been ripping all the kids' movies into iTunes, and then loading them all on an 80GB video iPod.

I've done that with a few, and I'll still be abel to do that with the blu-ray/DVD combo discs.

Originally Posted by cjrivera 

No more fumbling around for DVDs, losing covers, or smudged, scratched DVDs.

I don't have that problem. The DVD drive is in the front of the van so my wife loads the discs. And we keep all of the discs in a very sturdy carrier without the original cases which are stored in a storage closet in the house.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Works really well except the picture quality is cut in half,

On a 7" screen in the back of a moving mini-van that's not really a problem. HDTV it ain't

Originally Posted by mrtew 

you've wasted hours

I have one word for you: Multi-tasking.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

and you have a smudgy scratched lost $400 ipod

Huh?!?! Why are you guys so careless with your stuff?

Originally Posted by mrtew 

and still haven't answered anything about Blu-rays!

One point to you!

[Eug]

There is an audio problem with the Blu-ray version of The Dark Knight.

If you go to 11'18" in the movie, and listen to James Gordon saying "I'd have to hit all banks simultaneously. Swat teams, backup." it's mildly distorted. It's subtle enough that some people may not notice it, but it's significant enough that I noticed it right away.

Note however, that I am using optical/coax for my audio. I have demonstrated this on two different players now too (on two different receivers). My Sony BDP-S350 and my Insiginia NS-BRDVD player, and I get the same result with both, whether I use the default DD track or if I use the TrueHD track.

Also, other people are reporting sound dropouts with their PS3s.

[ghporter]

Eug, have you used more than one copy of the disc to test this? Could it be your copy rather than the whole run?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Eug, have you used more than one copy of the disc to test this? Could it be your copy rather than the whole run?

I'm not the only person to report audio problems with the disc. There are numerous reports of it. Some are reporting complete audio dropouts, but others like me are reporting only mild audio garbling.

Furthermore, the disc otherwise plays fine. The player doesn't choke with the disc... It plays it as if the garbling is supposed to be there, and it's there with both the DD track and the TrueHD track. There are no video artifacts either. You'd think if it was a disc QA problem it wouldn't play normally, and it wouldn't affect two separate tracks the exact same way.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

There is an audio problem with the Blu-ray version of The Dark Knight.

If you go to 11'18" in the movie, and listen to James Gordon saying "I'd have to hit all banks simultaneously. Swat teams, backup." it's mildly distorted. It's subtle enough that some people may not notice it, but it's significant enough that I noticed it right away.
Also, other people are reporting sound dropouts with their PS3s.

I watched the movie on BR on my PS3 and didn't notice it but even if I went back and tried to notice it one line isn't going to kill me. I also didn't have a single drop out of audio so if it doesn't happen on my PS3 I don't know why it would happen on others if it was widespread.

One line being distorted isn't worth an exchange or wide recall.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I watched the movie on BR on my PS3 and didn't notice it but even if I went back and tried to notice it one line isn't going to kill me. I also didn't have a single drop out of audio so if it doesn't happen on my PS3 I don't know why it would happen on others if it was widespread.

One line being distorted isn't worth an exchange or wide recall.

People are having problems at multiple spots. I only noticed the one spot, because I've only watched 15 minutes of the movie so far. (I waiting for the GF to get back in town before I watch the whole movie.)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

People are having problems at multiple spots. I only noticed the one spot, because I've only watched 15 minutes of the movie so far. (I waiting for the GF to get back in town before I watch the whole movie.)

Other than the dropouts I think people are trying to hard to find problems. You also seem to be the only one HERE with audio/sync problems for years with lots of your disks for HD-DVD that you even returned tons of them.

You'll probably be happier if you didn't let little things bother you and just watch the movie for problems. It's a wonder you survived VHS and windows for all those years

Oh and a side note I watched Wall•E again last night. The detail in that movie blows my mind, you can actually see that EVE's eyes are made up of > and not dots, even cooler you can see tiny seams where here arms and chest panel begin when retracted.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Other than the dropouts I think people are trying to hard to find problems. You also seem to be the only one HERE with audio/sync problems for years with lots of your disks for HD-DVD that you even returned tons of them.

Well, this was confirmed by Microsoft. They went as far as to assign an entire team to fix the problem based on our input, and indeed fixed it several months later.

Some would say it's kinda moot now that HD DVD is dead, but the good news is at least the fixed titles/hardware will remain fixed in the future too.

P.S. It's not as if I'm looking for the problems. It just that I notice some of these things more often than others. This is some pretty basic stuff. If $30 DVD players with $5 DVDs don't have this problem, then $250 Blu-ray players with $30 BDs shouldn't have this problem either IMO.

Oh and a side note I watched Wall•E again last night. The detail in that movie blows my mind, you can actually see that EVE's eyes are made up of > and not dots, even cooler you can see tiny seams where here arms and chest panel begin when retracted.

WALL•E is awesome.

P.S. I really enjoyed the "photo realism" in this movie. It sets it apart from the other Pixar movies, and adds an expanded dimension to the movie. One of my favourite scenes visually was when WALL•E gets crushed by the shopping carts, and EVE is in the foreground totally out of focus and partially out of frame.

Seems stupid, but it added a real sense of... errr... realism to the shot that I don't recall seeing in any other Pixar movie.

[Eug]

By the way, this SVS PB13-Ultra sub is phenomenal.

With WALL•E, in the scene where the Axiom goes into hyperspace, I can feel the wind coming off the unit for several seconds. It makes it feel like we're moving.

With The Dark Knight, there are couple of scenes where there is a sudden loud noise which is replicated well by the sub, but unfortunately I'm getting additional noise from the closet and/or hardwood floor. (I had the same problem with another sub I had too, with other titles.) I hope a layer of padding under the sub and in the closet door should solve the problem.

[ort888]

Just a heads up, the complete Band of Brothers on Blu-ray is only $37 at Amazon and Best Buy.

[Eug]

The Dark Knight Blu-ray load time:

Sony BDP-S350 (Firmware ver 010) - 141 seconds
Insignia NS-BRDVD - 119 seconds
Sony Playstation 3 - 75 seconds

So my $99 profile 1.1 Insignia is much faster than my $250 profile 2 Sony. The Insignia is much faster for DVD navigation too.
Not surprisingly though, the PS3 blows them both away speed-wise.

I think it has to do with Java speed. The Sony is actually faster than the Insignia for non-Java stuff, but it's uber-slow for Java.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The Dark Knight Blu-ray load time:

Sony BDP-S350 (Firmware ver 010) - 141 seconds
Insignia NS-BRDVD - 119 seconds
Sony Playstation 3 - 75 seconds

So my $99 profile 1.1 Insignia is much faster than my $250 profile 2 Sony. The Insignia is much faster for DVD navigation too.
Not surprisingly though, the PS3 blows them both away speed-wise.

I think it has to do with Java speed. The Sony is actually faster than the Insignia for non-Java stuff, but it's uber-slow for Java.

What exactly do you mean by "load time"? Time from disc insertion to menu usability? Or from disc insertion to movie playback?

[Eug]

Canadians: Best Buy is selling the Insignia Blu-ray player for $99.99 on Boxing Day. They claim at least 30 units per store. Luckily I already got mine for 2¢ less last week.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

What exactly do you mean by "load time"? Time from disc insertion to menu usability? Or from disc insertion to movie playback?

Disc insertion to movie playback. Actually it's about 4 s less for the Sony standalone and the Insignia, cuz it's actually load time until the audio starts... which is about 4 s after the movie actually starts. So the numbers should be:

Sony BDP-S350 (Firmware ver 010) - 137 seconds
Insignia NS-BRDVD - 115 seconds
Sony Playstation 3 - 75 seconds

One big difference seems to be the BD-J support. There is a disc-loading image encoded onto the disc, when loading The Dark Knight. I believe that part is most of the BD-J loading. On the Insignia, it takes about 20 s. On the Sony S350, it takes twice as long, at about 40 s! I even updated the firmware for the Sony to version 013, but it made no difference.

The sad part is the S350 is supposed to be WAY faster than the S300. I wonder how long it takes to load on the S300.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

http://kotaku.com/5115781/playstatio...-ready-in-2009

Good luck with that stand alone player :snicker:

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

http://kotaku.com/5115781/playstatio...-ready-in-2009

Good luck with that stand alone player :snicker:

I'm not sure there is anything stopping movies from being 3D on a normal Bluray player without an upgrade.

Games are a bit more tricky, they would require an upgrade, but don't be looking for amazing graphics quality. The $1500 GeForce Quadro is the only card I've seen that can respectably render steroscopic 3D graphics, and there is no way the card in the PS3 can pull that sort of performance...

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure there is anything stopping movies from being 3D on a normal Bluray player without an upgrade.

Games are a bit more tricky, they would require an upgrade, but don't be looking for amazing graphics quality. The $1500 GeForce Quadro is the only card I've seen that can respectably render steroscopic 3D graphics, and there is no way the card in the PS3 can pull that sort of performance...

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming...box-360-490089

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

http://kotaku.com/5115781/playstatio...-ready-in-2009

Good luck with that stand alone player :snicker:

The PS3 has now officially jumped the shark.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

SONY. PLEASE STOP ADDING COOL FEATURES OR IT IS JUMPING THE SHARK.
HD-DVD was all about the standard internet port for ROM updates but this is incredibly uncool.

[Eug]

OMFG IT'S TOTALLY AWESOME! GIVE ME MY PS3 NOW!

Seriously though, you actually care about this? When I first saw the article, I thought it was joke.



Then I realized they were being serious.

P.S. In the meantime I would recommend you tell Sony that after they add 3D, they can drop that useless Ethernet port.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming...box-360-490089

So first you tell me stereoscopic 3D requires a firmware upgrade... then you send me a link which shows that it doesn't...

I didn't say the PS3 couldn't do stereoscopic 3D. Any device that can put pixels on a screen can do stereoscopic 3D. I just said don't expect wonderful graphics. There is a performance hit involved, and the PS3's GPU doesn't feature any sort of acceleration for stereoscopic 3D. This is why generally high performance stereoscopic 3D is left to high end GPU's like the Quadro.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

http://kotaku.com/5115781/playstatio...-ready-in-2009

Good luck with that stand alone player :snicker:

Big deal. Didn't Sega try this same gimmick like 20 years ago?

Sega 3D

What's next for Sony? A SIXAXIS power glove? Hopefully it will have rumble built in. If not, I'm sure they will add it into the dual shock version a year later.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Disc insertion to movie playback. Actually it's about 4 s less for the Sony standalone and the Insignia, cuz it's actually load time until the audio starts... which is about 4 s after the movie actually starts. So the numbers should be:

Sony BDP-S350 (Firmware ver 010) - 137 seconds
Insignia NS-BRDVD - 115 seconds
Sony Playstation 3 - 75 seconds

One big difference seems to be the BD-J support. There is a disc-loading image encoded onto the disc, when loading The Dark Knight. I believe that part is most of the BD-J loading. On the Insignia, it takes about 20 s. On the Sony S350, it takes twice as long, at about 40 s! I even updated the firmware for the Sony to version 013, but it made no difference.

The sad part is the S350 is supposed to be WAY faster than the S300. I wonder how long it takes to load on the S300.

Ouch. It takes 209 seconds (3.5 minutes) on the S300.

[Brien]

That is fast. Between seeing the commercials for stereoscopic for the CG movies and hearing about 3D on blu-ray and games too, seems like they're really pushing it. Is the 3D revolution finally here?

[Dakar V]

3d? This does scream gimmick. I can't imagine it'll be worse than virtual boy, though.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I didn't say the PS3 couldn't do stereoscopic 3D. Any device that can put pixels on a screen can do stereoscopic 3D.

Can you explain how any device could possibly do 3D on a television? Is it the old red/green lens trick or something a little more believable? After seeing Bolt3D I don't consider it a gimmick at all, but rather something I'd be very excited about, however I don't see how it would be possible. I'm sure tracks for the left and right eyes could be laid down on the Blu-ray disc or rendered by the game cpu but how would the TV get it to the right eye? After looking all over the internet several times and finding nothing I'm suspecting that it's a hoax or pipe dream along the lines of the car that runs on water. And please don't link me to any videos of Ford Escorts running just fine after someone pours water into something.

[Eug]

I've been checking out the digital copies from my WALL•E, The Dark Knight, and Hellboy II Blu-ray discs.

The quality is pretty poor. It's fine for the iPhone, but it's not good for playback on a computer. It's way worse than if I just ripped it myself off the DVD with Handbrake. Then again, my Handbrake rips can be nearly twice as big.

The Hellboy II digital copy disc also functions as an extras DVD in a standard DVD player, despite the fact it says on the front that it won't work in a DVD player.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Can you explain how any device could possibly do 3D on a television? Is it the old red/green lens trick or something a little more believable?

Stereoscopic 3D refers to the kind of 3D done traditionally with 3D glasses. Hence the name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

Some new TV's can supposedly do it without the glasses, but I haven't seen any of those sets in person or anything.

Regardless, it's nothing special to implement, it just requires getting the right images on the screen. You could record those images to a DVD or Bluray disk and play them back without any special firmware.

For live rendered graphics it's a bit more tricky. OpenGL can be put into a stereoscopic rendering mode.

http://www.gali-3d.com/archive/artic...GLTutorial.php

If you notice the tutorial states only the Quadro and FireGL are supported, mostly because those cards are built to do this sort of thing. If Sony thinks they can deliver stereoscopic 3D on the PS3 while keeping the current level of performance that traditional games have, then they're in for a rude surprise.

Of course maybe the firmware upgrade will include high end graphics cards that everyone can duct tape onto their PS3's to make up for the pitiful stock GPU...

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Stereoscopic 3D refers to the kind of 3D done traditionally with 3D glasses. Hence the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy
Some new TV's can supposedly do it without the glasses, but I haven't seen any of those sets in person or anything.
Regardless, it's nothing special to implement, it just requires getting the right images on the screen. ...

I think you breezed right by an insurmountable problem with the phrase "it's nothing special to implement". How could you possibly get the "right images" on the screen? You have to have seperate images for the left eye and for the right eye. That's the trick to 3D... both eyes see something slightly different. How could you do that on a TV screen without one eye seeing blue and the other red which by all reports looks like crap. In the movies one eye sees an image that's polarized vertically, and the other horizontally, but TV's can't polarize light. Even if one could be invented, that would introduce a whole new standard that would take 20 years of legal wrangling and marketing to introduce. In fact the whole push for 3D at the theatre is to give the audience there something they can't have at home. Unless someone knows something that I don't and just isn't speaking up.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I think you breezed right by an insurmountable problem with the phrase "it's nothing special to implement". How could you possibly get the "right images" on the screen? You have to have seperate images for the left eye and for the right eye. That's the trick to 3D... both eyes see something slightly different. How could you do that on a TV screen without one eye seeing blue and the other red which by all reports looks like crap. In the movies one eye sees an image that's polarized vertically, and the other horizontally, but TV's can't polarize light. Even if one could be invented, that would introduce a whole new standard that would take 20 years of legal wrangling and marketing to introduce. In fact the whole push for 3D at the theatre is to give the audience there something they can't have at home. Unless someone knows something that I don't and just isn't speaking up.

That has existed for almost twenty years, IIRC (at least, I seem to remember it being the late '80s, possibly early '90s, when I read about this): A rapidly-switching polarizing filter attached to the front of the screen and synchronized with the video output. Each eye sees every other video image through polarized spectacles.

Not cheap, but certainly not "insurmountable".

[residentEvil]

3D: i must be missing something. i've been watching 3D movies on TV for years.

1st, back in the mid 80s, local PBS stations ran all the old black and white monster movies in 3D; you got the red/blue glassed from Pizza Hut (their promotion).

in the mid late 90s, i started having 3D movie nights (on DVD) at my place.

now, blu-ray movies are with 3D (don't have one yet, nothing I would watch).

here is the current list of movies: http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html i was pissed that the blu-ray of nightmare before christmas didn't come 3D but that is okay, i will keep going every halloween to the movies for that.

and the week before the relaunch of the Friday the 13th series (friday, february 13th), they are releasing part 3 in 3D!!! haven't confirmed if it will be on blu-ray and dvd, or just dvd.

but anyway, i guess i don't understand what all the talk is about? you already can enjoy 3D at home (with glasses).

edit: and for the last 2 years, been watching the mars rover updates on hdnet in 3D (again, red/blue glases). i think it was the 7pm ish update each week during the height of the rovers missions had a segment all in 3D.

[Spheric Harlot]

The deal is that red/blue (red/green) glasses only really work for black and white material or for completely colorblind people, and that they SUCK.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

3D: i must be missing something. i've been watching 3D movies on TV for years. 1st, back in the mid 80s, local PBS stations ran all the old black and white monster movies in 3D; you got the red/blue glassed from Pizza Hut (their promotion). in the mid late 90s, i started having 3D movie nights (on DVD) at my place. now, blu-ray movies are with 3D (don't have one yet, nothing I would watch). here is the current list of movies: http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html i was pissed that the blu-ray of nightmare before christmas didn't come 3D but that is okay, i will keep going every halloween to the movies for that. and the week before the relaunch of the Friday the 13th series (friday, february 13th), they are releasing part 3 in 3D!!! haven't confirmed if it will be on blu-ray and dvd, or just dvd. but anyway, i guess i don't understand what all the talk is about? you already can enjoy 3D at home (with glasses). edit: and for the last 2 years, been watching the mars rover updates on hdnet in 3D (again, red/blue glases). i think it was the 7pm ish update each week during the height of the rovers missions had a segment all in 3D.

Yeah you're missing something alright! The difference between red-green 3-D and actual Real3D. Go to the theater and see Bolt3D before it's gone and then come back here and tell me that TVs can do 3-D. I saw Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3D at the theatre when it came out and it was impressive as well, but I sure wouldn't think it'd be the same with red/green glasses!!! Do you disagree? And it looks like only a few of the most obscure titles on that list are available in 3D DVD.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The deal is that red/blue (red/green) glasses only really work for black and white material or for completely colorblind people, and that they SUCK.

Actually I have a colourblind friend and he says he can't see ANYthing with those glasses on. Like they was everything out into a field of brownish.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Yeah you're missing something alright! The difference between red-green 3-D and actual Real3D. Go to the theater and see Bolt3D before it's gone and then come back here and tell me that TVs can do 3-D. I saw Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3D at the theatre when it came out and it was impressive as well, but I sure wouldn't think it'd be the same with red/green glasses!!! Do you disagree? And it looks like only a few of the most obscure titles on that list are available in 3D DVD.


Actually I have a colourblind friend and he says he can't see ANYthing with those glasses on. Like they was everything out into a field of brownish.

on that point, no i'm not missing anything. i've seen several Real3D and imax 3D movies. what i'm saying is...the home has/had 3D for decades and most posts here made it sound like it doesn't exist or only was on the sega 3D. that is why i asked what am i missing? sorry you didn't grasp that or my question wasn't clear. i don't believe i was comparing the old/new technologies at all or made an assumption that Real3D was reproducible at home with our current hardware/software choices.

and i do believe friday the 13th 3D was the with gray polarized glasses, not the red/blue. and if not that one, then the freddy one was. so in that case, it wouldn't affect those who are color blind. and most movie released after that was with the gray polarized. only the home market got the red/blue releases.

[mrtew]

I don't consider red/green lenses to be 3D in any modern sense of the word so I do not agree that there is such thing as 3D television. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on that one and if you keep insisting that there is 3D television I'll just have to shake my head and says "there he goes again". And yes Friday the 13th and all modern movies at the theatre have been the grey polarized glasses. Nobody would even think of seeing a movie with red/green lenses since the invention of color movies. But I don't know why if 3D hasn't caught on at any point in the past 30 years it is suddenly going to catch on now, but it seems like it is. Weird.

[ghporter]

The whole 1950s "3D movie craze" was well after color movies were invented, and many (most?) of those 1950s 3D movies WERE in color. If the pallet of colors in the film is properly chosen, the mind becomes accustomed to the color shift, much like you get used to colors through non-neutral sunglasses, and you ignore it completely. Of course a good story helps you forget about it, but I was talking about those old 1950s movies...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I think you breezed right by an insurmountable problem with the phrase "it's nothing special to implement". How could you possibly get the "right images" on the screen? You have to have seperate images for the left eye and for the right eye. That's the trick to 3D... both eyes see something slightly different. How could you do that on a TV screen without one eye seeing blue and the other red which by all reports looks like crap. In the movies one eye sees an image that's polarized vertically, and the other horizontally, but TV's can't polarize light. Even if one could be invented, that would introduce a whole new standard that would take 20 years of legal wrangling and marketing to introduce. In fact the whole push for 3D at the theatre is to give the audience there something they can't have at home. Unless someone knows something that I don't and just isn't speaking up.

Pre-render them.

Slap them on a TV.

Simple. It's exactly what NBC is doing for their 3D Chuck episode. You don't need new firmware or fairy dust.

It doesn't look spectacular but it's exactly what's being talked about. The theaters likely use a nicer system, I haven't seen anything in 3D in a theater yet, but 3D at home can be done. It's just not going to look amazing, as you've pointed out.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That has existed for almost twenty years, IIRC (at least, I seem to remember it being the late '80s, possibly early '90s, when I read about this): A rapidly-switching polarizing filter attached to the front of the screen and synchronized with the video output. Each eye sees every other video image through polarized spectacles.

Not cheap, but certainly not "insurmountable".

This is what the more elaborate systems do. It could be done on Bluray disc now (Bluray allows for 60 fps video). The problem is most screens don't have refresh rates that high. The real high end systems use CRT's actually for the high refresh rate.

[exca1ibur]

I could swear that all HDTVs can do 720p @ 60hz, and all 1080p tvs can do 1080p @ 60Hz. If so, for Blu ray, I'd guess this stuff should be possible.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I could swear that all HDTVs can do 720p @ 60hz, and all 1080p tvs can do 1080p @ 60Hz. If so, for Blu ray, I'd guess this stuff should be possible.

Being able to accept SIGNALS of that rate is not the same thing as having a screen fast enough to display it.

The problem with most flat-screens, AFAIK, is that images don't fade fast enough. This is why they never flicker the way CRTs would if you caught them out of the corner of your eye, but it's also why most consumer LCDs weren't useful for gaming for years - and why actually displaying full, discrete 60 FPS is probably not going to be easy/cheap.

[Eug]

Yeah, 1080p24 video sources display at a paltry 24 Hz on my LCD projector. No flicker at all.

But in the end all this talk of 3D is a complete waste of time. The announcement for the PS3 is a gimmick, and a lame one at that. I think it'd be much more interesting if they simply redesigned the case to make it smaller and flatter and added an IR option... and make it cheaper.

[ghporter]

It seems that most HDTV screen makers tout their resolution (or fib about it) without addressing frame rates and the connection with pixel persistence. As Spheric Harlot notes, not every screen is up to refreshing each pixel at 60Hz, and not every screen's pixels are up to needing a refresh at that rate. I think LCD displays should be able to work at that rate, but it all depends on the support electronics (and the connections to each pixel).

I have not yet bought a high definition display, among other things because I'm waiting for prices to fall a bit more. But when I decide to go, I'm afraid it'll take a LOT of research to find the display that suits my needs AND what I want to watch on it. Action sequences will be either wonderful or horrible on a fairly big screen, depending on how the refresh rate matches the material.